The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-01-18 Info Packet� r � CITY OF IOWA CITY www.lcgov.org IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP2 Agenda City Council Information Packet January 22 Joint Meeting Miscellaneous IN Memo from City Manager: Strategic Planning Preparation January 18, 2018 IN Memo from Assistant to the City Manager: 2017 Citywide Survey Draft Results IP5 Memo from City Manager: Operating and Capital Budget Discussion with Updates IP6 Memo from City Manager: Housing Study Report IP7 Memo from City Attorney: Gender Balance on City Boards and Commissions and Gender Identity IP8 Memo from Budget & Compliance Officer: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending December 31, 2017 IP9 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Electronics Technician — Traffic Engineering IP10 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Maintenance Worker II —Signs Draft Minutes IP11 Community Police Review Board: January 9 IP12 Planning and Zoning Commission: January 4 ....... 01-18-18...,.. r City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule dpi : ^ PU�r,t Subject to change � CITY OF IOWA CITY January 18, 2018 Date Time Meeting Location 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 4:30 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 01�8�5- IP2 AGENDA Joint Meeting Johnson County Board of Supervisors City of Iowa City City of Coralville City of North Liberty City of Tiffin City of Hills Iowa City Community School District Board Clear Creek Amana School District University of Iowa Monday, January 22, 2018 City Hall in Coralville; Council Chambers 4:30 PM (Meeting preceded by 4:00 P.M. Reception) Call to Order Welcome and Introductions 1. Update on Crisis Intervention Team/Training and Facilities. (Iowa City & Johnson County) 2. Iowa City Transit Route and Hours of Operation Analysis. (Iowa City) 3. Ideas for potential regional initiatives. (Iowa City) 4. University of Iowa/Iowa City Joint Declaration for Theme Semester. (Iowa City) 5. New Coralville Cross Course. (Coralville) 6. Other Business. Adjourn .® 0 CITY OF IOWA CITY IP3 AzNt MEMORANDUM Date: January 18, 2018 To: City Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Strategic Planning Preparation The City Council is scheduled to begin Strategic Plan deliberations on January 30th. In preparation for that meeting staff is forwarding you three documents that provide information that may be helpful in your discussions. Those documents include: 1. A summary of recent accomplishments, in -progress projects, departmental priorities and challenges in the next two years. The document also includes thoughts on management team priorities and opportunities for Iowa City in the coming years. This information was submitted by department directors and compiled by the City Manager's Office. My hope is that it gives you some insight into operational issues, workloads and what staff sees are factors that will influence their operations in the coming two years. 2. A draft report from the National Citizen Survey group that conducted our community survey last fall. 3. An updated budget memo that includes a listing of topics that various council members have raised that may be appropriate for strategic planning discussions. Again, we hope these documents are helpful to you. However, we recognize that you have many other ways in which you collect information that will guide your decisions. If there is additional information that we can provide you in advance of your January 30"' meeting please contact me directly. FINANCE Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Created a new GIS Coordinator position • Creation of debt policies and Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation (MCDC) compliance • Chauncey and Harrison Parking Deck financing • Implementation of Kronos time management software • Implementation of new phone system • Creation of one dozen new financial policies • Added public improvements to the Purchasing Manual • Racial Equity Toolkit completion In -progress Items • Implementing Payment Card Industry (PCI) compliance training • Implementing racial equity toolkit recommendations • Implementing internal audit program • Adding bookkeeping responsibilities to support the JECC • Completing Kronos • Adding safety certification awardees • GIS Planning Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years • Internal audit and following-up on new financial policies • Get past state backfill cuts • Maintain Aaa bond rating • Increase use of GIS city-wide Biggest Challenges for Department in Next Two Years • Train new staff due to turnover • Internal audit and following-up on new financial policies • Get past state backfill cuts and maintain financial stability HUMAN RESOURCES Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Implemented racial equity toolkit projects • Reorganization of HR website, including posting of job descriptions • Outsourcing of criminal background checks to a third party • Completed 1095 distribution and IRS filings as required by Affordable Care Act (ACA) • Personnel policies update • New city-wide online staff training program • Coordinated several recruitment processes • Continued to support the Wellness Committee • Improved recruitment materials, including use of videos In -progress Items • Employee recruitments • New employee Health Insurance Committee • Police and Fire entry level testing • Police and Fire promotional testing • Drug and alcohol testing compliance (including SEATS and Mercy Occupational Health) • Transit Equal Employment Opportunity Plans (EEOP) Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years • Post collective bargaining reform contract negotiations • Continued ACA compliance and further possible changes to health insurance • Establish a meaningful employee health insurance committee • Continue efforts to recruit a qualified, diverse applicant pool Biggest Challenges • Recruitment / appointment of staff due to significant retirement turnover • Assist new staff and supervisors with personnel issues • Secure new labor attorney • Compliance with new state and federal laws/mandates HUMAN RIGHTS Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Completing a Socioeconomic and Racial Equity Toolkit for 5 City Departments • Publishing an Annual Report on Racial Equity • Coordinating and sponsoring Advancing Racial Equity: The Role of Government Iowa Conference • Surveying of Housing Choice Voucher participants on fair housing choice • Implementing Social Justice and Racial Equity grant • Online submittal form for complaints of discrimination • Co -sponsoring Expungement Seminars with Iowa Legal Aid • Creating equity and human rights news and event information e -subscription In -progress Items • Removing barriers to fair housing choice • Introducing Socioeconomic and Racial Equity Toolkit to additional City Departments • Communicating fair practices to landlords and business owners through quarterly memos • GIS mapping of complaints alleging discrimination through the years • Racial Action Plan for departments that have completed the Socioeconomic and Racial Equity Toolkits Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years • Bridging communication between the City and the University on matters of human rights • Maintaining solid score on the annual Human Rights Equality Index • Increasing community awareness of the office • Offer Lunch and Learns on human rights topics • Increasing collaborations between the Commission and the Community Biggest Challenges • Creating a succession plan for the Human Rights Commission • Furthering the development of the Social Justice Racial Equity Grant POLICE Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Obtained use of Cedar Rapids gun range to enhance efficiency of training • Expanded community policing by adding a Full Time Outreach Assistant and expanded use/presence of the substation • Improved relationship with University of Iowa Police Department (UIPD) • Developed strategic plan to reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) • Supported Data Driven Justice Initiative (DDJI) and pursued a two-year grant for an officer to work full-time on the initiative • Received 61 Accreditation from CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies) • Held CIT (Crisis Intervention Training) for officers In -progress Items • Enhancing criminal intelligence database • Continuing to evaluate equity data, enhance training, and deploy resources to reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) • Implementing more innovative outreach programs to build community trust (BULBS, SHOUT, etc) • Strengthening officer wellness and safety — training/education and peer wellness • Remodeling lower level of police department (roll call room) • Strengthening partnership with the Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years • Research partnerships with other agencies to increase productivity and reduce costs (violent crimes task force, crime scene technician, etc.) • Update and modernize Police Department to become safer, welcoming, and more efficient • Complete analysis to ensure staffing is adequate and all sections are operating efficiently and effectively • Recruitment of minorities in hiring of sworn and civilian positions to better reflect the demographics of the community • Continue to lead crisis intervention and access center initiatives Biggest Challenges • Adequate staffing and office space • Reduction of Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) and building community trust • Reduction of violent crimes and increasing sense of safety in the community • Properly addressing people with mental health needs and substance abuse challenges M LIBRARY Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Introduced Bookmobile service • Expanded Children's programming (7 days a week, autism hours, STEAMfest, 1000 books before Kindergarten, Teen Center, etc.) • Expanded e -collections in partnership with Coralville and North Liberty and began local history digital collection • Launched ICPL mobile app and improved website • Better coordination with Parks and Recreation, as well as Transit and Police, on serving youth and responding to disruptive behavior In -progress Items • Search for new Library Director • Maximizing bookmobile service with current resources • Completing computer lab remodeling project • Continuing improvements to the website Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years • Engage community both inside and outside of the library • Maintain aging building and furnishings • Offer services in new digital media lab • Fine tune Bookmobile service Biggest Challenges • Transition to a new Library director • Delivering services downtown during Ped Mall project that impacts access • Keeping up with technical needs • Maintaining and improving private fundraising I PARKS & RECREATION Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Several key staff changes and focus on improved morale, work output, and engagement • Completed Parks Master Plan • Secured several new grants for park projects and recreation programs • Significant capital projects — small parks, large parks, recreation center improvements: • Hickory Hill 1st Ave Bridge Replacement • Upper City Park Playground Replacement • Pheasant Hill Park Playground Replacement • Cardigan Park Playground Installation • Fraunholtz-Miller Park Development (Playground, paths, shelter and drinking fountain) • Ashton House Patio, Landscaping and Arbor (Project Green REAP Grant) • Mercer Pickleball/Tennis Courts • Wetherby Park Sport Court • Robert A. Lee Recreation Center Landscaping and Discovery Garden • City Hall/Chauncey Ramp/Farmer's Market Landscaping, Performance Area and Seating • Willow Creek/Kiwanis Drainage • Thornberry Park Solar Windmill and Pond • Thornberry Disc Golf — 36 Benches installed • STEAM Mural — Mercer • STEAM Mural — Robert A. Lee Recreation Center In -progress Items • Natural Areas Plan • Tree Inventory • Increasing preventative maintenance and addressing backlog of projects in recreation centers and parks • Increasing urban tree canopy — combatting EAB (Emerald Ash Borer) and other diseases while increasing plantings • Changing mix of recreation programs and services • City Park Cabin Restoration • Happy Hollow Restroom and Shelter Replacement • Hickory Hill Park Trails, Bridges and Signs • Riverfront Crossings Park, Phase 1 — Overall grading, wetlands, trails and bridge. • Riverfront Crossings Park, Phase 2 — Nature Play Area • Robert A. Lee Recreation Center — Restrooms, Staircase and Office Renovations • Mercer Aquatic Center improvements: Boilers/HVAC Replacement/ Pool On -deck Family Locker Room • City Hall Carpeting, Painting & Signs — Lower Level • Creekside Park Redevelopment — Shelter, Restrooms, Playground, Community Gardens, Drinking Fountain • Cardigan Park Development — Paths, Shelter, Drinking Fountain, Pollinator Garden, Fire Ring • Riverfront Crossings — Phase 3 — Restroom/shelters, Park electrical, lighting and signs. • Park ADA Trails — Highland (CDBG), Pheasant Hill, Mercer, Tower Court, & Hickory Trail (possibly with donation) PARKS & RECREATION In -progress Items Continued • Villa Park Paths and Shelter (CDBG) • Robert A. Lee Recreation Center — Pool On -deck Family Locker Room • City Hall Boiler Replacement • Kickers Baseball to Soccer Field renovations Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years • Implement Parks Master Plan, Natural Areas Plan and Tree Inventory recommendations • Re -organize, re -invent and improve recreation program and service delivery • Reintroduce residents to the Iowa River through Riverfront Crossings Park, City Park, Terry Trueblood Recreation Area, and related events • Increase level of maintenance at parks and recreation center • Increase preventative maintenance at City Hall and Recreation Centers Biggest Challenges • Managing influx of time -off for long-time staff at the busiest times of year • Increasing efficiency of front line staff • Backlog of deferred maintenance at City parks and Recreation Centers • Changing needs of families/residents — outdated recreation services may not fit the current needs of our population CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Continued progress scanning past years of Council and Airport Commission records made available online • Implemented online Board and Commission applications and streamlined application process • Use of existing technology (Laserfiche) for more online forms • Completion of all deeded body entries into the Cemetery management software and upgraded to a -CIMS (cloud based system) In -progress Items • Purchasing and implementation of agenda manager • Approving permits — transition of public assembly and parade permits from City Manager's Office • Creating more electronic forms available to the public • Indexing of microfilm conversion to digital • Updating procedure manuals • Maintaining open records management system Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years • Agenda management software • Continue electronic storage of historical documents • Streamline current processes for better efficiency Biggest Challenges • Budget constraints — more services with same staffing levels • Time constraints TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Completion of Harrison Street Parking Facility • Ped Mall operational improvements since moved to Transportation Services • Streamlined alley waste services downtown • Mobile Parking Payment Program • Implementing new Transit AVL (Automatic Vehicle Location) System In -progress Items • EV Charging station network expansion • Establishing a dockless Bikeshare Program • Parking ramp restoration projects • Managing increased parking demands at all facilities • Transit route study • Transit shelter project • Bus wrap program • Assistance with downtown events Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years • Transit route study • Transit facility relocation • Improve parking experience with technology and equipment enhancements • Replacement of aging parking equipment • Continue positive relationship with Iowa City Community School District (ICCD) Biggest Challenges for Department in Next Two Years • Transit route study • Transit facility funding • Paratransit contract • Increased parking demand due to high density housing and hotel developments downtown N THE CENTER Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Expanded efforts to diversify Center funding (fundraising plan, staff training, Development specialist position, and Friends of Center reorganization) • Outcome -based evaluations of program are very positive and demonstrate they increase the health of our participants • Aging in place programming and awareness for the community (featured speakers and programs) • Combatting ageism through education and programming / AgeMore campaign (not Ageless) In -progress Items • Facility renovations (room 103, second floor classrooms, assembly room tables and chairs; preparing for Fiscal Year'20 renovations: carpet, wall repair, tuckpointing, etc.) • Prepare for and receive Senior Center accreditation through the National institute of Senior Centers • Evaluating the organizational structure to assess operational efficiencies and opportunities for greater interdepartmental cooperation Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years • Succession planning • Financing of operations • Reaccreditation • Evaluation of organizational structure • Evaluation of program offerings and services Biggest Challenges for Department in Next Two Years • Diversification of funding • Accurately identifying service needs of the population and expanding to underserved populations • Succession planning, staff adaptation, and evaluation of organizational structure • Staffing to expand programming • Maintaining Senior Center Commission engagement on meaningful activities (accreditation requirement) • Cost/benefit analysis of current programming, while aware modifications will inevitably upset devoted participants 10 FIRE Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Successfully implemented new Records Management System (RMS) and training management system • Updated all accreditation documents in advance of spring 2018 review • Enhanced community outreach: Youth Camps, Fired Up About Reading • Successful ISO (Insurance Services Office) visit— at a minimum, will maintain a Class 2 • Realignment of duties/specialty stations to increase operational efficiency In -progress Items • Station 3 kitchen remodel • Station 1 restrooms/storage • Accreditation site visit in spring 2018 — Reorganizing team to create operational efficiencies • Joint response to complex incidents/attacks • Leadership Development Initiative • Weather Alert Siren replacement • Design and construction of training tower • Apparatus replacement • Firefighter civil service test • Finalizing plan for staffing models • Developing framework for leadership development that will be a national best practice model Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years • Achieve accredited agency status • Streamlining day-to-day processes — increase efficiency to accommodate anticipated increase in calls for service • Determine staffing and deployment strategies • Leadership development program for all personnel Bicaest Challenges for Department in Next Two Years • Succession planning and development of personnel • Maintaining/improving response times • Increase in calls for service impact ability to meet ongoing demands/requirements • Multi -agency interoperability 11 NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Total value of construction reached an all-time high of over $388 million in 2016. • Managing and facilitating the implementation of the Riverfront Crossings Plan resulting in significant redevelopment in Riverfront Crossings (RFC), as well as the adoption of the RFC affordable housing requirement • Completion of the Bike Master Plan and adoption of the new Complete Streets Policy • STAR Certification — Level 4 • Averaged a 99.7% Housing Choice Voucher utilization rate. State average was 89.1 %, U.S. average was 91.7%. • Increased ISO (Insurance Services Office) Flood rating from 7 to 6 resulting in reduced flood insurance costs for residents and businesses • Completed South District plan • Coordinated energy audit of all public housing units and initiated follow-up improvements • Completed form based code feasibility study • Secured civil rights grants for two historic properties • Responded to occupancy legislation • Significant progress made on the affordable housing action plan In -progress Items • Implementing new permitting software • Code update to the most recent version of the building codes • Code amendments to implement neighborhood stabilization • Continue efforts to complete the strategies identified in the Affordable Housing Action Plan (tax abatement, inclusionary zoning into our land annexation policy, reviewing existing regulatory requirements to address affordable housing needs) • Working with consultant to draft form based codes • Implementation of the Historic Preservation Plan, including designation of 7 local landmarks, Clinton Street Depot District, and update of historic preservation guidelines • Downtown Historic Building survey update • Hosting Iowa American Planning Association Conference in fall 2019 • Northside and College Green neighborhood parking/traffic issues • Road diets on Gilbert, Mormon Trek Blvd, Clinton, Madison and Keokuk • Potential two-way conversions (Jefferson, Market, Dodge — south of Burlington) • Adoption of revised street design guidelines • FUSE partnership — implementing new special admissions criteria for chronically homeless persons • Organize and implement the annual Building Business Basics workshops, targeted to low income entrepreneurs • Continue the Healthy Homes program to improve indoor air quality (small repair/rehab) for homes with a child with recurrent asthma, in partnership with the College of Nursing, ICCSD Free Medical Clinic, and Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County • Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (due for completion May 2018) NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 12 In -progress Items continued • Working on educational campaign for community to lower footprint: emissions, food choices, food waste, textiles, etc. • Overseeing community partnership grant program (sustainability) • Gathering data for STAR recertification • Identifying municipal strategies to be included in Climate Action and Adaptation Plan • Coordinating with U of I with Climate Theme semester (Jan -May 2018) • Coordinating with staff team and consultants on identifying City solar project • New rental inspection staff and schedule Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years • Implementing new regulations through the permitting process that deal with occupancy issues on rental properties • Updating the Comprehensive Plan (Northwest District, includes Manville Heights) • Completing the Climate Action and Adaption Plan (CARP) • Bike Master Plan implementation and completion of Council directed complete streets projects • Developing/completing the strategies outlined in the Affordable Housing Action Plan Biggest Challenges for Department in Next Two Years • Implementing effective policies and regulations to achieve affordable housing goals as well as enforcement of new housing code changes in response to the change in occupancy law • Managing Council's expectations when developing and implementing new regulations without budgeting additional staff. • Successfully implementing a new permitting software (conversion, staff training) • Federal, State and local budget uncertainty for all of our programs and projects • Staff succession planning. Multiple positions impacted by upcoming retirements (loss of institutional knowledge, staff training required, disrupted workflow, etc.) 13 PUBLIC WORKS Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Wastewater Plant Upgrade and North Plant demolition • Completed change over in management team • Reorganization of Resource Management Division • Successful Washington Street project • Capital Projects Accepted by Council 2016 — 2017: o Asphalt Resurfacing Project 2014 o Willow Creek Streambank Stabilization o Ralston Creek Improvements - Phase 1 0 2015 Capitol Street Storm Sewer Improvements o Animal Care & Adoption Center o East Harrison Street Reconstruction o North Plant Salvage & Demolition o Moss Ridge Road 0 2015 Landfill Gas Flare Replacement 0 2015 Sewer Repair 0 2015 Ned Ashton Park Storm Sewer o Wastewater Treatment Plant Natural Gas Main Replacement o West Side Levee o Rocky Shore Stormwater Pump Station o Iowa City Gateway Tree Clearing o Slothower Road Water Main o Lower Muscatine Road Reconstruction o Forest Glen Storm Sewer Repair 0 2015 Sewer Rehabilitation 0 2015 Summer Sidewalk Repair o Fiber Infrastructure - IC South Part 1 - Duct Installation o US Highway 6 & Sycamore St. Intersection Improvements o Normandy Drive Restoration Phase 1116 o Court Hill Park Sidewalk Infill o Parking Garage Maintenance Program 2015 o Asphalt Resurfacing Project 2015 o Replacement of Boilers at Robert A. Lee Recreation Center 0 2016 Drain Tile o Fiber Infrastructure - IC South Part 2 - Fiber Cable Installation o Sycamore Street - City Limits to South Gilbert Street, Phase 1 o Wastewater Treatment Facilities Consolidation 0 2016 Ralston Creek Improvements o Derwen Dr. Pavement Rehab & Drainage Tile Installation 0 2016 Landfill Gas Collection System Expansion o Replacement of Variable Frequency Drives - Rochester GSR Pump Station o Wade Street Water Main Replacement o Rochester Avenue Bridge over Ralston Creek o Dubuque St. Pedestrian Bridge over 1-80 and Recreational Tail o Sycamore Street Pavement Marking - City Limits to US Highway 6 o Curb Ramps 2016 o Sycamore Street & Lower Muscatine Road Landscape Improvements o Hickory Hill Park Trail Bridge 14 o PCC Pavement Rehabilitation 2016 o Asphalt Resurfacing 2016 0 2016 Sidewalk Infill o Willow Creek / Kiwanis Park Improvements 0 2017 Clearing and Grubbing o Wastewater Clarifier Repairs o City Hall Lobby, Revenue, Harvat Hall & Neighborhood and Development Services (NDS) Renovations o Iowa Hwy 1 / US Hwy 218 Traffic Signal Pole Replacement o City Hall Landscaping o Mercer Park Tennis/Pickleball Court o Scott Park Gabion Basket Repair o Iowa River Handrail Repair o Kiwanis Park Storm Sewer 0 2016 Summer Sidewalk Repair o HMA Crack Sealing Project o First Ave (US Hwy 6 to Mall Drive) Four Lane to Three Lane Conversion o Ashton House Site Improvements REAP Grant o Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Curb Ramp Project 2016 In -progress Items • Waste minimization • Gateway Project • SUDAS (Statewide Urban Design and Specifications) approval • Public Works Facility Upgrade — Phase 1 • Introduction of Electric Vehicle to Fleet • Update review process for development projects • Electronic permitting (Excavation, Temporary Use of Right of Way -ROW, Small Cell) • Active Capital Projects: o Washington Street Streetscape o Iowa City Gateway o Iowa River Raw Water Main Conversion o Curb Ramp 2017 o Frauenholtz-Miller Park o Iowa Avenue Bridge & East Bound Burlington Street Bridge over Iowa River Scour Repair o Asphalt Resurfacing 2017 o IC Parking Garage Maintenance Program & Bridge Repair o Wetherby Park Sport Court o Riverfront Crossing Park, Phase 1 o Davenport Brick Street Reconstruction o Hebl Avenue Improvements o Robert A. Lee Recreation Center Remodeling 2017 o Riverfront Crossing Park, Phase 2 o Water Treatment Plant Supervisory Control 0 2017 Sewer Rehabilitation o Belt Filter Press o Burlington / Clinton Street Intersection Improvement o Asphalt Resurfacing 2018 o Curb Ramp Construction 2018 15 o Burlington / Madison Street Intersection Improvements o Gilbert Street Intersection Improvement o McCollister Boulevard Extension o Mormon Trek 3 -Lane Conversion o Pedestrian Trail — IAIS Railroad Bridge Riverside Drive o Pedestrian Mall Improvements o Rochester Avenue Sidewalk Infill o American Legion Road Improvements -Scott Blvd to Taft Ave o Landfill FYI Cell Construction o Prentiss Street Bridge Replacement o Douglass Street/Douglass Court Water Main Replacement o First Avenue Water Main Replacement o Water Distribution System Modeling o Iowa River Bank Stabilization at Highway 6 o Melrose Court Sanitary Sewer Replacement o Stevens Drive and Normandy Drive Pump Stations o Idyllwild Drainage Diversion o Building Automation Upgrades o Riverfront Crossings Park — Part 3 o Waterpark Trail Connection o Melrose Fiber Optic Improvement o Public Works Facility — Phase 1 o Non Public Safety Radio Backup Tower o Wastewater Treatment Plant Electrical Distribution and Generator Upgrade 0 2017 Dover Street Drainage Channel Restoration o Fiber Infrastructure at Iowa City Landfill & Recycling Center o Bloomington GSR Booster Pump VFD Replacement o Oakcrest Street Sidewalk Infill o South Gilbert Street Trail Connection o Water Main Pavement Repair o Fire Station #3 Kitchen Remodel o Riverside/Myrtle improvements o Water treatment roof replacement o Dodge Street functional design o Sewer Rehab annual projects o Bicycle Master Plan improvements o Highway 1 Trail extension o Annual street resurfacing plan o Annual storm sewer improvements o Corridor tree plantings — Camp Cardinal and Lower West Branch Road o Public housing roofing and siding o Benton Hill Park Retaining wall and sidewalk o Iowa and Gilbert bridge repairs o Market and Union curb ramps and storm sewer Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years • Development and maintenance of on -street bicycle facilities • Four lane to three lane conversion debate/education • Ped mall redevelopment 16 • Better relationship with other local governments (i.e. Coralville and Johnson County) Biggest Challenges for Department in Next Two Years • Public Works Facility move in and shuffling of other Departments • Nutrient Removal in Wastewater stream • Nitrate level increase in source water for drinking water treatment • Pressures of infill development on aging infrastructure • Aging workforce; continuity of operations with retirements 17 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Revision of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) policies • Augusta Place project • Hieronymus Square project • Riverside West Apartments project In -progress Items • Foster Road Urban Renewal Area • Forestview Urban Renewal • Moss Property Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years • Commercial tax abatement • Building change program • Historic Preservation projects via TIF in part • Retail recruitment • Emphasis on business retention Biggest Challenges for Department in Next Two Years • Staffing capacity m AIRPORT Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Completed Airport Master Plan (20 -year plan) • Completed Airport Strategic Plan (5 -year plan) • Completed 2 private hangar construction agreements • Continued reduction of use of general levy funds for operational needs In -progress Items • Obstruction Mitigation • Implementation of Airport Master Plan and Strategic Plan objectives • Planning for 100 -year anniversary (2018) • Reconstruction of airport entryway and Riverside Drive greenspace at airport entrance • Completion of airport viewing area Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years Obstruction mitigation 2018 100 -year anniversary event(s) Implementation of strategic and master plans Biggest Challenges for Department in Next Two Years • Reduced available program funding by state and federal partners on grants • Privatization of Air Traffic Control (ATC) at the national level • Lower priority scoring for desired projects for grant opportunities • Maintenance of aged building infrastructure 19 COMMUNICATIONS Department Accomplishments from Past Two Years • Enhanced Website — 2n1 stage of redesign, improved usability • Creation and implementation of Communications Plan • Staff training for website editors and news editors, as well as for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance • Changed how we engage the public with short, informational videos via social media and news releases • Implementation of NextDoor social media site • Hired bilingual staff for front desk positions to improve customer service In -progress Items • Intranet redesign • Assistance with Agenda Management Module roll-out • GIS (Geographic Information Systems) mapping for website use • Photography and video archival and retrieval system • Marketing plan creation for multiple departments (ongoing) • Increasing Public Engagement • ADA compliance report • Flood communications plan • Staff training for website and ADA compliance Top Department Priorities in Next Two Years • Intranet redesign • ADA compliance and training • GIS mapping implementation on website • Growth of Public Engagement • Continue to grow interdepartmental collaboration and enhanced training for improved public communications Biggest Challenges for Department in Next Two Years • Staying on top of all of our department projects with a limited staff and reduced budget • A minor website redesign that will result in reformatted pages that are simpler to understand and easier to find for our customers • Taking advantage of our photography staff to improve marketing and web images and provide an archival and retrieval system that is usable to all City staff 20 Top Management Team Priorities in Next Two Years 1. Improve employee engagement with new and existing team members (x5) 2. Manage Council expectations and growing service demands for new initiatives with current staffing levels (X3) 3. Succession planning (x3) 4. Maintain financial stability (X3) 5. Increase diversity of workforce and Boards and Commissions (x2) 6. Community Engagement (x2) 7. Public Safety 8. Training and drills for emergency response plan 9. Continued emphasis on staff training — stress learning of all city operations (tours of departments) 10. Define social and racial equity — measure progress, how? 11. Define sustainability for Iowa City 12. Electronic signatures and documents 13. Renewable resource opportunities (solar, wind, electric fleet vehicles, etc.) 14. Explore opportunities for regionalization of services 15. Environmental 16. Better internal communication on economic development projects 21 Blaaest Opportunities for the City of Iowa City in Next Two Years 1. Downtown and RFC development (x5) 2. Engagement of all Community Members (x4) 3. Strengthening UI partnerships (e.g. Iowa River, Invest Health, etc) (x3) 4. Affordable housing (land banking funds) (x2) 5. New staff in key roles due to high turnover/ retirement (x2) 6. Leader in bike/walk friendly communities / possible RAGBRAI Host (x2) 7. Housing development (X2) 8. Commercial/retail development 9. Parks and Rec development 10. Accessible Facilities for All 11. Concerns for all Neighborhoods 12. Introduce Sunday transit service 13. Forest View redevelopment 14. Working with the ICCSD 15. Clear vision / goals from Council - makes operations easier 16. Make Iowa River an amenity 17. Ongoing cultural and sporting events - community identity is strong outside of the community 18. Inclusiveness 19. Expanding new technology to make more info available to the public 20. Increased housing in downtown area 21. Increased hotel developments in downtown area 22. Riverfront Crossings Development 23. Reconstruction of Ped Mail and core downtown 24. Promote Iowa City as a top retirement city 25. Community development projects 26. Service sharing (internal and external) 27. New permitting software purchase will increase functionality and efficiency 28. Federal, state government uncertainties 29. Capacity of Water and Wastewater Plants to support development 30. Environmental leadership 31. Promotion of IC as a progressive and sustainable community 32. Development in areas that have seen investment in many years (highway corridor - Gilbert example) 22 r o -f --I s-fa— CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P4 MEMORANDUM Date: January 18, 2018 To: City Council From: Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager Re: 2017 Citywide Survey Draft Results Introduction: In the fall of 2017, the City conducted a community -wide survey. In total, 1,400 residents responded to 134 questions regarding the livability of Iowa City, including community characteristics, City service delivery, and community engagement. The survey was conducted by the National Research Center (NRC). Survey results augment other methods of public input when evaluating our service delivery and are intended to help inform the City Council's Strategic Planning Process. Several survey question responses are also used to achieve points in the STAR Communities assessment process. The attached reports are draft results and include a Community Livability Report, Dashboard of Findings, Technical Appendices with complete response data, a trend comparison to our 2013 survey, and demographic and geographic subgroup reports. Draft reports are typically identical to the final reports, unless errors are identified during review. History/Background: The City used the services of NRC to conduct a similar community survey in 2013. The survey includes questions beyond the scope of City services, including local amenities, public trust, and resident participation. Responses are organized into three pillars of livable communities: community characteristics, governance, and participation. NRC randomly selected 2,200 residences from a geocoded United States Postal Service address list to receive a mailed survey. Understanding that single family dwellings are more likely to respond to a mail survey, NRC oversamples residents of multifamily dwellings to ensure their proper representation in the sample data. There was an additional avenue for residents who did not receive a mailed survey to provide their responses online. The City incurred an additional cost to increase the sample size to ensure wide community participation. Instructions for completing the survey were mailed in English, Spanish, Arabic, Mandarin, and African French. Complete survey materials, including information on the January 18, 2018 Page 2 survey's methodology, margin of error, and data weighting are included in the Technical Appendices report. Survey Results: Out of 134 questions, responses from Iowa City were similar or higher to benchmark comparisons with other cities in all but three questions. The three questions in which residents rated our community lower than residents in other cities were affordable housing availability, whether the respondent had done a favor for a neighbor, and whether the respondent had stocked supplies for an emergency. Comparison data includes survey results from approximately 500 city survey results from around the country. Overall, responses were highest in the 'Education and Enrichment' and 'Economy' categories. The reports are careful to note that favorable responses in a given category should not become a gateway to complacency, nor are less favorable responses necessarily a call to action. Community priorities will inform how survey data are used. Survey data complement information and recommendations that Council receives from many sources, including department specific surveys and master planning processes, board and commission recommendations, and neighborhood and community organizations. Ratings remained generally stable between 2013 and 2017, with twelve questions showing a decrease in ratings and twenty-five showing an increase. Of note, residents were more likely to have positive perceptions the overall direction of City government and welcoming resident involvement. There are differences across demographic subgroups as to positive perceptions of our community, though strong patterns did not emerge across most facets of the Governance category. While the overall margin of error for the survey is around +/-4%, the demographic subgroup data has a margin of error of approximately +/-10%, given the smaller number of responses in each subgroup. The geographic subgroup report notes that given the small response rate in some geographic areas, this data should be interpreted with caution. Staff will be prepared to answer questions regarding the survey data and methodology at City Council's January 30 Strategic Planning session. Iowa City, IA Community Livability Report DRAFT 2017 NRC L, iJ 'i- j e -vier iric. 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 Boulder, Colorado 80301 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 ICMA Leaders at the Core of Better Communities 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Contents About..............................................................................................1 Quality of Life in Iowa City ...............................................................2 Community Characteristics...............................................................3 Governance..................................................................................... 5 Participation....................................................................................7 SpecialTopics..................................................................................9 Conclusions...................................................................................12 Charter Members - Citizen © 20012017 N tionalResearch Center, Inc. AAl'C�SR Transparency The NCS'" is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. Initiative NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing APU BLAN lhlCNISOFRESETIONARCH FOR clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. PUBLIC DPINICN RESEARCH Y About The National Citizen Survey` (The NCS) report is about the "livability' of Iowa City. The phrase "livable community" is used here to evoke a place that is not simply habitable, but that is desirable. It is not only where people do live, but where they want to live. Great communities are partnerships of the government, private sector, community-based organizations and residents, all geographically connected. The NCS captures residents' opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). The Community Livability Report provides the opinions of a representative sample of 1,400 residents of Iowa City. The margin of error around any reported percentage is 3% for all respondents. The full description of methods used to garner these opinions can be found in the Technical Appendices provided under separate cover. Quality of Life in Iowa CityOverall Quality of Life 1 Excellent More than 8 in io residents rated the quality of life in Iowa City as 34% excellent or good. This was similar to the national benchmark comparison (see Appendix B of the Technical Appendices provided a under separate cover). Poorer Good Shown below are the eight facets of community. The color of each 2% 53% community facet summarizes how residents rated it across the three Fairi sections of the survey that represent the pillars of a community — Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most 111 is ratings across the three pillars were higher than the benchmark, the color for that facet is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. A mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. In addition to a summary of ratings, the image below includes one or more stars to indicate which community facets were the most important focus areas for the community. Residents identified Safety and Economy as priorities for the Iowa City community in the coming two years. It is noteworthy that the ratings for Economy and for Education and Enrichment were higher than those given in other communities across the nation. All other facets received ratings similar to the benchmark. This overview of the key aspects of community quality provides a quick summary of where residents see exceptionally strong performance and where performance offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. Linking quality to importance offers community members and leaders a view into the characteristics of the community that matter most and that seem to be working best. Details that support these findings are contained in the remainder of this Livability Report, starting with the ratings for Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation and ending with results for Iowa City's unique questions. Legend Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Lower than national benchmark Most important Community Characteristics What makes a community livable, attractive and a place where people want to be? Overall quality of community life represents the natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an attractive community. How residents rate their overall quality of life is an indicator of the overall health of a community. In the case of Iowa City, go% rated the city as an excellent or good place to live. Respondents' ratings of Iowa City as a place to live were similar to ratings in other communities across the nation. In addition to rating the city as a place to live, respondents rated several aspects of community quality including Iowa City as a place to raise children and to retire, their neighborhood as a place to live, the overall image or reputation of Iowa City and its overall appearance. Roughly 8 in 10 residents rated the overall image and overall appearance of the city, their neighborhood as a place to live and Iowa City as a place to raise children as excellent or good, and 7 in 10 favorably rated the city as a place to retire. All of these evaluations were similar to those given in other communities. Delving deeper into Community Characteristics, survey respondents rated over 40 features of the community within the eight facets of Community Livability. All community features except one received ratings similar to or higher than the national comparison: out of 45 total aspects, residents gave above average marks to 17. The availability of affordable quality housing alone was below the benchmark and this rating also decreased since 2013. Resident satisfaction with aspects of Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement was strongest. About q in 10 Place to Live residents or more gave excellent or good ratings to feeling excellent safe in their neighborhood and in Iowa City's 430a downtown/commercial area, air quality, overall A opportunities for education and enrichment, opportunities to attendttendreligious or spiritual events and activities, cultural/arts/music activities and opportunities to volunteer. Poor_ 1% 8% When compared to 2013, ratings for most aspects of Community Characteristics remained stable (for more information see the Trends Over Time report under separate cover). Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Comparison to national benchmark ■Higher ■Similar Lower Overall image Neighborhood Place to raise children Place to retire Overall appearance The National Citizen SurveyTM Figure 1: Aspects of Community Characteristics Percent rating positively SAFETY (e.g., excellent/good, Overall feeling of safety very/somewhatsafe) Safe in neighborhood Safe downtown/commercial area MOBILITY Comparison to national Overall ease of travel benchmark Paths and walking trails Ease of walking ■ Higher Travel by bicycle Travel by public transportation ■ Similar Travel by car c Lower Public parking Traffic flow NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Overall natural environment Cleanliness Air quality BUILT ENVIRONMENT Overall built environment New development in Iowa City Affordable quality housing Housing options Public places ECONOMY Overall economic health Vibrant downtown/commercial area Business and services Cost of living Shopping opportunities Employment opportunities Place to visit Place to work RECREATION AND WELLNESS Health and wellness Mental health care Preventive health services Health care Food Recreational opportunities Fitness opportunities EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Education and enrichment opportunities Religious or spiritual events and activities Cultural/arts/music activities Adult education K-12 education Child care/preschool COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Social events and activities Neighborliness Openness and acceptance Opportunities to participate in community matters Opportunities to volunteer 24% 80% 80% 90% 4 Governance How well does the government of Iowa City meet the needs and expectations of Its residents? The overall quality of the services provided by Iowa City as well as the manner in which these services are provided is a key component of how residents rate their quality of life. About 8 in to Iowa City residents positively evaluated the overall quality of City services while one-third gave favorable marks to the services provided by the Federal Government; both of these ratings were similar to those given in other communities. Survey respondents also rated various aspects of Iowa City's leadership and governance. About 8 in to residents gave favorable ratings to the overall customer service provided by the City, similar to ratings in other communities. The remaining aspects of City government performance were positively rated by roughly 6 in to residents and were also similar to ratings given in other jurisdictions across the country. Respondents evaluated over 30 individual City -provided services and amenities available in Iowa City. At least half of respondents felt positively about almost all City services which yielded ratings similar to or higher than the benchmark comparison. Ratings for animal control, recreation programs, health services, public libraries, special events and public information were all higher than those given in other communities across the nation. Further, about 8 in to residents or more gave favorable ratings to fire, ambulance/EMS, fire prevention, animal control, garbage collection, yard waste pick-up, sewer services, power utility, utility billing, City parks, recreation programs, recreation centers, health services, public libraries, special events and public information services. When compared to 2013, ratings for several Safety- and Natural Overall Quality of City Services Environment -related services declined, while those related to some aspects of Built Environment and Community Engagement improved. Excellent) 23% \ Poor 2% Good Fair J 59% 15% 40Jf Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Comparison to national benchmark ■Higher ■Similar a -Lower Value of Overall Welcoming Confidence Acting in the Being honest Treating all Customer Services services for direction citizen in City best interest residents service provided by taxes paid involvement government of Iowa City fairly the Federal Government The National Citizen SurveyTM Figure 2: Aspects of Governance Percent rating positively SAFETY (e.g., excellent/good) Police Fire Ambulance/EMS Comparison to national Crime prevention benchmark Fire prevention ■ Higher Animal control Emergency preparedness ■Similar MOBILITY Traffic enforcement of Lower Street repair Street cleaning Street lighting Snow removal Sidewalk maintenance Traffic signal timing Bus or transit services NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Garbage collection Recycling Yard waste pick-up Drinking water Natural areas preservation Open space BUILT ENVIRONMENT Storm drainage Sewer services Power utility Utility billing Land use, planning and zoning Code enforcement Cable television ECONOMY Economic development RECREATION AND WELLNESS City parks Recreation programs Recreation centers Health services EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Public libraries Special events COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Public information 10 Participation Are the residents of Iowa City connected to the community and each other? An engaged community harnesses its most valuable resource, its residents. The connections and trust among residents, government, businesses and other organizations help to create a sense of community, a shared sense of membership, belonging and history. In Iowa City, about 7 in 10 residents rated the sense of community in the city as excellent or good, which was similar to the benchmark Nearly 9 in 10 residents would recommend living in Iowa City to someone who asked and about three-quarters planned to remain in the city for the next five years. About 4 in 10 residents had contacted City employees in the 12 months prior to the survey. These ratings were all similar to those seen elsewhere. The survey included over 3o activities and behaviors for which respondents indicated how often they participated in or performed each, if at all. Participation rates varied widely across the different facets, making the benchmark comparison (and comparison to Iowa City over time) helpful for understanding the results. Overall, Iowa City residents participated in most activities at rates similar to those found in other communities across the country. For example, about 8 in 10 residents had not reported a crime and about 9 in 10 had not been the victim of a crime in the 12 months prior to the survey (on par with the rest of the country) while about 2 in 10 had stocked supplies for an emergency (lower than the rest of the country). Just one other item was lower than the benchmark, which was the proportion of residents who had done a favor for a neighbor. Residents in Iowa City were more likely than residents in other communities across the country Sense of Community to have used public transportation instead of driving, walked or biked instead of driving, work in the city, used Iowa City public libraries, Excellent attended a City -sponsored event, campaigned for an issue, cause or 22% __ candidate, volunteered or participated in a club. Trend data were not available for many aspects of Participation over Poor An _ —Good time because these questions were not asked on the 2013 survey. Where bora 49% differences over time were observed, levels of participation tended to remain stable or decline. Fair. 23% Percent rating positively Comparison to national (e.g., very/somewhatlikely, benchmark yes) ■Higher ■Similar a -Lower Recommend Iowa Remain in Iowa City Contacted Iowa City City employees The National Citizen SurveyTM Figure 3: Aspects of Participation Percent rating positively SAFETY (e.g., yes, more than Stocked supplies for an emergency once a month, always/sometimes) Did NOT report a crime Was NOT the victim of a crime Comparison to national MOBILITY benchmark Used public transportation instead of driving ■ Higher Carpooled instead of driving alone ■Similar Walked or biked instead of driving NATURAL ENVIRONMENT of Lower Conserved water Made home more energy efficient Recycled at home BUILT ENVIRONMENT Did NOT observe a code violation NOT under housing cost stress ECONOMY Purchased goods or services in Iowa City Economy will have positive impact on income Work in Iowa City RECREATION AND WELLNESS Used Iowa City recreation centers Visited a City park Ate 5 portions of fruits and vegetables Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity In very good to excellent health EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Used Iowa City public libraries Participated in religious or spiritual activities Attended a City -sponsored event COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Campaigned for an issue, cause or candidate Contacted Iowa City elected officials Volunteered Participated in a club Talked to or visited with neighbors Done a favor for a neighbor Attended a local public meeting Watched a local public meeting Read or watched local news Voted in local elections 728%76-/ / 81% Special Topics The City of Iowa City included four questions of special interest on The NCS as well as one line addition to a standard question set. Topic areas included attendance at performing arts events, feelings toward neighbors, recommending Iowa City to peers and sources of information about the city. Thinking about the quality of City services, about two-thirds of residents rated the City website experience as excellent or good, while one-quarter thought it was fair and 1 in io rated it as poor. Figure 4: Line Addition to Question 10 Please rate the quality of the City website experience (www icgov. org) in Iowa City., Fair 23% Fxral lant 49% About 3 in io residents indicated that they had attended a performing arts event in Iowa City at least five times in the 12 months prior to the survey, and roughly half had attended between one and five times. Fewer than 2 in io had not attended a performing arts event at all. Figure 5: Performing Arts Event Attendance In the last 12 months, how many times, if at all, have you attended a live performing arts event in Iowa City? More than 10 5-10 times 14% 3-5 25% Not at all /o 1or2 times 28% The National Citizen SurveyTM Virtually all residents (94%) strongly or somewhat agreed that they liked to be helpful to their neighbors; roughly 8 in io agreed that they felt like they belonged in their neighborhood and that they trusted their neighbors and could rely on them if needed. Figure 6: Feelings Toward Neighbors and Neighborhood Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements: I like to be helpful to my neighbors I feel like I belong in my neighborhood I trust my neighbors and can rely on them to help me if needed ■Strongly agree ■Somewhat agree ■Somewhat disagree 9 Strongly disagree About half of Iowa City residents were very likely to recommend living in the city to someone their age, one-third were somewhat likely and less than 2 in io were unlikely. Figure 7: Recommend Iowa City to Peers Please indicate how likely or unlikely you would be to recommend living in Iowa City to otherpeople your age: Somewhat likely 34% IT 8% 8% Very likely �Ve ry 52% MW unlikely 6% 10 The National Citizen SurveyTM Thinking about sources of information about the City, about 8 in io survey respondents considered the City website, local newspapers and word-of-mouth to be major or minor sources of information, while about 6 in io utilized the City Facebook page, City Council and other public meetings, and e -subscriptions as sources of City information. The information sources that residents were least likely to utilize were the City YouTube channel, City Instagram feed and City posts on LinkedIn; about one-quarter or less indicated these as major or minor sources of information. Figure 8: Sources of Information How much of a source, if at all, do you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about Iowa City government news, meetings, events, and a/efts? City website (www.icgov.org) Local newspapers (Iowa City Press Citizen, The Gazette) Word-of-mouth City Facebook page City Council meetings and/or other public meetings E -subscriptions (email notifications) Talking with City officials Ne#door City Twitter feed City YouTube channel City Instagram feed City posts on LinkedIn ■ Major source ■ Minor source ■ Not a source In the final special-interest question on the survey, about one-quarter of respondents indicated that they were a student at a university, college or community college, while three-quarters indicated they were not. Figure 9: Student Status Are you currently a student at a university, college, or community college? Yes 77% 11 3% Conclusions Residents continue to enjoy living in Iowa City. As in 2013, in 2017 a high proportion of Iowa City residents positively rated many aspects of community quality. About 8 in 10 residents positively rated the overall quality of life in Iowa City, the overall image and overall appearance of the city, their neighborhood as a place to live and Iowa City as a place to raise children, and 7 in 10 favorably rated the city as a place to retire. Nearly q in 10 residents would recommend living in Iowa City to someone who asked and about three-quarters planned to remain in the city for the next five years. More than 8 in 10 Iowa City residents were very or somewhat likely to recommend living in the city to someone their age. Further, about 8 in 10 residents agreed that they felt like they belonged in their neighborhood and that they trusted their neighbors and could rely on them if needed. Safety is a priority to residents, and ratings for it tended to be positive. Residents identified Safety as an important aspect of community livability to their quality of life. About 8 in 10 residents or more gave positive ratings to feelings of safety in their neighborhoods and in the city's downtown/commercial area, and to fire, ambulance/EMS, fire prevention and animal control. Further, the rating for animal control were higher than average. Most residents had not reported a crime or been the victim of a crime; however, the proportion of Iowa City residents who had stocked supplies for an emergency was lower than the national average. Residents put their economic faith in Iowa City. Residents also see the Economy as an important aspect of their quality of life and related ratings tended to be high. About 7 in 10 residents or more gave excellent or good ratings to the overall economic health of the city, vibrant downtown/commercial area, overall quality of business and service establishments, shopping opportunities, and Iowa City as a place to work and to visit. Further, ratings for overall economic health, vibrant downtown/commercial area, shopping opportunities, employment opportunities and the city as a place to work were all higher than national averages. Virtually all respondents had purchased goods or services in Iowa City in the 12 months prior to the survey, and the proportion of residents who worked in the community was also higher than seen elsewhere across the country. Education and Enrichment is a strong feature of the community. At least 8 in 10 respondents rated positively many Education and Enrichment -related items and these ratings tended to be higher than those seen elsewhere. Overall, Education and Enrichment features and services were among the strongest aspects of Iowa City; specifically, sentiment toward overall opportunities for education and enrichment, opportunities to attend religious or spiritual events and activities, cultural/arts/music activities, adult education, K-12 education, public libraries and special events was higher than average. Iowa City residents were also more likely than those who lived elsewhere to have used public libraries or attended a City -sponsored special event in the 12 months prior to the survey. 12 Iowa City, IA Dashboard Summary of Findings DRAFT 2017 NRC s :arch Center Inc: 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 Boulder, Colorado 80301 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 ICMA Leaders at the Core of Better Communities 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Summary The National Citizen Survey` (The NCS''") is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. The NCS captures residents' opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). This report summarizes Iowa City's performance in the eight facets of community livability with the "General" rating as a summary of results from the overarching questions not shown within any of the eight facets. The "Overall" represents the community pillar in its entirety (the eight facets and general). By summarizing resident ratings across the eight facets and three pillars of a livable community, a picture of Iowa City's community livability emerges. Below, the color of each community facet summarizes how residents rated each of the pillars that support it — Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most ratings were higher than the benchmark, the color is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. A mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. Broadly, ratings across all facets of community livability in Iowa City were similar to or higher than those given in other communities across the nation. Evaluations for Education and Enrichment were particularly strong: this facet received above average ratings across all three pillars of livability. In Community Characteristics, Economy and Community Engagement were also higher than the benchmark, and in Governance, Recreation and Wellness was above average. Levels of Participation within the facet of Mobility were also higher than observed in other communities. This information can be helpful in identifying the areas that merit more attention. Fig Ovet Gene Safe' Mobi Natl Built Ecor Recr Educ Com L end Hi her Similar Lower The National Citizen Survey'" Figure 2: Detailed Dashboard Commun Ly Characteristics Trend Benchmark G TrPercent d Benchmark Participation Trend Benchmark Percent 0n p84% pOve post ove Overall PP 1 Customers l J9 /o Recommend [ Cit,Cit,88% Oveallq Ity, Flife 88% 5 p d dbyIowa 83% R I Ory l 77% City Place to retire 71% Services p on ded b the l y 36% Contacted Iowa City l 99% Federal Government_ _ employees t7 Glace to raise children 8'% Glace to live 90% Neighborhood _ do% _ Overall Image 82% _ Overall feeling ofsafe 76% Polo, l _ 77% Was NOT the Nctim oft crime 89% Safe In neighborhood 9k% Crime prevention_ 61% Did NOT report a crime 80% Safe downtown/commercial } 92% Fire 95% Stocked supplies for an } 18% mergenry Fire prevention 85% Ambulance/EMS 95% .. . Emergenry preparedness } Jl% Animal control _ } 790% Traffic flow 59% Traffic enforcement 65% Carpooled Instead of dr ving 52% one Tavel by car 64% Street epair 39% Walked or piked Instead of } 76% driving L Tavel by bicycle 57% Street cleaning } 68% Used public transportation } 45% a Instead of driving £ Ease alking 83%�_. Street lighting ransp t t itransportation _ 50% S m _6%Tavel 60 t 75/o dOverall maintenance 59/0 Public parking 380%T ffi q al timing 55/0 Galls and walking trails 775%transit services l 63% Overall naturall environment 80%6 bagecollection_ 1 88% R ry d at home 1 85% Air quality, 90% Recycling 71% Conserved water 73% nE Cleanliness } 80% _ Yard waste pickup 1 85% _ Made home more energy 69% d o efficient z : _ Drinking water l 73% _ wOpen space 67% _ Natural areas preservation 62% New development In Iowa Qty } 67% Sewer services 894 NOT exyeriencing housing } 66% cost stress m Affordable quality, housing } } 240/, Storm drainage _ 76% Did NOT observe a code 60% E violation _ _ Housing options 1 _41% _ Powerutility 85% _ Overall built environment 63% Utilirybllllnq 790A w _ Public places 81% Land use, planning and } 52% m coni ng _ Code enforcement } 60% Cable television 42% Legend }} Much higher } Higher S". 1 Lower 11 Much lower Not available 2 The National Citizen Survey— Community Characteristics Trend Benchmark Percent Governance Trend Benchmark Percent poseve poseve Overall economic health } 80% Economic development } 66% Shopping opportunities 1 omywill have po9tive 24% impact on income } 70% 98% E Employment opportunities -' } 65% .. o Place to vi9t Participated In moderate or ` 71% 85% 8 Cost ofllvinq 32% 95% Used lowa Opublic libraries ry _ Vibrant downtown/commercial } 76% Participated In religion r l area Place to work _ f } 80% Business and services 1 Attend d a Cry sponsored event 78% Fitness opportunities_ 81% ON parks Sense ofcommunity Recreational opportunities 71% 80% Recreation centers _ Health care _ } 76% Recreation programs 82% Food t neighbors _ JS% Health servi ces .-. 64% Rants I health care 5J% 60% Watched a local public meeting f 28% 63% Volunteered f }} Health and wellness } 86% _ a _ Preventive health services } 80% 42% K-12educabon _ 87% Public llbrar as Contacted lowa City elected Cultural/arts/music activities }} 89% Special event 5 Read or watched local news ` 760h Child care/preschool Done a favor for a neighbor ` 48% Jl% a b Religious or spiritual event and } 90% activities w _ Adult education 83% Overall education and }} 92% enrichment Opportunities to participate In } 82% Public Information community matters _ Opportunities to volunteer _ 89% Overall dlrectipn )_ Openness and acceptance f 69% Value of services for taxes paid Social event and activities } 83% Welcoming teen } n alver nt m Neighborliness -` ®% Confidences governr g Acting In the best Interest of Qty Being honest Bing h 6 o Treating AT residents hely ` Legend }} Much higher } Higher Similar l Lower ll Muchlower 3 Percent Participation Trend Benchmark poseve omywill have po9tive 24% impact on income ised goods or services in 98% lowa Qty Work in Iowa Ory r 11 SR. 82% Used Iowa Qty recreation centers 64% } SJ% Visited a Otypark 93% } 85% _ Ate 5 portions of buns and ` 81% vegetables Participated In moderate or ` 85% Ngorous physical activity 95% Used lowa Opublic libraries ry JS% } 82% Participated In religion r l 41% spiritual activities Attend d a Cry sponsored event }}i9 } 83% Sense ofcommunity 71% 63%-- Voted In local elections 81% 61% _ Talked to or visited with 82% neighbors _ .-. 64% Attended a local public meeting f 26% 60% Watched a local public meeting f 28% 63% Volunteered f }} 60% 66% Participated In a club f } 43% 56% Campaigned for an Issue, cause } 42% or candidate Contacted lowa City elected 22% officials Read or watched local news ` 760h _ Done a favor for a neighbor ` f Jl% Not available Iowa City, IA Technical Appendices DRAFT 2017 NRC L, iJ ,i -s :en:h center Irir. 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 Boulder, Colorado 80301 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 ICMA Leaders at the Core of Better Communities 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002 icma.org • 800-745-8780 The National Citizen SurveyTM Contents Appendix A: Complete Survey Responses..........................................1 Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons.............................................19 Appendix C: Detailed Survey Methods ............................................. 29 Appendix D: Survey Materials.........................................................35 Charter Members The National Citizen SurveyTM AAl'ers © 2001-2017 National Research Center, Inc. TYansaamncV The NCSTM is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. Initiative NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR PUBLIC OPINION FESEARCH clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. The National Citizen Survey— Appendix A: Complete Survey Responses Responses excluding "don't know" The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, excluding the "don't know" responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with "N'). Table 1: Question 1 Loass rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Iowa City: Excellent I Good Fair Fair Pmr Post Total Total Iowa City as a place to live 43% N=586 48% N=649 8% N=110 1% N=20 100% N=1365 Your neighborhood as a place to live 39% N=526 42% N=571 17% N=239 2% N=30 100% N=1366 Iowa City as a place to raise children 45% N=524 40% N=456 12% N=135 30/o N=37 100% N=1153 Iowa City as a place to work 330/o N=433 460/o N=604 16% N=212 40/o N=52 100% N=1301 Iowa City as a place to visit 28% N=368 430/o N=574 24% N=317 50/o N=71 100% N=1330 Iowa City as a place to retire 31% N=333 40% N=426 19% N=204 9% N=99 100% N=1062 The overall quality of life in Iowa City 34% N=46] 53% N=725 11% N=144 2% N=26 100% N=1361 Table 2: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Iowa City as a who Excellent Good I Fair 1000% N=1321 Pmr Total Overall feeling of safety in Iowa City 23% N=312 53% N=708 20% N=269 4% N=51 180% N=1341 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 25% N=339 50% N=669 18% N=247 6% N=82 100% N=1338 Quality of overall natural environment in Iowa City 29% N=387 51% N=675 17% N=232 3% N=35 100% N=1329 Overall "built environment" of Iowa City (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe our unsafe Somewhat unsafe I Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 78% N=1036 18% N=238 2% N=31 1% N=15 1% N=] 100% N=1327 systems) 18% N=238 45% N=603 30% N=397 ]% N=92 100% N=1331 Health and wellness opportunities in Iowa City 42% N=551 44% N=5]] 12% N=156 2% N=24 100% N=1308 Overall opporWnities for educator and enrichment 59% N=]]4 33% N=432 6% N=84 2% N=21 100% N=1311 Overall economic health of Iowa City 27% N=335 54% N=678 17% N=213 3% N=33 100% N=1259 Sense of community 22% N=294 490% N=647 230% N=298 6% N=82 1000% N=1321 Overall image or reputation of Iowa City 31k N=413 51% N=6]2 15% N=203 2% N=33 100% N=1321 Table 3: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely I Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Iowa City to someone who asks 54°/o N=703 35% N=458 8% N=101 4% N=51 100% N=1313 Remain in Iowa City for the next five years 54% N=693 23% N=292 10% N=125 13% N=173 100% N=1284 _ Table 4: Question 4_ Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe our unsafe Somewhat unsafe I Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 78% N=1036 18% N=238 2% N=31 1% N=15 1% N=] 100% N=1327 In Iowa City's downtown/commercial area during the day 64% N=843 28% N=370 4% N=59 3% N=39 1% N=13 100% N=1323 The National Citizen Survey— Table 5: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Iowa City as a whole: I Excellent I Good N=576 Fair N=300 Pour N=99 Total Traffic flow on major streets 8% N=109 45% N=590 34% N=444 12% N=157 100% N=1300 Ease of public parking 9% N=113 29% N=378 37% N=469 25% N=322 100% N=1281 Ease of travel by car in Iowa City 14% N=178 50% N=642 29% N=378 ]% N=92 100% N=1289 Ease of travel by public transportatian in Iowa City 13% N=139 37% N=389 33% N=343 17% N=175 100% N=1046 Ease of travel by bicycle in Iowa City 18% N=187 39% N=396 31% N=318 12% N=120 100% N=1022 Ease of walking in Iowa City 33% N=430 50% N=64] 15% N=196 2% N=28 100% N=1301 Availability of paths and walking hails 29% N=359 47% N=586 20% N=254 4% N=55 100% N=1254 Ar quality 40% N=508 51% N=64] 9% N=112 1% N=14 100% N=1280 Cleanliness of Iowa City 22% N=291 58% N=758 16% N=207 4% N=53 100% N=1309 Overall appearance of Iowa City 25% N=322 60% N-777 15% N=189 1% N=17 100% N=1306 Public places where people want to spend time 28% N=367 53% N=690 17% N=216 2% N=28 100% N=1301 Variety of housing options 11% N=139 30% N=379 35% N=440 24% N=300 100% N=1258 Availability of affordable quality housing 6% N=70 18% N=219 30% N=365 46% N=558 100% N=1212 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails,etc.) 32% N=410 49% N=618 17% N=208 2% N=27 100% N=1263 Recreational opportunities 31% N=391 49% N=625 18% N=232 2% N=28 100% N=1276 Availability of affordable quality food 26% N=334 49% N=635 22% N=278 4% N=48 100% N=1295 Availability of affordable quality health care 38% N=470 38% N=473 19% N=236 5% N=68 100% N=1247 Availability of preventive health services 38% N=453 43% N=512 15% N=181 5% N=58 100% N=1204 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 22% N=209 34% N-324 25% N-233 19% N=175 100% N=941 Table 6: Question 6 Ep±ase rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Iowa City as a whole: Excellent N=231 Good N=576 Fan N=300 Pour N=99 Total Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 14% N=84 34% N=204 28% N=165 24% N=143 100°°/o N=596 K-12 education 38% N=294 49% N=385 11% N=88 2% N=13 100% N=]]9 Adult educational opportunities 39% N=424 44% N=484 14% N=151 3% N=30 100°/% N=1089 Opporu pities to attend cultural/arl usic activities 56% N=708 33% N=409 9% N=112 2% N=25 100% N=1254 Opporu pities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 45% N=421 45% N=420 8% N=74 2% N=15 100% N=930 Employment opportunities 16% N=188 49% N=560 28% N=322 7% N=]6 100% N=114] Shopping opporhmities 25% N=316 45% N=573 24% N=300 6% N-77 100% N=1267 Cost of living in Iowa City 5% N=62 27% N=338 43% N=539 26% N=325 100% N=1263 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Iowa City 19% N=245 59% N=746 20% N=258 2% N=24 100% N=12]3 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 32% N=407 44% N=563 19% N=244 5% N=58 100% N=12]3 Overall quality of new development in Iowa City 19% N=231 48% N=576 25% N=300 8% N=99 100% N=1206 Opporunities to participate in social events and activities 34% N=422 49% N=600 13% N=164 3% N=43 100% N=1229 Opporu pities to volu nteer 41% N=4]8 48% N=563 9% N=106 2% N=19 100% N=1166 Opporu pities to participate in community matters 33% N=376 50% N=574 14% N=162 3% N=40 100% N=1152 Openness and acceptance of the corn mu city toward People of d iverse backgrounds 29% N=357 41% N=504 21% N=260 10% N=119 100% N=1239 Neg h borliness of residents in Iowa City 21% N=259 48% N=605 25% N=309 6% N=76 100% N=1250 The National Citizen Survey— Table 7: Question 7 Lkase in dkate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. I Excellent No Good Yes Fair Total Made efforts to con serve water 27% N=346 73% N=923 100% N=1269 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 31% N=390 69% N=87B 100% N=1266 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Iowa City (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 60% N=763 40% N=501 100% N-1269 Household member was a victim of a crime in Iowa City 89% N=1129 11% N=141 100% N=1270 Reloaded a crime to the police in Iowa City 80% N=1012 20% N=257 100% N=1269 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 82% N=1032 18% N=231 100% N=1263 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 58% N=]35 42% N=534 100% N=1269 Contacted the City of Iowa City (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 56% N=715 44% N=552 100% N=1266 Contacted Iowa City elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 78% N=984 22% N=284 100% N=1268 Table 8: Question 3 I Excellent Good I Fair Poor Total Police/Sheriff services In the last 12 months, about how many times, I at all, have you or other household 2 times a week or 2-1 times a Once a month or 6% N=64 180% N=1033 members done each of the following in Iowa City? 51% more month N=383 5% less Not at all 100% Total Used Iowa City recreation centers or their services 15°7% N=182 19°7% N=232 30°7% N=380 36% N=454 100% N=1248 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 2407o N=306 3607o N=450 3207o N=404 ]% N=92 1000k N=1253 Used Iowa City public libraries or their services 1]°7o N=214 3107o N=386 30°7% N=374 2207o N=271 1000% N=1246 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Iowa City 12°7% N=144 1507o N=193 14°7% N=175 5907o N=739 1000% N=1251 Attended a City -sponsored event 407o N=51 1907o N=237 5607o N=697 2107o N=266 1000% N=1252 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 1]°7o N=208 9°/o N=119 19°/o N=237 5507o N=691 1000% N=1254 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 16°/o N=201 1807o N=220 18°7% N=228 4807o N=603 1000% N=1252 Walked or biked instead of driving 3907o N=496 1]°7o N=213 19°/o N=242 2407o N=305 1000% N=1256 Volu treated you r time to som a gr on p/activity in Iowa City 1207o N=154 1907o N=233 2907o N=367 4007o N=499 1000% N=1254 Participated in a dub 11°/o N=142 1407o N=180 18°7% N=220 5707o N=706 1000% N=1248 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 2807o N=356 3207o N=398 22°7% N=272 18% N=231 100% N=1257 Done a favor for a neighbor 11% N=135 200k N=254 400k N=499 290k N=363 1000k N=1250 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County MCommissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 about how many times, I at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? Attended a fecal public meeting Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting Table 10: Question 10 2 times a week 24 times a I Once a month or more month or lei 1 Not at all Total 1% N=16 5% N=61 20% N=245 74% N=911 100% N=1232 2% N=19 6% N-77 20% N=252 72% N=891 100% N=1239 .Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Iowa City: I Excellent Good I Fair Poor Total Police/Sheriff services 27% N=280 50% N=513 ll% N=175 6% N=64 180% N=1033 Fire services 51% N=451 44% N=383 5% N=40 1% N=] 100% N=880 Ambulance or emergency medical services 50% N=433 4407o N=382 4% N=34 1% N=11 100°/% N=860 Crime prevention 15% N=138 46% N=423 30% N=276 9% N=79 100% N=917 Fire prevention and education 33% N=247 52% N=397 12% N=88 3% N=24 100% N=]5] Traffic enforcement 17% N=168 48% N=471 25% N=245 10% N=102 100% N=986 The National Citizen Survey— _Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Iowa City: I Excellent Good _ I Fair I Poor Total Street repair 90k N=107 300% N=349 410k N=473 200k N=230 1000% N=1159 Street cleaning 18h N=211 50°/o N=569 250k N=284 ]h N=]6 1000% N=1140 Street lighting 14°/a N=168 4]°/a N=554 28% N=327 11% N=129 100°°/a N=117] Snow removal 18°/o N=198 42°/o N=463 28°/o N=306 12°/o N=132 100°/o N=1099 Sidewalk maintenance 15°/o N=167 45°/o N=519 31°/o N=355 10°/o N=112 100°°/o N=1154 Traffic signal timing 14°/o N=161 42°/o N=491 30°/o N=347 15°/o N=176 100°°/o N=1174 Bus or transit services 22°/o N=195 41°/o N=370 24°/o N=217 13°/o N=116 100°°/o N=899 Garbage collection 390% N=437 480% N=536 100% N=113 20% N=21 1000% N=1107 Recycling 31°/a N=350 40°/a N=453 17°/a N=196 12°/a N=139 100°°/a N=1137 Yard waste pick-up 41°/o N=354 44°/o N=386 12°/o N=107 2°/o N=22 1000% N=869 Storm drainage 22°/o N=213 55°/o N=538 20°/o N=193 4°/o N=40 1000% N=983 Drinking water 29°/o N=346 43°/o N=512 20°/o N=231 8°/o N=94 1000% N=1183 Sewer services 300% N=298 590% N=588 90% N=94 20% N=18 1000% N=997 Power (electric and/or gas)utility 28% N=315 57% N=638 130% N=144 30% N=30 1000% N=1126 Utility billing 27°/a N=305 52% N=581 17°/a N=187 40% N=50 1000% N=1122 City parks 420% N=488 49% N=569 ]°/o N=87 1°/o N=15 1000% N=1158 Recreation programs or classes 330% N=286 540% N=467 110% N=91 20% N=20 1000% N=864 Recreation centers or facilities 27°/o N=247 55°/o N=509 14°/o N=128 4°/o N-40 1000% N=925 Land use, planning and zoning 11°/o N=101 41°/o N=374 35°/o N=317 13°/o N=118 100°°/o N=911 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 14°/o N=108 46°/o N=367 32°/o N=259 8°/o N=63 1000% N=]9] Mimal control 29°/o N=236 50°/o N=408 17°/o N=139 4°/o N=30 1000% N=812 Economic development 16°/a N=160 50°/a N=483 26°/a N=249 8°/a N=81 1000% N=972 Health services 39°/o N=413 46°/o N=485 13°/o N=140 2°/o N=19 1000% N=1055 Public library services 660% N=713 290% N=311 40% N=43 1°/o N=6 1000% N=10]3 Public information services 30°/o N=267 52°/o N=465 15°/o N=134 2°/o N=20 1000% N=887 Cable television 12°/o N=92 300% N=229 31°/o N=242 27°/o N=210 100°°/o N=]]2 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 180% N=140 53% N=400 24% N=180 50% N=40 1000% N=]61 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 200% N=201 42% N=428 27°/o N=280 110% N=111 1000% N=1021 Iowa City open space 210% N=223 460% N=486 27°/o N=287 60% N=64 1000% N=1059 Citysponsoredspecial events 320% N=316 490% N=485 160% N=155 30% N=26 1000% N=983 Overall customer service by Iowa City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 260% N=266 53 h N=533 17°/o N=175 30% N=34 1000% N=1008 City website experience (wwwicgov. org) 17% N=16] 490k N=4]1 23% N=221 10% N=94 100°°/a N=954 Table 11: Question 11 how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total _Overall, The City of Iowa City 230k N=273 590k N=695 150k N=174 20k N=29 100% N=11]1 The Federal Government ]h N=80 290k N=309 430k N=466 200k N=220 100% N=10]5 4 The National Citizen Survey— Table 12: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Iowa City government performance: I Excellent I Good Somewhat Fair Strongly Poor llease statements: Total The value of services for the taxes paid m Iowa City 12% N=123 4946 N=502 3046 N=305 9% N=95 100% N=1025 The overall direction that Iowa City is talong 16% N=170 47% N=509 27% N=288 10% N=111 100% N=10]] The job Iowa City government does at welcoming cii involvement 18% N=182 45% N=449 28% .....N=274 8°/o N=84 100°/% N=988 Overall confidence in Iowa City government 13% N=138 47% N=500 29% .....N=312 11°/o N=114 100% N=1065 Generally acting in the best interest ofthe community 15% N=162 47% N=506 27%N=288 10°/o N=110 100% N=1066 Being honest 16% N=154 50% N=494 25%....... N=248 9% N=88 100% N=985 Treating all resid ents fairly 15% N=148 42% N=425 2916 N=293 15% N=149 100% N=1015 Table 13: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Iowa City community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Overall feeling of safety in Iowa City Overall ease of getting be the places you usually have to visit Quality of overall natural environment in Iowa City Overall'built environment' of Iowa City (including overall design, buildings, parks and tansporta0on systems) Health and wellness opportunities in Iowa City VerySomewhat Not at all Essental important important important Total 54% N=639 32% N=374 11% N=132 3% N=30 100% N=11]5 33% N=391 46% N=536 18% N=210 3% N=36 100% N=11]3 38% N=441 43% N=502 17% N=198 2% N=27 100% 11=1168 35% N=409 42% N=487 20% N=239 30% N=35 100% N=1171 350% N-405 390% N-458 22% N-254 50% N-54 100% N-1171 Overall opporn in ifor education and enrichment 40% N=465 38% N=443 20°/o N=236 3% N=29 100% N=1173 Overall economic health of Iowa City 43% N=510 43% N=502 12% N=142 20/o N=20 100% N=1175 Sense of community 33% N=383 41% N=4]] 230k N=272 40k N=43 188% N=1174 Table 14: Question 14 LIn the last 12 ononths, how many times, if at all, have you attended a five performing arts event in Iowa City? Percent I Number Not at all 17% N=198 1 or 2 times 3-5 times 5-10 times More than 10 times Total Table 15: Question 15 15% N=1]9 10016 N=1171 FP indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following J, Somewhat Somewhat Strongly llease statements: Strongly agree agree disagree dsagree Total I trust my neighbors and can rely on them to help me if needed 36% N=397 47% N=514 11% N=122 6% N=64 10016 N=1097 I like m be helpful to my neighbors 53% N=593 41% N=462 5% N=58 1% N=13 100016 N=1126 I feel like I beleno in my neiahborhood 40% N=457 44% N=500 11% N=126 4% N=46 100016 N=1129 The National Citizen Survey— Table 16: Question 16 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you would be to recommend living in Iowa City to other people your age: I Percent I Number Very likely 5246 N=613 Somewhat likely 3446 ..846 N=398 Somewhat unlikely ..646 N=96 Very unlikely 260% 14=64 Total 1WK) N-1172 Table 17: Question 17 gHow much of a source, if at all, do you consider each of the following W be for obtaining information about Iowa City overnment news, meetings, events, and alerts? City website (www.icgov.org) City Facebook page City Twitter feed Neztdoor City Posts on Linkedln City Instagram feed City youTube channel E -subscriptions (email notifications) Local newspapers (Iowa City Press Citizen, The Gazette) City Council meetings and/or other public meetings Talking with City officials Word-of-mouth Table 18, Question D1 How often, d at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times Major source Minor source � Notasource I.. Sometimes Total 56% N=648 30% N=347 14% N=168 1000k N=1163 260% N=301 360% N=418 370% N=430 1000% N=1148 9°/a N=98 300% N=337 620% N=]0] 1000% N=1142 150% N=170 240% N=276 610% N=698 1000% N=1144 30% N=34 120% N=138 850% N=971 1000% N=1143 5% N=7 180% N=210 ]5°/a N=864 1000% N=1147 6°/a N=67 22°/a N=248 7°/a N=829 1000% N=1143 29°/a N=328 29°/a N=329 43°/a N=488 1000% N=1146 51°/a N=598 34°/a N=391 15°/a N=173 1000% N=1162 19% N=222 40°/a N=466 40% N=467 1000% N=1154 150k N=169 340k N=391 51h N=589 100% N=1148 3746 N=428 4646 N=525 1746 N=200 100% N=1153 you could? _ Never I Rarely I.. Sometimes I Usually I Always I Total Recycle at home 946 N=108 6% N=R 9% N=103 20% N=229 5746 N=663 100% N=1167 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Iowa City 1% N=9 1% N=16 17% N=198 51% N=601 3(YIb N=347 100°/% N=1170 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 4% N=46 15% N=181 37% N=437 30% N=349 13% N=158 100°/% N=1170 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 3% N=30 12% N=140 32% N=373 33% N=382 20% N=236 100°/% N=1161 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc) 8% N=92 17% N=195 21% N=250 26% N=300 29% N=335 100% N=1171 Vote in local elections 12% N=141 ]h N=]9 120k N=142 300k N=345 400k N=461 1000k N=116] Table 19: Question D2 Wouldyou saythatin general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 1946N=227 Very good _ 4646..... N=539 Good 2946..... 14-340 Fair ..Poor 546 N 61 ..Total 1%N-9..... 100b N=1175 The National Citizen Survey'" Table 20: Question D3 What impact, if any, do you Mink the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you Mink the impact will be: I Percent I Number Very positive 6% N=66 Somewhat positive 18% N=215 _N=631 Neutral 54% N 92 Somewhat negative 18% _ N=210 Very negative 4% N=49 Table 21: Question D4 Ewat is your employment_ status? Working full time for pay Working part time for pay Unemployed, looking for paid work 20%N=23] 2% ............... N=29 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 5% N=54 Fully retired 12% N=138 Total 100% N-1172 I Table 22: Question D5 I Percent I Number L29 you work inside the boundaries of Iowa City? Percent Number _ Yes, outside the home 61% N=705 Yes, from home 8% N 92 No 30% N-349 Total 100% N-1146 Table 23: Question D6 H ow m any years have you lived in Iowa City? Percent Number Less than 2years 18% N=211 2 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 20 years More than 20 years Total Table 24: Question D7 29% N-335 100% N=1176 Which best describes the building you live in? I Percent I Number One family house detached from any other houses 46% N=538 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 51% N=598 Mobile home 1% N=11 Other 2% N-29 Total 100°/% N-1176 The National Citizen Survey'" Table 25: Question D8 Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 5146 N=602 Owned 49 N-568 ..Total 100 b N=1170 Table 26: Question D9 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeownerA association Percent Number (HOA)fees)? Pe¢ent Number Less than $300 per month ..$300 346 N=39 to $599 per month 1346 N=148 $600 to $999 per month 35% N=481 $1,000 To $1,499 per month 30% N=354 $1,500 To $2,499 per month 16% N=183 $2,500 or more per month 3% N=37 Total 100% N=1163 Table 27: Question D10 _ Oo any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 78% N=909 ..Yes 22% N=262..... Table 28: Ouestion D11 I Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 8446 N=9]9 Yes 1646 N=192. Total 10046 N=1172 Table 29: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's butaI income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all I persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than$25,000 21% N=242 $25,000 to $49,999 26% N=304 $50,000 to $99,999 30% N=343 $ 100,008 to $149,999 13% N=155 $150,008 or more 9% N=106 Total 100% N=1150 The National Citizen Survey— Table 30: Question D13 E�e you Spanish, Hispanic or Latioo? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latlno 97% N=1131 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 3% N=36 ..Total_ .10046 N=1166... Table 31: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more aces to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself be be.) I Percent I Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% N=8 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacidc Islander 4% N-49 Black or African American 4% N-48 White 91% N-1058 Other 246 N._29 may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one Table 32: Ouestion D15 I In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 1646 N=189 25 to 34 years 3646 N=419 35 to 44 years 14% N-161 45 to 54 years 11% N=129 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 years or older Total Table 33: Question D16 LWhat is your sex? Percent Number Female 5146 N=597 Male ..Total 4916 N-563 Both 10046 N -11W Table 34: Question D17 LW you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 8546 N=996 Land line 7% _8hN=89. N 8 Both _.. Total IN% N=1171 Table 35: Question D18 Are you currently a student at a university, college, Yes No 7746 N=900 The National Citizen Survey— Responses including "don't know" The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, including the "don't know" responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with "N`). Table 36: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Iowa City: I Excellent I Good Fair I Poor I Don't know I Total Iowa City as a place to live 43% N=586 48% N=649 8% N=110 1% N=20 0% N=1 100% N=1366 Your neighborhood as a place to live 39% N=526 42% N=571 17% N=239 2% N=30 0% N=1 100% N=1367 Iowa City as a place to raise children 39% N=524 34% N=456 10% N=135 3% N=37 15% N=207 100% N=1360 Iowa City as a place to work 32% N=433 44% N=604 16% N=212 4% N=52 4% N=60 100% N=1361 Iowa City as a place to visit 27% N=368 42% N=574 23% N=317 5% N=71 2% N=31 100% N=1360 Iowa City as a place to retire 24% N=333 31% N=426 15% N=204 ]% N=99 22% N=300 100% N=1362 The overall quality of life in Iowa City 34% N=46] 53% N=725 11% N=144 2% N=26 0% N=1 100% N=1362 Table 37: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Iowa City as a whole�.Fxcellent Good FairPaor Don't know T Total Overall feeling of safety in Iowa City 23% N=312 53% N=708 20% N=269 4% N=51 0% N-0 100% N=1341 Overall ease of getting tu the places you usually have to visit 25% N=339 50% N=669 18% N=247 6% N=82 0% N=1 100°/% N=1338 Quality of overall natural environment in Iowa City 29% N=387 51% N=675 17% N=232 3% N=35 0% N=6 100°/% N=1335 Overall "built environment" of Iowa City (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 18% N=238 450/o N=603 30% N=397 ]% N=92 0% N=6 100°/% N=133] Health and wellness opportunities in Iowa City 41% N=551 43% N=5]] 12% N=156 2% N=24 2% N=29 100°/% N=1338 Overall opportunities for educator and enrichment 58% N=]]4 320/o N=432 6% N=84 2% N=21 2% N=29 100°/% N=1340 Overall economic health of Iowa City 250/o N=335 510/o N=678 16% N=213 2% N=33 6% N=80 100% N=1339 Sense of community 22% N=294 48% 11=647 22% N=298 6% N=82 1% N=15 100% N=1335 Overall image or reputation of Iowa City 31% N=413 50% N=672 15% N-203 2% N-33 1% N=16 100% N=1337 Table 33: Question 3 Pease indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Sornewhat unlikely I Very unlikely Dont know Total Recommend living in Iowa City to someone who asks 53% N=703 34% N=458 8% N=101 4% N=51 1% N=16 1009n N=1329 Remain in Iowa City for the next five years 52% N=693 22% N=292 9% N=125 13% N-173 3% N-41 1009n N=1325 Table 39: Question 9 Somewhat I Neither safe ror I Somewhat Dont Pease rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe safe unsafe unsafe Very unsafe Avow Total In your neighborhood during the day 78% N=1036 18% N=238 2% N=31 1% N=15 1% N=] 0% N=2 100% N=1329 In Iowa City's downtown/commercial area during the day 63% N=843 28% N=370 4% N=59 3% N=39 1% N=13 0% N=5 100% N-1329 10 The National Citizen Survey'" Table 40: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Iowa City as a whole: Excellent I Good N=204 Fair N=165 Poor I Don't know 53% Total _ Traffic flow on major streets 8% N=109 45% N=590 34% N=444 12% N=157 1% N=10 100°/% N=1310 Ease of public parking 9% N=113 29% N=378 36% N=469 25% N=322 2% N=24 100°/% N=1306 Ease of travel by car in Iowa City 14% N=178 49% N=642 29% N=378 7% N=92 2% N=24 100°/% N=1312 Ease of travel by public transportation in Iowa City 11% N=139 30% N=389 26% N=343 13% N=175 20% N=265 100°/% N=1311 Ease of travel by bicycle in Iowa City 14% N=187 30% N=396 24% N=318 9% N=120 22% N=283 100°/% N=1305 Ease of walking in Iowa City 33% N=430 49% N=647 15% N=196 2% N=28 1% N=8 100°/% N=1309 Availability of paths and walking trails 27% N=359 45% N=586 19% N=254 4% N=55 4% N=58 100°/% N=1313 Ar quality 39% N=508 49% N=647 8% N=112 1% N=14 3% N=34 100°/% N=1314 Cleanliness of Iowa City 22% N=291 58% N=758 16% N=207 4% N=53 0% N=1 100°/% N=1310 Overall appearance of Iowa City 25% N=322 60% N-777 15% N=189 1% N=17 0% N=0 100°/% N=1306 Public places where people want to spend time 28% N=367 52% N=690 16% N=216 2% N=28 1% N=13 100°/% N=1314 Variety of housing options 11% N=139 29% N=379 34% N=440 23% N=300 4% N=53 100°/% N=1311 Availability of affordable quality housing 5% N=70 17% N=219 28% N=365 43% N=558 7% N=94 100°/% N=1306 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 31% N-410 47% N=618 16% N=208 2% N=27 4% N-48 100°/% N=1311 Recreational opportunities 30% N=391 48% N=625 18% N=232 2% N=28 3% N=34 100°/% N=1311 Availability of affordable quality food 25% N=334 49% N=635 21% N=278 4% N=48 1% N=14 100°/% N=1309 Availability of affordable quality health care 36% N=470 36% N=473 18% N=236 5% N=68 5% N=66 100°/% N=1313 Availability of preventive health services 35% N=453 39% N=512 14% N=181 4% N=58 8% N=107 100% N=1311 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 16% N=209 25% N=324 18% N=233 13% N=175 28% N=370 100% N=1311 Table 41: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Iowa City as a whole: Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool K-12 education Adult educational opportunities Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities Opportunities to participate in religious or Tiritual events and activities Employment opportunities Shopping opportunities Cost of living in Iowa City Overall quality of business and service establishments in Iowa City Vibrant downtown/commercial area Overall quality of new development in Iowa City Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Opportunities to volunteer Opportunities to participate in community matters Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds of residents in Iowa ]% N=84 16% N=204 13% N=165 11% N=143 53% N=681 100% N=1276 23% N=294 30% N=385 7% N=88 1% N=13 39% N=499 100% N=1278 33% N=424 38% N=484 12% N=151 2% N=30 14% N=185 100% N=1274 55% N=708 32% N=409 9% N=112 2% N=25 2% N=23 100% N=1277 33% N=421 33% N=420 6% N=74 1% N=15 27% N=347 100% N=1277 15% N=188 44% N=560 25% N=322 6% N=76 10% N=129 100% N=1276 25% N=316 45% N=573 23% N=300 6% N-77 1% N=12 100% N=1278 5% N=62 27% N=338 42% N=539 25% N=325 1% N=11 100% N=1274 19% N=245 58% N=746 20% N=258 2% N=24 0% N=4 100% N=1278 32% N=407 44% N=563 19% N=244 5% N=58 0% N=6 100% N=12]9 18% N=231 45% N=576 24% N=300 8% N=99 6% N=71 100% N=1277 33% N=422 47% N=600 13% N=164 3% N=43 3% N=41 100% N=12]0 37% N=478 44% N=563 8% N=106 1% N=19 9% N=111 100% N=1277 30% N=376 45% N=574 13% N=162 3% N=40 9% N=119 100% N=1271 28% N=357 40% N=504 20% N=260 9% N=119 3% N=33 100% N=1272 20% N=259 47% N=605 24% N=309 6% N=76 2% N=27 100% N=1277 11 The National Citizen Su"eyTM Table 92: Question 7 Lloase indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Made efforts to con serve water 27% N=346 73% N=923 100% N=1269 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 31% N=390 69% N=87B 100% N=1266 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Iowa City (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 60% N=763 40% N=501 100% N-1269 Household member was a victim of a crime in Iowa City 89% N=1129 11% N=141 100% N=1270 Reacted a crime to the police in Iowa City 80% N=1012 20% N=257 100% N=1269 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 82% N=1032 18% N=231 100% N=1263 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 58% N=]35 42% N=534 100% N=1269 Contacted the City of Iowa City (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 56% N=715 44% N=552 100% N=1266 Contacted Iowa City elected officials (in-person,phone, email or web) to express your opinion 78% N=984 22% N=284 100% N=1268 Table 93: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, I at all, have you or other household 2 times a week or 2-1 times a Once a month or members done each of the following in Iowa City? more month 2 times less Not at all Once Total Used Iowa City recreation centers or their services 15°7% N=182 19°7% N=232 30°7% N=380 36% N=454 100% N=1248 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 24°7% N=306 3607o N=450 32°7% N=404 ]% N=92 1000k N=1253 Used Iowa City public libraries or their services 17°7o N=214 3107o N=386 30°7% N=374 2207o N=271 1000% N=1246 Participated in religious or spiri nal activities in Iowa City 12°7% N=144 1507o N=193 14°7% N=175 5907o N=739 1000% N=1251 Attended a City -sponsored event 407o N=51 1907o N=237 5607o N=697 2107o N=266 1000% N=1252 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 17°7o N=208 9°/o N=119 19°/o N=237 5507o N=691 1000% N=1254 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 16°/o N=201 1807o N=220 18°7% N=228 4807o N=603 1000% N=1252 Walked or biked instead of driving 3907o N=496 17°7o N=213 19°/o N=242 2407o N=305 1000% N=1256 Volu nbeeered you r time to som e g too p/activity in Iowa City 1207o N=154 1907o N=233 2907o N=367 4007o N=499 1000% N=1254 Participated in a dub 11°/o N=142 1407o N=180 18°7% N=220 5707o N=706 1000% N=1248 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 2807o N=356 3207o N=398 22°7% N=272 18% N=231 100% N=1257 Done a favor for a neighbor 11% N=135 200k N=254 400k N=499 290k N=363 1000k N=1250 Table 99, Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or 2 times a week 24 times a Once a month watched a local public meeting? or more month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting - 1% N=16 5% N=61 20% N=245 74% N=911 10016 N=1232 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 2% N=19 6% N-77 20% N=252 72% N=Buil 10016 N=1239 Table 95: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Iowa City: 6 ellent Good Fair Poor Dont knew Total Police/Sheriff services 23% N=280 43% N=513 15% N=175 5% N=64 14% N=172 1000/a N=1205 Fire services 37% N=451 32% N=383 3% N=46 1% N=] 27% N=327 100% N=120] Ambulance or emergency medical services 36% N=433 32% N=382 3% N=34 1% N=11 29% N=349 100% N=1209 Crime prevention 11% N=138 35% N=423 23% N=276 7% N=79 24% N=292 100% N=1209 Fire prevention and education 20% N=247 33% N=397 ]% N=88 2% N=24 37% N=450 100% N=1207 Traffic enforcement 14% N=168 39% N=471 20% N=245 9% N=102 18% N=213 100% N=1199 12 The National Citizen Survey— _Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Iowa City: I_ Excellent I Good I Fair I Poor I Dont know f . Total Street repair 9% N=107 29% N=349 39% N=473 19% N=230 4% N=44 100°/% N=1203 Street cleaning 18% N=211 47% N=569 24% N=284 6% N=76 5% N=61 100°/% N=1201 Street lighting 14% N=168 46% N=554 27% N=327 11% N=129 2% N=22 100% N=1199 Snow removal 16% N=198 39% N=463 25% N=306 11% N=132 9% N=103 100°/% N=1203 Sidewalk maintenance 14% N=167 43% N=519 30% N=355 9% N=112 4% N=47 100°/% N=1201 Traffic signal timing 13% N=161 41% N=491 29% N=347 15% N=176 3% N=31 100°/% N=1205 Bus or transit services 16% N=195 31% N=370 18% N=217 10% N=116 25% N=307 100°/% N=1206 Garbage collection 36% N=437 44% N=536 9% N=113 2% N=21 8% N=101 100°/% N=1208 Recycling 29% N=350 37% N=453 16% N=196 11% N=139 6% N=75 100% N=1212 Yard waste pick-up 29% N=354 32% N=386 9% N=107 2% N=22 28% N=337 100°/% N=1206 Storm drainage 18% N=213 45% N=538 16% N=193 3% N=40 18% N=211 100°/% N=1193 Drinking water 29% N=346 43% N=512 19% N=231 8% N=94 1% N=16 100°/% N=1199 Sewer services 25% N=298 49% N=588 8% N=94 1% N=18 17% N=198 100% N=1195 Power (electric and/or gas)utility 26% N=315 53% N=638 12% N=144 2% N=30 6% N=71 100°/% N=1198 Utility billing 25% N=305 48% N=581 16% N=187 4% N=50 6% N=75 100% N=1197 City parks 41% N=488 47% N=569 7% N=87 1% N=15 4% N=43 100°/% N=1200 Recreation programs or classes 24% N=286 39% N=467 8% N=91 2% N=20 28% N=337 100°/% N=1201 Recreation centers or facilities 21% N=247 43% N=509 11% N=128 3% N=40 22% N=262 100°/% N=1187 Land use, planning and zoning 8% N=101 31% N=374 27% N=317 10% N=118 24% N=284 100°/% N=1195 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 9% N=108 31% N=367 22% N=259 5% N=63 33% N=394 100°/% N=1191 Mimal control 20% N=236 34% N=408 12% N=139 2% N=30 32% N=385 100°/% N=1198 Economic development 13% N=160 40% N=483 21% N=249 7% N=81 19% N=221 100% N=1194 Health services 34% N=413 40% N=485 12% N=140 2% N=19 12% N=142 100°/% N=1198 Public library services 59% N=713 26% N=311 4% N=43 0% N=6 11% N=133 100°/% N=1206 Public information services 22% N=267 39% N=465 11% N=134 2% N=20 26% N=305 100°/% N=1192 Cab le television 8% N=92 19% N=229 20% N=242 18% N=210 35% N=421 100°/% N=1193 Emergency preparedness (services th at prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 12% N=140 33% N=400 15% N=180 3% N=40 36% N=436 100°/% N=1197 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 17% N=201 35% N=428 23% N=280 9% N=111 15% N=184 100°/% N=1204 Iowa City open space 18% N=223 40% N=486 24% N=287 5% N=64 12% N=146 100°/% N=1204 Citysponsoredspecial events 27% N=316 41% N=485 13% N=155 2% N=26 16% N=193 100°/% N=1176 Overall customer service by Iowa City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 22% N=266 45% N=533 15% N=175 3% N=34 15% N=174 100% N=1182 City website experience(www.icgov.org) 14% N=167 39% N=471 19% N=221 8% N=94 20% N=242 100% N=1196 Table 46: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Iowa City 22% N=273 57% N=695 14% N=174 2% N=29 3% N=42 100% N=1213 The Federal Government 7% N=80 25% N=309 38% N=466 18% N=220 11% N=139 100% N=1214 13 The National Citizen Survey— Table 47: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Iowa City government performance: I Excellent I Good Fair Poor I Don't know I Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Iowa City 11% N=123 43% N=502 26% N=305 8% N=95 12% N=141 100% N=1166 The overall direction that Iowa City is taking 14% N=170 43% N=509 25% N=288 9% N=111 8% N=93 100% N=1170 The job Iowa City government does at welcoming citizen involvement 16% N=182 38% N=449 23% N=274 7% N=84 15% N=180 100°/% N=1168 Overall confidence in Iowa City government 12% N=138 43% N=500 27% N=312 10% N=114 9% N=102 100°/% N=1167 Generally acting in the best interest ofthe community 14% N=162 43% N=506 25% N=288 9% N=110 9% N=101 100°/% N=1168 Being honest 13% N=154 42% N=494 21% N=248 8% N=88 16% N=182 100% N=1166 Treating all residents fairly 13% N=148 36% N=425 25% N=293 13% N=149 13% N=153 100% N=1169 Table 40, Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Iowa City community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Overall feeling of safety in Iowa City Overall ease of getting be the places you usually have to visit Quality of overall natural environment in Iowa City Overall "built environment" of Iowa City (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) Health and wellness opportunities in Iowa City VerySomewhat Not at all Essental important important important Total 54% N=639 32% N=374 11% N=132 3% N=30 100% N=1175 33% N=391 46% N=536 18% N=210 3% N=36 100% N=1173 38% N=441 43% N=502 17% N=198 2% N=27 100% 11=1168 35% N=409 42% N=487 20% N=239 30% N=35 100% N=1171 350% N-405 390% N-458 22% N=254 50% N=54 100% N=1171 Overall opporn in ifor education and enrichment 40% N=465 38% N=443 20°/o N=236 3% N=29 100% N=1173 Overall economic health of Iowa City 43% N=510 43% N=502 12% N=142 20/o N=20 100% N=1175 Sense of community 33% N=383 41% N=477 230k N=272 40k N=43 188% N=1174 Table 49: Question 14 LIn the last 12 ononths, how many times, if at all, have you attended a live performing arts event in Iowa City? Percent I Number Not at all 17% N=198 1 or 2 times 3-5 times 5-10 times More than 10 times Total 15% N=179 100% N-1171 Table 50: Question 15 Pease indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the Somewhat Somewhat Strongly following statements: Stonglyagree agree disagree dsagree Don't know Total I trust my neighbors and can rely on them to help me if needed 34% N=397 43% N=514 1016 N=122 5% N=64 7% N=85 101 N=1182 I like to be helpful to my neighbors 5016 N=593 3916 N=462 5% N=58 1% N-13 5% N-56 100% N=1181 I feel like I belong in my neiahborhood 3946 N=457 42% N=500 11% N=126 4% N=46 4% N-51 100% N=1180 14 The National Citizen Survey— Table 51: Question 16 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you would be to recommend living in Iowa City to other people your age: I Percent I Number Very likely 52% N=613 Somewhat likely 34% N-398 Somewhat unlikely 8% IN –go Very unlikely ..Don't _ 5% N=64 know ..Total_ 1% ....100°/% N.-11 56% N=648 N-1182 Table 52: Question 17 How much of a source, if at all, do you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about Iowa City Never I Rarely I Sometimes Usually Nways j Total government news, meetings, events, and alerts? _ Major source Minor source Not a source . Total N=229 City website (www.icgov.org) 56% N=648 30% N-47 140% N=168 1000% N=1163 City Facebook page 260% N=301 360% N=418 370% N=430 1000% N=1148 City Twitter feed 9°/a N=98 300% N-37 620% N–]0] 1000% N=1142 Neztdoor 150% N=170 240% N=276 610% N=698 1000% N=1144 City posts on Linkedln 30% N-4 120% N=138 850% N=971 1000% N=1143 City Instagram feed 60% N-73 18°/o N=210 ]5°/o N=864 100°°/o N=1147 City youTube channel 60% N=67 22°/o N=248 ]3°/o N=829 100°°/o N=1143 E -subscriptions (email notifications) 29°/o N=328 29°/o N=329 43°/o N=488 100°°/o N=1146 Local newspapers (Iowa City Pres Citizen, The Gazette) 51°/o N=598 34°/o N=391 15°/o N=173 100°°/o N=1162 City Council meetings and/or other public meetings 19°/o N=222 40°/o N=466 400k N=467 100°/o N=1154 Talking with City officials 15°/o N=169 34% N=391 51% N=589 100°/o N=1148 Word-of-mouth 37% N=428 46°/a N=525 ll% N=200 100°°/a N=1153 Table 53: Question D1 How often, I at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times I you cord? Never I Rarely I Sometimes Usually Nways j Total Recycle at home 9% N=100 6% N=72 9% N=103 20!b N=229 57% N-663 100% N=1167 Purchase good s or services from a bu siness located in Iowa City 1°/o N=9 1% N=16 17% N=198 51% N=601 30% N-47 100% N=1170 Eat at least 5 portion s of fruits an d veg cradles a d ay 40% N=46 15% N=181 37% N=437 30% N=349 13% N=158 100°/% N=1170 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 3% N-0 12% N=140 32% N-73 33% N=382 20% N=236 100% N=1161 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc) 8% N=92 17% N=195 21% N=250 26% N=300 29% N=335 100% N=1171 Vote in local elections 12% N=141 ]% N=79 12% N=142 30% N=345 40% N=461 100% N=1167 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 19%N=227 Very good _ 46%..... N=539 Good 29%..... N=340 Fair ..Poor 5%..... N 61 ..Total 1%..... N-9 _.. 100%.... N=1175 15 The National Citizen Survey'" Table 55: Question D3 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the reit 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: I Percent I Number Very positive 6% N=66 Somewhat positive 18% N=215 Neutral 54% N -W1..... Somewhat negative 18% N=210 Very negative 4% N. 49 Total 100% N-11]1..... Table 56: Ouestion D4 What is your employment status? I Percent Number Working full time for pay _ 61% N=713 Working part time for pay 20% N=237 Unemployed, looking for paid work 2% N=29 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 5% N=54 Fully retired 12% N=138 Total 1009b N=1172 Table 57: Question D5 you work inside the boundaries of Iowa City? Yes, outside the home Yes, from home No Total Table 58: Ouestion D6 Percent Number 61% N=]05 1004b N=1146 How many years have you lived in Iowa City? Percent Number Less than 2years 18% N=211 2 to 5 years 25% N-290 6 to 10 Years 16% N-184 11 to 20 years 13% N=156 More than 20 years 29% N-335 Total 100% N-1176 Table 59: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? I Percent I Number One family house detached from any other houses 46% _ 14=538 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 51% _ N=598 Mobile home 1% N=11 Other 2%N=29 Total 100%..... N=1176 16 The National Citizen Survey'" Table 60: Question D8 Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 51% N=602 Owned 4916 N-568 ..Total 10016 N=1170 Table 61: Question D9 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the plane you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and hcon o nerA association Percent Number (HOA)fees)? Pe¢ent Number Less than $300 per month ..$300 3% N=39 to $599 per month 13% N=148 $600 to $999 per month 35% N=481 $1,000 To $1,499 per month 30% N=354 $1,500 To $2,499 per month 16% N=183 $2,500 or more per month 3% N=37 Total 100% N=1163 Table 62: Question D10 Oo any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 78% N=909 ..Yes 22% N=262..... Table 63: Ouestion D11 I Are you or any other mem hers of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 84% N=99 Yes 16% N=192. Total 10046 N=11]2 Table 69: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's beta income before taxes will be for the mrrent year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all I persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than$25,000 21% N=242 $25,000 to $49,999 26% N=304 $50,000 to $99,999 30% N=343 $ 100,008 to $149,999 13% N=155 $150,000 or more 9% N=106 Total 180% N=1150 Table Are yo No, in, Yes, I 17 The National Citizen Survey— Table 66, Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what races) you consider yourself to be.) I Percent I Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% N=8 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific [dander 4% N-49 Black or African American_ _ 4 % N.-48 White 91% N=10% Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 16% N=189 25 to 34 years 36% _14% _.. N-419 35 to 94 years 8% _.. N 161 45 to 54 years 11% N 129 55 to 64 years _ 10% N-117 65 to 74 years 9 % N-9 75 years or older 4h N 49 Total 100% N-1169 Table 68: Question D16 LWhat is your sex? Percent Number Female 51% N=597 Male 4T% N—%3 ..Total_ 100% N -11W Table 69: Question D17 Lyou consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 85% N=996 Land line 7 hN _.. 8 Both 8% _.. N_89 Total 100% N=1171 _ Table 70: Question D18 Are you currently a student at a university, college, or community college? Percent Number yes 23% N=271 No77% ..Total N=900 ..... 100% N=1171 18 The National Citizen SurveyTM Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons Comparison Data NRC's database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 500 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The National Citizen Survey''". The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. The City of Iowa City chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. Interpreting the Results Ratings are compared when there are at least five communities in which a similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, four columns are provided in the table. The first column is Iowa City's "percent positive." The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., "excellent" and "good," `very safe' and "somewhat safe," etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating "yes" or participating in an activity at least once a month. The second column is the rank assigned to Iowa City's rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of Iowa City's rating to the benchmark. Benchmark Database Characteristics Region Percent New England 3% Middle Atlantic 5% East North Central 15% West North Central 13% South Atlantic 22% East South Central 3% West South Central 7% Mountain 16% Pacific 16% Population Percent Less than 10,000 10% 10,000 to 24,999 22% 25,000 to 49,999 23% In that final column, Iowa City's results are noted as being "higher" than the 50,000 to 99,999 22% benchmark, "lower" than the benchmark or "similar" to the benchmark, 100,000 or more 23% meaning that the average rating given by Iowa City residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme differences are noted as "much higher" or "much lower." 19 The National Citizen SurveyTM National Benchmark Comparisons Table 71: Communitv Characteristics General Table 72: Communitv Characteristics by Facet Percent positive I Rank I Number of communities in comparison I Comparison to benchmark The overall quality of life in Iowa City 88% 157 454 Similar Overall image or reputation of Iowa City 82% 113 345 Similar Iowa City as a place to live 90% 163 390 Similar Your neighborhood as a place to live 80% 160 310 Similar Iowa City as a place to raise children 85% 145 381 Similar Iowa City as a place to retire 71% 115 356 Similar Overall appearance of Iowa City 84% 120 357 Similar Table 72: Communitv Characteristics by Facet 20 Overall feeling of safety in Iowa City 76% Number of 331 Similar Percent In your neighborhood during the day communities in Comparison to 353 positive Rank comparison benchmark 20 Overall feeling of safety in Iowa City 76% 223 331 Similar In your neighborhood during the day 96% 114 353 Similar In Iowa City's downtown/commercial area during the Safety day 92% 151 310 Similar Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 75% 126 239 Similar Availability of paths and walking trails 75% 93 310 Similar Ease of walking in Iowa City 83% 48 298 Higher Ease of travel by bicycle in Iowa City 57% 109 301 Similar Ease of travel by public transportation in Iowa City 50% 49 202 Similar Ease of travel by car in Iowa City 64% 169 301 Similar Ease of public parking 38% 156 200 Similar Mobility Traffic flow on major streets 54% 129 342 Similar Quality of overall natural environment in Iowa City 80% 129 274 Similar Natural Cleanliness of Iowa City 80% 143 281 Similar Environment Air quality 90% 46 240 Similar Overall "built environment" of Iowa City (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 63% 104 228 Similar Overall quality of new development in Iowa City 67% 59 285 Similar Availability of affordable quality housing 24% 256 300 Lower Built Variety of housing options 41% 222 276 Similar Environment Public places where people want to spend time 81% 46 220 Similar Overall economic health of Iowa City 80% 53 234 Higher Vibrant downtown/commercial area 76% 29 211 Higher Overall quality of business and service establishments in Iowa City 78% 45 268 Similar Cost of living in Iowa City 32% 178 231 Similar Shopping opportunities 70% 81 291 Higher Employment opportunities 65% 24 309 Higher Iowa City as a place to visit 71% 98 248 Similar Economy Iowa City as a place to work 80% 55 357 Higher Health and wellness opportunities in Iowa City 86% 21 229 Higher Availability of affordable quality mental health care 57% 49 200 Similar Availability of preventive health services 80% 14 230 Higher Availability of affordable quality health care 76% 23 256 Higher Availability of affordable quality food 75% 52 233 Similar Recreational opportunities 80% 64 296 Similar Recreation Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and and Wellness paths or trails, etc.) 81% 48 219 Similar 20 The National Citizen SurveyTM er Table 73: Governance General Percent 458 Number of communities in Number of Fire prevention and education positive Rank Percent benchmark communities in Comparison to 133 431 positive Rank J com rison 1 benchmark 282 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 92% 5 230 Much higher Similar Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual 61% 118 400 Similar Overall direction that Iowa City is taking events and activities 90% 7 198 Higher 88% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 89% 5 295 Much higher 55 Adult educational opportunities 83% 5 206 Higher Education and K-12 education 87% 71 266 Higher Enrichment Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 48% 166 246 Similar Treating all residents fairly Opportunities to participate in social events and 122 230 Similar Services provided by the Federal Government 36% activities 83% 16 257 Higher Neighborliness of Iowa City 69% 71 223 Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 69% 48 289 Similar Community Opportunities to participate in community matters 82% 9 269 Higher Engagement Opportunities to volunteer 89% 8 261 Higher Table 73: Governance General Table 74: Governance by Facet Percent 458 Number of communities in Comparison to Fire prevention and education positive Rank comparison I benchmark Services provided by the City of Iowa City 83% 133 431 Similar Overall customer service by Iowa City employees (police, 85% Street repair 282 Street cleaning receptionists, planners, etc.) 79% 140 375 Similar Value of services for the taxes paid to Iowa City 61% 118 400 Similar Overall direction that Iowa City is taking 63% 130 315 Similar Job Iowa City government does at welcoming citizen 88% 96 359 Similar involvement 64% 55 315 Similar Overall confidence in Iowa City government 60% 86 232 Similar Generally acting in the best interest of the community 63% 79 232 Similar Being honest 66% 76 225 Similar Treating all residents fairly 56% 122 230 Similar Services provided by the Federal Government 36% 135 245 Similar Table 74: Governance by Facet Police/Sheriff services Fire services Ambulance or emergency medical services 458 Number of 95% Fire prevention and education Percent Animal control communities in I Comparison to 351 positive Rank comparison benchmark Police/Sheriff services Fire services 21 77% Ambulance or emergency medical services 458 Crime prevention 95% Fire prevention and education 382 Animal control 95% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare 351 the community for natural disasters or other Safety emergency situations) 356 Traffic enforcement 85% Street repair 282 Street cleaning 79% Street lighting 339 Snow removal 59% Sidewalk maintenance 320 Traffic signal timing Mobility Bus or transit services 258 Garbage collection Natural Recycling Environment Yard waste Dick-uD 21 77% 294 458 Similar 95% 117 382 Similar 95% 95 351 Similar 61% 239 356 Similar 85% 98 282 Similar 79% 20 339 Higher 71% 91 273 Similar 65% 188 371 Similar 39% 251 394 Similar 68% 127 320 Similar 61% 165 325 Similar 60% 175 294 Similar 59% 121 320 Similar 55% 91 258 Similar 63% 55 223 Similar 88% 96 359 Similar 71% 265 360 Similar 85% 41 274 Similar The National Citizen SurveyTM 22 JI PercentJII positive Rank Number of 111 communities in JII comparison I Comparison to benchmark positive Drinking water 73% 135 321 Similar 100 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, Similar Recommend living in Iowa City to someone who asks 88% 141 282 farmlands and greenbelts 62% 107 253 Similar Similar Iowa City open space 67% 63 209 Similar for help or information Storm drainage 76% 68 351 Similar Sewer services 89% 51 323 Similar Power (electric and/or gas) utility 85% 47 173 Similar Utility billing 79% 33 202 Similar Mobility Land use, planning and zoning 52% 112 302 Similar Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, 73% 193 209 Similar Built etc.) 60% 99 386 Similar Environment Cable television 42% 162 199 Similar Economy Economic development 66% 65 282 Similar City parks 91% 70 326 Similar Recreation programs or classes 87% 37 322 Higher Recreation and Recreation centers or facilities 82% 70 273 Similar Wellness Health services 85% 7 210 Higher Education and City -sponsored special events 82% 25 250 Higher Enrichment Public library services 95% 5 341 Higher Community Engagement Public information services 83% 18 280 Higher Table 75: Participation General 22 Percent I I Number of communities in Comparison to positive Rank comparison benchmark Sense of community 71% 100 310 Similar Recommend living in Iowa City to someone who asks 88% 141 282 Similar Remain in Iowa City for the next five years 77% 230 273 Similar Contacted Iowa City (in-person, phone, email or web) 89% 144 270 Similar for help or information 44% 174 314 Similar transportation instead of driving 45% 37 Table 76: Participation by Facet Higher Carpooled with other adults or children instead 22 Stocked supplies in preparation for an Number of Percent emergency communities in Comparison to 202 positive Rank comparison benchmark 22 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 18% 193 202 Lower Did NOT report a crime to the police 80% 115 225 Similar Household member was NOT a victim of a Safety crime 89% 144 270 Similar Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 45% 37 183 Higher Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 52% 34 213 Similar Mobility Walked or biked instead of driving 76% 31 221 Higher Made efforts to conserve water 73% 193 209 Similar Made efforts to make your home more energy Natural efficient 69% 190 209 Similar Environment Recycle at home 85% 165 254 Similar Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Iowa City 60% 77 215 Similar Built Environment NOT experiencing housing costs stress 66% 166 251 Similar Purchase goods or services from a business located in Iowa City 98% 71 219 Similar Economy Economy will have positive impact on income 24% 200 252 Similar 22 The National Citizen SurveyTM Communities included in national comparisons The communities included in Iowa Citys comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their population according to the 2010 Census. Adams County, CO..................................................441,603 6,658 Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Albemarle County, VA ............................................... Work inside boundaries of Iowa City 70% 15 220 Much higher Algonquin village, IL ................................................. Used Iowa City recreation centers or their Aliso Viejo city, CA ................................................... 47,823 Altoona city, IA ........................................................ 14,541 American Canyon city, CA ......................................... services 64% 53 231 Similar Ankeny city, IA ........................................................ Visited a neighborhood park or City park 93% 21 265 Similar Apache Junction city, AZ ........................................... Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables Arapahoe County, CO..............................................572,003 71,802 Arkansas City city, AR....................................................366 Arlington city, TX....................................................365,438 a day 81% 145 211 Similar Ashland city, OR ...................................................... Participate in moderate or vigorous physical Ashland town, MA .................................................... 16,593 Ashland town, VA.......................................................7,225 33,217 Recreation and activity 85% 107 215 Similar Wellness In very good to excellent health 65% 96 215 Similar Used Iowa City public libraries or their services 78% 16 240 Higher Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Education and Iowa City 41% 127 195 Similar Enrichment Attended City -sponsored event 79% 9 221 Much higher Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 42% 11 202 Higher Contacted Iowa City elected officials (in- person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 22% 46 218 Similar Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Iowa City 60% 17 260 Much higher Participated in a club 43% 12 234 Higher Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 82% 209 216 Similar Done a favor for a neighbor 71% 202 211 Lower Attended a local public meeting 26% 63 259 Similar Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 28% 71 223 Similar Read or watch local news (via television, Community paper, computer, etc.) 76% 209 220 Similar Enaaaement Vote in local elections 81% 161 253 Similar Communities included in national comparisons The communities included in Iowa Citys comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their population according to the 2010 Census. Adams County, CO..................................................441,603 6,658 Airway Heights city, WA ............................................. 6,114 Albany city, OR ........................................................ 50,158 Albemarle County, VA ............................................... 98,970 Albert Lea city, MN ................................................... 18,016 Alexandria city, VA..................................................139,966 Algonquin village, IL ................................................. 30,046 Aliso Viejo city, CA ................................................... 47,823 Altoona city, IA ........................................................ 14,541 American Canyon city, CA ......................................... 19,454 Ames city, IA ........................................................... 58,965 Andover CDP, MA.......................................................8,762 Ankeny city, IA ........................................................ 45,582 Ann Arbor city, MI...................................................113,934 52,347 Annapolis city, MD ................................................... 38,394 Apache Junction city, AZ ........................................... 35,840 Arapahoe County, CO..............................................572,003 71,802 Arkansas City city, AR....................................................366 Arlington city, TX....................................................365,438 13,320 Arvada city, CO .......................................................106,433 Asheville city, NC ..................................................... 83,393 Ashland city, OR ...................................................... 20,078 Ashland town, MA .................................................... 16,593 Ashland town, VA.......................................................7,225 33,217 23 Aspen city, CO ........................................................... 6,658 Athens -Clarke County, GA .......................................115,452 Auburn city, AL ........................................................ 53,380 Augusta CCD, GA....................................................134,777 Aurora city, CO .......................................................325,078 Austin city, TX........................................................790,390 Avon town, CO .......................................................... 6,447 Avon town, IN ......................................................... 12,446 Avondale city, AZ ..................................................... 76,238 Azusa city, CA .......................................................... 46,361 Bainbridge Island city, WA ........................................ 23,025 Baltimore city, MD...................................................620,961 Bartonville town, TX ................................................... 1,469 Battle Creek city, MI ................................................. 52,347 Bay City city, MI ....................................................... 34,932 Bay Village city, OH .................................................. 15,651 Baytown city, TX ...................................................... 71,802 Bedford city, TX .......................................................46,979 Bedford town, MA .................................................... 13,320 Bellevue city, WA....................................................122,363 Bellingham city, WA ................................................. 80,885 Benbrook city, TX ..................................................... 21,234 Bend city, OR ........................................................... 76,639 Bettendorf city, IA .................................................... 33,217 The National Citizen SurveyTM Billings city, MT .......................................................104,170 Columbia city, MO ................................................... 108,500 Blaine city, MN ......................................................... 57,186 Columbia city, SC .................................................... 129,272 Bloomfield Hills city, MI..............................................3,869 Columbia Falls city, MT ............................................... 4,688 Bloomington city, IN ................................................ 80,405 Commerce City city, CO ............................................ 45,913 Bloomington city, MN ............................................... 82,893 Concord city, CA ..................................................... 122,067 Blue Springs city, MO ............................................... 52,575 Concord town, MA .................................................... 17,668 Boise City city, ID ...................................................205,671 Conshohocken borough, PA ........................................ 7,833 Bonner Springs city, KS..............................................7,314 Coon Rapids city, MN ............................................... 61,476 Boone County, KY...................................................118,811 Copperas Cove city, TX ............................................. 32,032 Boulder city, CO ....................................................... 97,385 Coral Springs city, FL ............................................... 121,096 Bowling Green city, KY ............................................. 58,067 Coronado city, CA .................................................... 18,912 Bozeman city, MT .................................................... 37,280 Corvallis city, OR ...................................................... 54,462 Brentwood city, MO .................................................... 8,055 Cottonwood Heights city, UT .................................... 33,433 Brentwood city, TN .................................................. 37,060 Creve Coeur city, MO ............................................... 17,833 Brighton city, CO ...................................................... 33,352 Cross Roads town, TX ................................................ 1,563 Brighton city, MI ........................................................ 7,444 Dacono city, CO ......................................................... 4,152 Bristol city, TN ......................................................... 26,702 Dade City city, FL....................................................... 6,437 Broken Arrow city, OK .............................................. 98,850 Dakota County, MN ................................................. 398,552 Brookfield city, WI ................................................... 37,920 Dallas city, OR ......................................................... 14,583 Brookline CDP, MA ................................................... 58,732 Dallas city, TX ...................................................... 1,197,816 Brooklyn Center city, MN .......................................... 30,104 Danville city, KY ....................................................... 16,218 Brooklyn city, OH ..................................................... 11,169 Dardenne Prairie city, MO ......................................... 11,494 Broomfield city, CO .................................................. 55,889 Darien city, IL.......................................................... 22,086 Brownsburg town, IN ............................................... 21,285 Davenport city, FL...................................................... 2,888 Buffalo Grove village, IL ........................................... 41,496 Davenport city, IA .................................................... 99,685 Burien city, WA ........................................................ 33,313 Davidson town, NC ................................................... 10,944 Burleson city, TX ...................................................... 36,690 Dayton city, OH ......................................................141,527 Burlingame city, CA .................................................. 28,806 Dayton town, WY .......................................................... 757 Cabarrus County, NC...............................................178,011 Decatur city, GA ....................................................... 19,335 Cambridge city, MA.................................................105,162 Del Mar city, CA ......................................................... 4,161 Cannon Beach city, OR ............................................... 1,690 DeLand city, FL........................................................ 27,031 Ca"non City city, CO .................................................. 16,400 Delaware city, OH .................................................... 34,753 Canton city, SD..........................................................3,057 Delray Beach city, FL................................................ 60,522 Cape Coral city, FL..................................................154,305 Denison city, TX ....................................................... 22,682 Cape Girardeau city, MO ........................................... 37,941 Denton city, TX ....................................................... 113,383 Carlisle borough, PA ................................................. 18,682 Denver city, CO ....................................................... 600,158 Carlsbad city, CA.....................................................105,328 Derby city, KS .......................................................... 22,158 Carroll city, IA .......................................................... 10,103 Des Moines city, IA ................................................. 203,433 Cartersville city, GA .................................................. 19,731 Des Peres city, MO ..................................................... 8,373 Cary town, NC........................................................135,234 Destin city, FL.......................................................... 12,305 Castine town, ME ....................................................... 1,366 Dothan city, AL........................................................ 65,496 Castle Pines North city, CO ....................................... 10,360 Douglas County, CO ................................................ 285,465 Castle Rock town, CO ............................................... 48,231 Dover city, NH ......................................................... 29,987 Cedar Hill city, TX .................................................... 45,028 Dublin city, CA ......................................................... 46,036 Cedar Rapids city, IA...............................................126,326 Dublin city, OH ........................................................ 41,751 Celina city, TX............................................................ 6,028 Duluth city, MN ........................................................ 86,265 Centennial city, CO..................................................100,377 Durham city, NC .....................................................228,330 Chandler city, AZ ....................................................236,123 Durham County, NC ................................................ 267,587 Chandler city, TX ....................................................... 2,734 Eagan city, MN ........................................................ 64,206 Chanhassen city, MN ................................................ 22,952 Eagle Mountain city, UT ............................................ 21,415 Chapel Hill town, NC ................................................ 57,233 Eagle town, CO .......................................................... 6,508 Chardon city, OH .......................................................5,148 East Grand Forks city, MN .......................................... 8,601 Charles County, MD ................................................146,551 East Lansing city, MI................................................ 48,579 Charlotte city, NC....................................................731,424 Eau Claire city, WI ................................................... 65,883 Charlotte County, FL ...............................................159,978 Eden Prairie city, MN ................................................ 60,797 Charlottesville city, VA .............................................. 43,475 Edgerton city, KS ....................................................... 1,671 Chattanooga city, TN...............................................167,674 Edgewater city, CO .................................................... 5,170 Chautauqua town, NY ................................................ 4,464 Edina city, MN ......................................................... 47,941 Chesterfield County, VA...........................................316,236 Edmond city, OK ...................................................... 81,405 Citrus Heights city, CA .............................................. 83,301 Edmonds city, WA .................................................... 39,709 Clackamas County, OR............................................375,992 EI Cerrito city, CA ..................................................... 23,549 Clarendon Hills village, I L ...........................................8,427 EI Dorado County, CA .............................................. 181,058 Clayton city, MO ...................................................... 15,939 EI Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) city, CA ................... 29,793 Clearwater city, FL ..................................................107,685 Elk Grove city, CA ...................................................153,015 Cleveland Heights city, OH ....................................... 46,121 Elko New Market city, MN ........................................... 4,110 Clinton city, SC .......................................................... 8,490 Elmhurst city, IL....................................................... 44,121 Clive city, IA............................................................ 15,447 Encinitas city, CA ..................................................... 59,518 Clovis city, CA .......................................................... 95,631 Englewood city, CO .................................................. 30,255 College Park city, MD ............................................... 30,413 Erie town, CO .......................................................... 18,135 College Station city, TX ............................................ 93,857 Escambia County, FL ............................................... 297,619 24 The National Citizen SurveyTM Estes Park town, CO ................................................... 5,858 Huntley village, IL.................................................... 24,291 Euclid city, OH ......................................................... 48,920 Hurst city, TX ........................................................... 37,337 Fairview town, TX ...................................................... 7,248 Hutchinson city, MN ................................................. 14,178 Farmersville city, TX ................................................... 3,301 Hutto city, TX .......................................................... 14,698 Farmington Hills city, MI ........................................... 79,740 Independence city, MO ............................................ 116,830 Fayetteville city, NC.................................................200,564 Indianola city, IA ..................................................... 14,782 Fernandina Beach city, FL ......................................... 11,487 Indio city, CA ........................................................... 76,036 Fishers town, IN ...................................................... 76,794 Iowa City city, IA ..................................................... 67,862 Flagstaff city, AZ ...................................................... 65,870 Irving city, TX ......................................................... 216,290 Flower Mound town, TX ............................................ 64,669 Issaquah city, WA .................................................... 30,434 Forest Grove city, OR ............................................... 21,083 Jackson County, MI ................................................. 160,248 Fort Collins city, CO.................................................143,986 James City County, VA ............................................. 67,009 Fort Lauderdale city, FL...........................................165,521 Jefferson County, NY ............................................... 116,229 Fort Smith city, AR ................................................... 86,209 Jefferson Parish, LA ................................................432,552 Franklin city, TN ....................................................... 62,487 Johnson City city, TN ................................................ 63,152 Fremont city, CA.....................................................214,089 Johnston city, IA ...................................................... 17,278 Friendswood city, TX ................................................ 35,805 Jupiter town, FL....................................................... 55,156 Fruita city, CO .......................................................... 12,646 Kalamazoo city, MI................................................... 74,262 Gahanna city, OH ..................................................... 33,248 Kansas City city, KS ................................................. 145,786 Gaithersburg city, MD ............................................... 59,933 Kansas City city, MO ................................................ 459,787 Galveston city, TX .................................................... 47,743 Keizer city, OR ......................................................... 36,478 Gardner city, KS ....................................................... 19,123 Kenmore city, WA .................................................... 20,460 Georgetown city, TX ................................................. 47,400 Kennedale city, TX ..................................................... 6,763 Germantown city, TN ............................................... 38,844 Kennett Square borough, PA ....................................... 6,072 Gilbert town, AZ ......................................................208,453 Kent city, WA ........................................................... 92,411 Gillette city, WY ....................................................... 29,087 Kerrville city, TX ....................................................... 22,347 Glen Ellyn village, IL ................................................. 27,450 Kettering city, OH .................................................... 56,163 Glendora city, CA ..................................................... 50,073 Key West city, FL..................................................... 24,649 Glenview village, IL .................................................. 44,692 King City city, CA ..................................................... 12,874 Globe city, AZ............................................................ 7,532 King County, WA .................................................. 1,931,249 Golden city, CO ........................................................ 18,867 Kirkland city, WA ...................................................... 48,787 Golden Valley city, MN .............................................. 20,371 Kirkwood city, MO .................................................... 27,540 Goodyear city, AZ .................................................... 65,275 Knoxville city, IA ........................................................ 7,313 Grafton village, WI ................................................... 11,459 La Plata town, MD ...................................................... 8,753 Grand Blanc city, MI ................................................... 8,276 La Porte city, TX ...................................................... 33,800 Grants Pass city, OR ................................................. 34,533 La Vista city, NE ....................................................... 15,758 Grass Valley city, CA ................................................ 12,860 Lafayette city, CO .................................................... 24,453 Greeley city, CO ....................................................... 92,889 Laguna Beach city, CA .............................................. 22,723 Greenville city, NC .................................................... 84,554 Laguna Niguel city, CA ............................................. 62,979 Greenwich town, CT ................................................. 61,171 Lake Forest city, IL .................................................. 19,375 Greenwood Village city, CO ....................................... 13,925 Lake in the Hills village, IL........................................ 28,965 Greer city, SC .......................................................... 25,515 Lake Stevens city, WA .............................................. 28,069 Gunnison County, CO ............................................... 15,324 Lake Worth city, FL.................................................. 34,910 Hailey city, ID............................................................ 7,960 Lake Zurich village, IL.............................................. 19,631 Haines Borough, AK ................................................... 2,508 Lakeville city, MN ..................................................... 55,954 Haltom City city, TX ................................................. 42,409 Lakewood city, CO .................................................. 142,980 Hamilton city, OH ..................................................... 62,477 Lakewood city, WA ................................................... 58,163 Hamilton town, MA .................................................... 7,764 Lane County, OR ..................................................... 351,715 Hanover County, VA ................................................. 99,863 Lansing city, MI ......................................................114,297 Harrisburg city, SD.....................................................4,089 Laramie city, WY ...................................................... 30,816 Harrisonburg city, VA ............................................... 48,914 Larimer County, CO ................................................. 299,630 Harrisonville city, MO ............................................... 10,019 Las Cruces city, NM .................................................. 97,618 Hastings city, MN ..................................................... 22,172 Las Vegas city, NM ................................................... 13,753 Hayward city, CA ....................................................144,186 Las Vegas city, NV ..................................................583,756 Henderson city, NV .................................................257,729 Lawrence city, KS ..................................................... 87,643 Herndon town, VA .................................................... 23,292 Lawrenceville city, GA .............................................. 28,546 High Point city, NC..................................................104,371 Lees Summit city, MO .............................................. 91,364 Highland Park city, IL ............................................... 29,763 Lehi city, UT ............................................................ 47,407 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO ........................................ 96,713 Lenexa city, KS ........................................................ 48,190 Holland city, MI ........................................................ 33,051 Lewis County, NY ..................................................... 27,087 Homer Glen village, IL .............................................. 24,220 Lewiston city, ID ...................................................... 31,894 Honolulu County, HI................................................953,207 Lewisville city, TX ..................................................... 95,290 Hooksett town, NH ................................................... 13,451 Lewisville town, NC .................................................. 12,639 Hopkins city, MN ...................................................... 17,591 Libertyville village, IL................................................ 20,315 Hopkinton town, MA ................................................. 14,925 Lincoln city, NE ....................................................... 258,379 Hoquiam city, WA......................................................8,726 Lincolnwood village, IL ............................................. 12,590 Horry County, SC....................................................269,291 Lindsborg city, KS ...................................................... 3,458 Howard village, WI ................................................... 17,399 Little Chute village, WI............................................. 10,449 Hudson city, OH ....................................................... 22,262 Littleton city, CO ...................................................... 41,737 Hudson town, CO ....................................................... 2,356 Livermore city, CA .................................................... 80,968 25 The National Citizen SurveyTM Lombard village, IL..................................................43,165 New Ulm city, MN .................................................... 13,522 Lone Tree city, CO ................................................... 10,218 Newberg city, OR ..................................................... 22,068 Long Grove village, IL ................................................ 8,043 Newport city, RI....................................................... 24,672 Longmont city, CO ................................................... 86,270 Newport News city, VA ............................................ 180,719 Longview city, TX ..................................................... 80,455 Newton city, IA ........................................................ 15,254 Lonsdale city, MN.......................................................3,674 Noblesville city, IN ................................................... 51,969 Los Alamos County, NM ............................................ 17,950 Nogales city, AZ ....................................................... 20,837 Los Altos Hills town, CA..............................................7,922 Norcross city, GA ....................................................... 9,116 Louisville city, CO ..................................................... 18,376 Norfolk city, VA ....................................................... 242,803 Lower Merion township, PA ...................................... 57,825 North Mankato city, MN ............................................ 13,394 Lynchburg city, VA ................................................... 75,568 North Port city, FL.................................................... 57,357 Lynnwood city, WA .................................................. 35,836 North Richland Hills city, TX ...................................... 63,343 Macomb County, MI................................................840,978 North Yarmouth town, ME .......................................... 3,565 Manassas city, VA .................................................... 37,821 Novato city, CA ........................................................ 51,904 Manhattan Beach city, CA ......................................... 35,135 Novi city, MI............................................................ 55,224 Manhattan city, KS ................................................... 52,281 O'Fallon city, IL........................................................ 28,281 Mankato city, MN ..................................................... 39,309 O'Fallon city, MO ...................................................... 79,329 Maple Grove city, MN ............................................... 61,567 Oak Park village, IL.................................................. 51,878 Maricopa County, AZ............................................3,817,117 Oakland city, CA .....................................................390,724 Marion city, IA ......................................................... 34,768 Oakley city, CA ........................................................ 35,432 Marshfield city, WI ................................................... 19,118 Oklahoma City city, OK ............................................ 579,999 Martinez city, CA ...................................................... 35,824 Olathe city, KS ........................................................ 125,872 Marysville city, WA ................................................... 60,020 Old Town city, ME ...................................................... 7,840 Matthews town, NC .................................................. 27,198 Olmsted County, MN ...............................................144,248 McAllen city, TX ......................................................129,877 Olympia city, WA ..................................................... 46,478 McKinney city, TX....................................................131,117 Orange village, OH ..................................................... 3,323 McMinnville city, OR ................................................. 32,187 Orland Park village, IL .............................................. 56,767 Menlo Park city, CA .................................................. 32,026 Orleans Parish, LA ................................................... 343,829 Menomonee Falls village, WI .................................... 35,626 Oshkosh city, WI...................................................... 66,083 Mercer Island city, WA ............................................. 22,699 Oshtemo charter township, MI.................................. 21,705 Meridian charter township, MI .................................. 39,688 Oswego village, IL.................................................... 30,355 Meridian city, ID ...................................................... 75,092 Otsego County, MI ................................................... 24,164 Merriam city, KS ....................................................... 11,003 Ottawa County, MI .................................................. 263,801 Mesa city, AZ..........................................................439,041 Paducah city, KY ...................................................... 25,024 Mesa County, CO....................................................146,723 Palm Beach Gardens city, FL ..................................... 48,452 Miami Beach city, FL ................................................ 87,779 Palm Coast city, FL................................................... 75,180 Miami city, FL.........................................................399,457 Palo Alto city, CA ..................................................... 64,403 Middleton city, WI .................................................... 17,442 Palos Verdes Estates city, CA .................................... 13,438 Midland city, MI ....................................................... 41,863 Papillion city, NE ...................................................... 18,894 Milford city, DE .......................................................... 9,559 Paradise Valley town, AZ .......................................... 12,820 Milton city, GA ......................................................... 32,661 Park City city, UT ....................................................... 7,558 Minneapolis city, MN ...............................................382,578 Parker town, CO ...................................................... 45,297 Missouri City city, TX ................................................ 67,358 Parkland city, FL ...................................................... 23,962 Modesto city, CA.....................................................201,165 Pasco city, WA ......................................................... 59,781 Monterey city, CA ..................................................... 27,810 Pasco County, FL .................................................... 464,697 Montgomery city, MN.................................................2,956 Payette city, ID .......................................................... 7,433 Montgomery County, MD.........................................971,777 Pearland city, TX ...................................................... 91,252 Monticello city, UT ..................................................... 1,972 Peoria city, AZ........................................................154,065 Montrose city, CO .................................................... 19,132 Peoria city, IL.........................................................115,007 Monument town, CO .................................................. 5,530 Pflugerville city, TX .................................................. 46,936 Mooresville town, NC ................................................ 32,711 Phoenix city, AZ ................................................... 1,445,632 Moraga town, CA.....................................................16,016 Pinehurst village, NC ................................................ 13,124 Morristown city, TN .................................................. 29,137 Piqua city, CH .......................................................... 20,522 Morrisville town, NC ................................................. 18,576 Pitkin County, CO ..................................................... 17,148 Morro Bay city, CA ................................................... 10,234 Plano city, TX.........................................................259,841 Mountain Village town, CO .......................................... 1,320 Platte City city, MO ..................................................... 4,691 Mountlake Terrace city, WA ...................................... 19,909 Pleasant Hill city, IA ................................................... 8,785 Murphy city, TX ....................................................... 17,708 Pleasanton city, CA .................................................. 70,285 Naperville city, IL....................................................141,853 Plymouth city, MN .................................................... 70,576 Napoleon city, OH ...................................................... 8,749 Polk County, IA ....................................................... 430,640 Needham CDP, MA ................................................... 28,886 Pompano Beach city, FL ........................................... 99,845 Nevada City city, CA ................................................... 3,068 Port Orange city, FL................................................. 56,048 Nevada County, CA .................................................. 98,764 Portland city, OR ..................................................... 583,776 New Braunfels city, TX ............................................. 57,740 Post Falls city, ID..................................................... 27,574 New Brighton city, MN .............................................. 21,456 Powell city, OH ........................................................ 11,500 New Hanover County, NC........................................202,667 Prince William County, VA ........................................ 402,002 New Hope city, MN .................................................. 20,339 Prior Lake city, MN ................................................... 22,796 New Orleans city, LA...............................................343,829 Pueblo city, CO ....................................................... 106,595 New Port Richey city, FL ........................................... 14,911 Purcellville town, VA ................................................... 7,727 New Smyrna Beach city, FL ...................................... 22,464 Queen Creek town, AZ ............................................. 26,361 26 The National Citizen SurveyTM Raleigh city,NC ......................................................403,892 Snellville city, GA ..................................................... 18,242 Ramsey city, MN......................................................23,668 Snoqualmie city, WA ................................................ 10,670 Raymond town, ME....................................................4,436 Somerset town, MA .................................................. 18,165 Raymore city, MO .................................................... 19,206 South Jordan city, UT ............................................... 50,418 Redmond city, OR .................................................... 26,215 South Lake Tahoe city, CA ........................................ 21,403 Redmond city, WA ................................................... 54,144 Southlake city, TX .................................................... 26,575 Reno city, NV..........................................................225,221 Spearfish city, SD ..................................................... 10,494 Reston CDP, VA ....................................................... 58,404 Spring Hill city, KS ...................................................... 5,437 Richland city, WA ..................................................... 48,058 Springboro city, CH .................................................. 17,409 Richmond city, CA...................................................103,701 Springfield city, MO ................................................. 159,498 Richmond Heights city, MO ......................................... 8,603 Springville city, UT ................................................... 29,466 Rio Rancho city, NM ................................................. 87,521 St. Augustine city, FL ............................................... 12,975 River Falls city, WI ................................................... 15,000 St. Charles city, IL.................................................... 32,974 Riverside city, CA....................................................303,871 St. Cloud city, FL...................................................... 35,183 Riverside city, MO ...................................................... 2,937 St. Cloud city, MN .................................................... 65,842 Roanoke city, VA ...................................................... 97,032 St. Joseph city, MO .................................................. 76,780 Roanoke County, VA ................................................ 92,376 St. Joseph town, WI................................................... 3,842 Rochester Hills city, MI ............................................. 70,995 St. Louis County, MN ............................................... 200,226 Rock Hill city, SC ...................................................... 66,154 State College borough, PA ........................................ 42,034 Rockville city, MD ..................................................... 61,209 Steamboat Springs city, CO ...................................... 12,088 Roeland Park city, KS.................................................6,731 Sterling Heights city, MI ..........................................129,699 Rogers city, MN .........................................................8,597 Sugar Grove village, IL ............................................... 8,997 Rohnert Park city, CA ............................................... 40,971 Sugar Land city, TX .................................................. 78,817 Rolla city, MO .......................................................... 19,559 Suisun City city, CA .................................................. 28,111 Roselle village, IL ..................................................... 22,763 Summit city, NJ........................................................ 21,457 Rosemount city, MN ................................................. 21,874 Summit County, UT .................................................. 36,324 Rosenberg city, TX ................................................... 30,618 Summit village, IL.................................................... 11,054 Roseville city, MN ..................................................... 33,660 Sunnyvale city, CA ..................................................140,081 Round Rock city, TX ................................................. 99,887 Surprise city, AZ ...................................................... 117,517 Royal Oak city, MI .................................................... 57,236 Suwanee city, GA ..................................................... 15,355 Saco city, ME ........................................................... 18,482 Tacoma city, WA ..................................................... 198,397 Sahuarita town, AZ .................................................. 25,259 Takoma Park city, MD .............................................. 16,715 Salida city, CO ........................................................... 5,236 Tamarac city, FL...................................................... 60,427 Sammamish city, WA ............................................... 45,780 Temecula city, CA ................................................... 100,097 San Anselmo town, CA ............................................. 12,336 Tempe city, AZ .......................................................161,719 San Diego city, CA ...............................................1,307,402 Temple city, TX ........................................................ 66,102 San Francisco city, CA .............................................805,235 Texarkana city, TX ................................................... 36,411 San Jose city, CA ....................................................945,942 The Woodlands CDP, TX ........................................... 93,847 San Juan County, NM..............................................130,044 Thousand Oaks city, CA ........................................... 126,683 San Marcos city, CA ................................................. 83,781 Tigard city, OR ......................................................... 48,035 San Marcos city, TX .................................................. 44,894 Tracy city, CA .......................................................... 82,922 San Rafael city, CA ................................................... 57,713 Trinidad CCD, CO ..................................................... 12,017 Sanford city, FL ........................................................ 53,570 Tualatin city, OR ...................................................... 26,054 Sangamon County, IL..............................................197,465 Tulsa city, OK ......................................................... 391,906 Santa Clarita city, CA...............................................176,320 Twin Falls city, ID .................................................... 44,125 Santa Fe city, NM ..................................................... 67,947 Tyler city, TX ........................................................... 96,900 Santa Fe County, NM ..............................................144,170 Unalaska city, AK ....................................................... 4,376 Santa Monica city, CA ............................................... 89,736 University Heights city, OH ....................................... 13,539 Sarasota County, FL................................................379,448 University Park city, TX ............................................. 23,068 Savage city, MN ....................................................... 26,911 Upper Arlington city, CH ........................................... 33,771 Schaumburg village, IL ............................................. 74,227 Urbandale city, IA .................................................... 39,463 Schertz city, TX ........................................................ 31,465 Vail town, CO ............................................................. 5,305 Scott County, MN....................................................129,928 Vancouver city, WA ................................................. 161,791 Scottsdale city, AZ ..................................................217,385 Ventura CCD, CA ..................................................... 111,889 Seaside city, CA ....................................................... 33,025 Vernon Hills village, IL.............................................. 25,113 Sedona city, AZ ........................................................ 10,031 Vestavia Hills city, AL ............................................... 34,033 Sevierville city, TN ................................................... 14,807 Victoria city, MN ......................................................... 7,345 Shakopee city, MN...................................................37,076 Vienna town, VA ...................................................... 15,687 Sharonville city, OH .................................................. 13,560 Virginia Beach city, VA ............................................. 437,994 Shawnee city, KS ..................................................... 62,209 Walnut Creek city, CA ............................................... 64,173 Shawnee city, OK ..................................................... 29,857 Washington County, MN .......................................... 238,136 Sherborn town, MA....................................................4,119 Washington town, NH ................................................ 1,123 Shoreview city, MN .................................................. 25,043 Washoe County, NV ................................................421,407 Shorewood village, IL ............................................... 15,615 Washougal city, WA ................................................. 14,095 Shorewood village, WI ............................................. 13,162 Wauwatosa city, WI................................................. 46,396 Sierra Vista city, AZ .................................................. 43,888 Waverly city, IA ......................................................... 9,874 Silverton city, OR.......................................................9,222 Weddington town, NC ................................................ 9,459 Sioux Center city, IA .................................................. 7,048 Wentzville city, MO ................................................... 29,070 Sioux Falls city, SD..................................................153,888 West Carrollton city, CH ........................................... 13,143 Skokie village, IL ...................................................... 64,784 West Chester borough, PA ........................................ 18,461 27 The National Citizen SurveyTM West Des Moines city, IA .......................................... 56,609 Western Springs village, IL ....................................... 12,975 Westerville city, OH .................................................. 36,120 Westlake town, TX ........................................................ 992 Westminster city, CO...............................................106,114 10,938 Weston town, MA ..................................................... 11,261 White House city, TN ............................................... 10,255 Wichita city, KS .......................................................382,368 Williamsburg city, VA ................................................ 14,068 Willowbrook village, IL ............................................... 8,540 Wilmington city, NC.................................................106,476 9,405 Wilsonville city, OR ................................................... 19,509 Windsor town, CO .................................................... 18,644 W Windsor town, CT .................................................... 29,044 Winnetka village, IL ................................................. 12,187 Winter Garden city, FL .............................................. 34,568 Woodbury city, MN ................................................... 61,961 Woodinville city, WA ................................................. 10,938 Woodland city, CA .................................................... 55,468 Wrentham town, MA ................................................ 10,955 Wyandotte County, KS ............................................157,505 Yakima city, WA ....................................................... 91,067 York County, VA ....................................................... 65,464 Yorktown town, IN ..................................................... 9,405 Yorkville city, IL ....................................................... 16,921 Yountville city, CA ...................................................... 2,933 The National Citizen SurveyTM Appendix C: Detailed Survey Methods The National Citizen Survey (The NCS''"), conducted by National Research Center, Inc., was developed to provide communities an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important local topics. Standardization of common questions and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, and each community has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The NCS. Results offer insight into residents' perspectives about the community as a whole, including local amenities, services, public trust, resident participation and other aspects of the community in order to support budgeting, land use and strategic planning and communication with residents. Resident demographic characteristics permit comparison to the Census as well as comparison of results for different subgroups of residents. The City of Iowa City funded this research. Please contact Simon Andrew of the City of Iowa City at Simon-Andrew@iowa-city.org if you have any questions about the survey. Survey Validity The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a community be confident that the results from those who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do? To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire community. These practices include: Using a mail-out/mail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those who did respond. Selecting households at random within the community to receive the survey to ensure that the households selected to receive the survey are representative of the larger community. Over -sampling multi -family housing units to improve response from hard -to -reach, lower income or younger apartment dwellers. Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this case, the "birthday method." The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the respondent in the household be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth. Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may have different opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt. Inviting response in a compelling manner (using appropriate letterhead/logos and a signature of a visible leader) to appeal to recipients' sense of civic responsibility. Providing a pre -addressed, postage -paid return envelope. Offering the survey in Spanish or other language when requested by a given community. Weighting the results to reflect the demographics of the population. The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are influenced by a variety of factors. For questions about service quality, residents' expectations for service quality play a role as well as the "objective" quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the context in which the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asked to record his or her opinion and, of course, the opinion, itself, that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident's report of certain behaviors is colored by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerant behaviors toward `oppressed groups," likelihood of voting for a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she can be honest without suffering any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual behavior itself. How closely survey results come to recording the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g., driving habits), reported intentions to behave with observed future behavior (e.g., voting choices) or reported opinions about current community quality 29 The National Citizen SurveyTM with objective characteristics of the community (e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual behaviors. Well-conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or morally sanctioned activities). For self -reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the respondents' tendency to report what they think the "correct" response should be. Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and "objective" ratings of service quality vary, with some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC's own research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in communities with objectively worse street conditions than those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees). Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be `objectively' worse than the highest rated fire services (expenditures per capita, response time, "professional" status of firefighters, breadth of services and training provided). Resident opinion commonly reflects objective performance data but is an important measure on its own. NRC principals have written, "If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash haul is lousy, you still have a problem." Selecting Survey Recipients "Sampling" refers to the method by which households were chosen to receive the survey. All households within the City of Iowa City were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households within the zip codes serving Iowa City was purchased from Go -Dog Direct based on updated listings from the United States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of Iowa City households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the community, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to community boundaries using the most current municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis) and addresses located outside of the City of Iowa City boundaries were removed from consideration. Each address identified as being within City boundaries was further identified as being within one of the six geographic subareas. To choose the 2,200 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households previously screened for geographic location. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all possible households is culled, selecting every Nth one, giving each eligible household a known probability of selection, until the appropriate number of households is selected. Multi -family housing units were selected at a higher rate as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single- family housing units. Figure 1 displays a map of the households selected to receive the survey. In general, because of the random sampling techniques used, the displayed sampling density will closely mirror the overall housing unit density (which may be different from the population density). While the theory of probability assumes no bias in selection, there may be some minor variations in practice (meaning, an area with only 15% of the housing units might be selected at an actual rate that is slightly above or below that). An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the "person whose birthday has most recently passed" to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. In addition to the scientific, random selection of households, a link to an online "opt -in" survey was publicized and posted to the City of Iowa City website. This opt -in survey was identical to the scientific survey and open to all City residents. 30 The National Citizen SurveyTIA Figure 1: Location of Survey Recipients 9e � Cou / P' onl Page Man. l3'n �L • �. �,�••~� • •,• i1 •• w�. net n� a , iN•�• .• • �• � • • � ., n.n ., ., s � i1 � A� • • 1 a. Is •, 8 d yg. Is pM • ••� as P as _• • s� �- ;`+n SYNey Recipients in Iowa City, IA aMiles • M Nona • In SWh r In Downtown NoM South Downtown • In East • In West • In Cental Eaal II Cental Survey Administration and Response Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning on September 19, 2017. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The next mailing contained a letter from the City Manager inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and a postage -paid return envelope. The final mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey and a postage -paid return envelope. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who had already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. The survey was available in English and Spanish. Both cover letters contained paragraphs in Spanish informing participants that they could complete the survey in Spanish online if they preferred; additionally, the cover letter contained paragraphs in Arabic, simplified Chinese, and French instructing participants to visit City Hall if they needed help completing the survey in their language of preference. The City of Iowa City chose to augment their administration of The NCS with several additional services, including demographic and geographic subgroup comparisons. The results of these additional services have been provided under separate cover. Completed surveys were collected over the following ten weeks. The online "opt -in" survey became available to all residents on October 24, 2017 and remained open for five weeks. About 6% of the 2,200 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 2,063 households that received the survey, 481 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 23%. Of the 481 completed surveys, 53 were completed online; of those, 52 were completed in English and one was completed in Spanish. Additionally, responses were tracked by geographic subarea; response rates by area ranged from 10% to 35%. The response 31 The National Citizen SurveyTM rates were calculated using AAPOR's response rate #21 for mailed surveys of unnamed persons. Additionally, 919 residents completed the online opt -in survey, providing a grand total of 1,400 completed surveys. Table 77: Survey Response Rates by Area North I East South West Central Downtown Overall_] Total sample used 81 362 321 636 591 209 2,200 I=Complete Interviews 28 117 65 117 132 18 477 P= Partial Interviews 0 2 1 0 1 0 4 R=Refusal and break off 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 NC= Non Contact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O=Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UH=Unknown household 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UO=Unknown other 51 235 215 470 440 170 1,581 Response rate: (I+P)/(I+P) + (R+NC+O) + (UH+UO) 35% 34% 23% 20% 23% 10% 23% Confidence Intervals It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a "level of confidence' and accompanying "confidence interval" (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents' opinions are relied on to estimate all residents' opinions.2 The margin of error for the Iowa City survey is no greater than plus or minus three3 percentage points around any given percent reported for all respondents (1,400 completed surveys). For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the number of respondents for the subgroup is smaller. For subgroups of approximately loo respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points. Survey Processing (Data Entry) Upon receipt, completed surveys were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and "cleaned" as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; in this case, NRC would use protocols to randomly choose two of the three selected items for inclusion in the dataset. All surveys then were entered twice into an electronic dataset; any discrepancies were resolved in comparison to the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. NRC used Qualtrics, a web -based survey and analytics platform, to collect the online survey data. Use of an online system means all collected data are entered into the dataset when the respondents submit the surveys. Skip patterns are programmed into system so respondents are automatically "skipped" to the appropriate question based on the individual responses being given. Online programming also allows for more rigid control of the data format, making extensive data cleaning unnecessary. A series of quality control checks were also performed in order to ensure the integrity of the web data. Steps may include and not be limited to reviewing the data for clusters of repeat IP addresses and time stamps (indicating duplicate responses) and removing empty submissions (questionnaires submitted with no questions answered). See AAPOR's Standard Definitions here: htto://www.wpor.ora/Standards-Ethics/Standard-Definitions-(I).asox for more information A 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will include the "true" population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the "true" perspective of the target population lies within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as "excellent" or "good," then the 4% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire community is between 71% and 79%. This source of uncertainty is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey, including the non -response of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results. ' Although this has become the traditional way to describe survey research precision, when opt -in results are blended with scientific results, assumptions about randomness of responses are not the same as when results come only from the random sample. Consequently other terms sometimes are used in place of "confidence interval" or "margin of error,' such as "credibility intervals." We hew to the traditional way of describing sample -driven uncertainty while we work with the industry to sort out the best ways to describe these new approaches. 32 The National Citizen SurveyTM Survey Data Weighting Upon completion of data collection for both the scientific (probability) and nonscientific open participation online opt -in (non -probability) surveys, data were compared in order to determine whether it was appropriate to combine, or blend, both datasets together. In the case of Iowa City, characteristics of respondents to the non- probability survey were similar to the probability survey, in both respondent trait and opinion, indicating that the two datasets could be blended. This decision reflects a growing trend in survey research toward integration of traditional scientific probability survey respondents and non -probability survey respondents (opt -in). The demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared to those found in the 2010 Census and American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Iowa City. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey respondents reflective of the larger population of the community. Both survey datasets were weighted independently and then combined into one final dataset. The characteristics used for weighting were housing tenure (rent or own), housing unit type (attached or detached), sex, age and area. A further adjustment was made such that the scientific and opt -in data were each represented equally in the final dataset. No adjustments were made for design effects. In addition to the demographic variables, the nonscientific open participation data were weighted using a calibration technique that takes into consideration the behavioral characteristics of the survey respondents. This calibration technique reduces the differences between the scientific and nonscientific survey respondents by using the scientific data to inform the weighting scheme of the nonscientific data. An index score was calculated based on respondents' levels of engagement in the community (e.g., contact with City employees, recreation center use, frequency of volunteering, recycling habits, voting behavior and more). The index scores were categorized ("binned") into four equal groups. The "norms" for the categorized index scores were derived from the scientific survey respondents and then included in the weighting scheme of the nonscientific data. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the following table. Characteristic I Pooulation Norm I Unweiahted Data I Weiahted Data I Rent home 53% 31% 51% Own home 47% 69% 49% Detached unit 46% 64% 47% Attached unit 54% 36% 53% Race and Ethnicity 27% 28% 26% White 85% 89% 89% Not white 15% 11% 11% Not Hispanic 95% 98% 97% Hispanic 5% 2% 3%.. Sex and Age Female 50% 59% 51% Male 50% 41% 49% 18-34 years of age 54% 22% 52% 35-54 years of age 24% 24% 25% 55+ years of age 22% 54% 23% Females 18-34 26% 13% 28% Females 35-54 12% 14% 12% Females 55+ 12% 32% 11% Males 18-34 28% 9% 24% Males 35-54 12% 10% 12% Males 55+ 10% 23% 12% Area North 5% 6% 5% East 19% 25% 19% South 15% 14% 15% West 28% 24% 28% Central 27% 28% 26% Downtown 7% 4% 7% North 53% 31% 51% 33 The National Citizen SurveyTM Survey Data Analysis and Reporting The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part, the percentages presented in the reports represent the "percent positive." The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., "excellent' and "good," `very safe" and "somewhat safe," "essential" and `very important," etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating "yes" or participating in an activity at least once a month. On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer "don't know." The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the reports. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. 34 The National Citizen SurveyT" Appendix D: Survey Materials 35 Dear Iowa City Resident, Estimado Residente de Iowa City, Dear Iowa City Resident, Estimado Residente de Iowa City, It won't take much of your time to iNo le tomara mucho de su tiempo make a big difference! para marcar una gran diferencia! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Su hogar he sido elegido al azar para participar en una encuesta sobre su comunidad. Su encuesta le Ilegara dentro de pocos dies. Thank you for helping create a better iGracias por ayudar a crear una City! ciudad mejor! Sincerely, Atentamente, /'—// C;�— Geoff Fmin City Manager/Administrador de la Ciudad Dear Iowa City Resident, Estimado Residente de Iowa City, It won't take much of your time to iNo le tomara mucho de su tiempo make a big difference! para martyr una gran diferencia! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Su hogar he sido elegido al azar para participar en una encuesta sobre su comunidad. Su encuesta le Ilegara dentro de pocos dies. Thank you for helping create a better iGracias por ayudar a crear una City! ciudad mejor! Sincerely, Atentamente, /'-// C;�-- Geoff Fmin City Manager/Administrador de la Ciudad It won't take much of your time to iNo le tomara mucho de su tiempo make a big difference! para martyr una gran diferencia! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Su hogar he sido elegido al azar para participar en una encuesta sobre su comunidad. Su encuesta le Ilegara dentro de pocos dies. Thank you for helping create a better iGracias por ayudar a crear una City! ciudad mejor! Sincerely, Atentamente, /'—// C;�— Geoff Fmin City Manager/Administrador de la Ciudad Dear Iowa City Resident, Estimado Residente de Iowa City, It won't take much of your time to iNo le tomara mucho de su tiempo make a big difference! para martyr una gran diferencia! Your household has been randomly Su hogar he sido elegido al azar para selected to participate in a survey participar en una encuesta sobre su about your community. Your survey comunidad. Su encuesta le Ilegara will arrive in a few days. dentro de pocos dies. Thank you for helping create a better iGracias por ayudar a crear una City! ciudad mejor! Sincerely, Atentamente, /'-// C;�-- Geoff Fmin City Manager/Administrador de la Ciudad CITY OF IOWA CITY =rpona9ell CITY OF IOWA CITY SPoUgell CITYHALL 410E. WASHINGIONSI. IO WA CII Y, IOWA 52240 BR PAI9ooNDCp CITYHALL 410E. WASHINGIUN51.-UWACIIY, IOWA 5224U BR youPSID CO Pernt NO. 94 P= NO. 94 CITY OF IOWA CITY L=rp..,.l CITY OF IOWA CITY SPUagall CITY HALL 410 E. WASHNCTON ST. IClAACIT', IO1NA S7]401 ft>E goo NAxO Lp CITY HALL 410 E. WASHNCTON ST. ICAACIT', IO1NA S7T401916 Boo PAID p Perrtul NO. 94 P= NO.L. CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY HALL 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO.94 September 2017 Dear City of Iowa City Resident: Please help us shape the future of Iowa City! You have been selected at random to participate in the 2017 Iowa City Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important — especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. Your feedback will help Iowa City make decisions that affect our community. A few things to remember: • Your responses are completely anonymous. • In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. • You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage -paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: http: / / bit.ly/ 2eR22Q U If you have any questions about the survey please call 319-356-5010. Thank you for your time and participation! Sincerely, Am O=u I CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org Estimado Residente de la Ciudad de Iowa City: iPor favor aytidenos a moldear el futuro de Iowa City! Usted ha sido seleccionado al azar para participar en la Encuesta de Ciudadanos de Iowa City del 2017. Por favor tome unos minutos para completar la encuesta adjunta; si usted preferiria completar la encuesta en espanol, por favor siga las instrucciones abajo para acceder a la encuesta en espanol por media de la red. Su participaci6n en esta encuesta es muy importante — especialmente porque so hogar es uno de solamente on mimero pequeno de hogares que se estan encuestando. Sus observaciones le ayudaran a Iowa City tomar decisiones que afectaran a nuestra ciudad. Algunas cosas para recordar: • Sus respuestas son completamente an6nimas. • Para poder escuchar a on grupo diverso de residentes, el adulto de 18 anos o mas en so hogar que haya celebrado so cumpleanos mas recientemente debe completar esta encuesta. • Puede devolver la encuesta por correo en el sobre pre- pagado adjunto, o puede completar la encuesta en linea en espanol en: http: / / bit.ly/ 2eR22Q U Para la version en espanol haga clic en "Espanol" en la esquina superior a mano derecha. Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta por favor flame al 319- 356-5010. i Gracias por so tiempo yparticipaci6n! Atentamente, Z411 C;1' Geoff From City Manager/Administrador de la Ciudad �JLeSS,�I y� 6.>GL„ell Jj __11 !Li I:v ale 4j .2017 �L.1 i� .E. Washington Street 410 :t '.)9 4ArPS_-4itQT*r7 2017 f9 Kin 0 N79 KZ. ANt�J1uXf&IiIAI:AINA cM�rp 5061)'6lQr1iifA)T (*A� 410 Ij a Af'��J-im ffH Vous Res l'un du petit nombre de residents qui a ete selectionne pour recevoir le Sondage aupres des Residents de la Ville de 1'Iowa 2017. Votre avis est trios important pour nous! Pour obtenir de 1'aide pour compl6ter le sondage en Frangais, veuillez visiter Motel de Ville a 1'Avenue 410 E. Washington. Merci pour le temps que vous nous accordez! October 2017 Dear City of Iowa City Resident: Here's a second chance if you haven't already responded to the 2017 Iowa City Citizen Survey! (If you completed it and sent it back, we thank you for your time and ask you to recycle this survey. Please do not respond twice.) Please help us shape the future of Iowa City! You have been selected at random to participate in the 2017 Iowa City Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important — especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. Your feedback will help Iowa City make decisions that affect our community. A few things to remember: • Your responses are completely anonymous. • In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. • You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage -paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: http: / / bit.ly/ 2eR22QU If you have any questions about the survey please call 319-356-5010. Thank you for your time and participation! Sincerely, lr CITY OF IMA CITY 410 Easl Washington Siren Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org Estimado Residente de la Ciudad de Iowa City: Uqui tiene una segunda oportunidad si usted afin no ha respondidm a la Encuesta de Ciudadanos de Iowa City del 2017! (Si usted In complet6 y In devolvi6, le damos las gracias par so tiempo y le pedimos que recicle esta encuesta. Por favor no responda dos veces.) iPor favor ayudenos a moldear el future de Iowa City! Usted ha side seleccionado al azar para participar en la Encuesta de Ciudadanos de Iowa City del 2017. Per favor tome ones minutes para completer la encuesta adjunta; si usted prefenria completer la encuesta en espanol, per favor siga las instrucciones abajo para acceder a la encuesta en espafiol per medico de la red. Su participaci6n en esta encuesta es muy importante — especialmente porque su hogar es one de solamente on nfimero pequeno de hogares que se estfin encuestando. Sus observaciones le ayodarfin a Iowa City tomar decisiones que afectarfin a nuestra ciudad. Algunas cosas para recordar: • Sus respuestas son completamente an6nimas. • Para poder escuchar a on grope diverse de residentes, el adulto de 18 arms o mfis en so hogar que haya celebrado so cumpleanms mfis recientemente debe completar esta encuesta. • Puede devolver la encuesta par correo en el sabre pre - pagoda adjunto, o puede completar In encuesta en linea en espafiol en: http: / / bit.ly/ 2eR22QU Para la version en espafiol haga clic en `Espanol" en la esquina superior a mano derecha. Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta per favor llame al 319-356- 5010. iGracias per so tiempo y participaci6n! Atentamente, Geoff Froin City Manager/Administrador de la Ciudad �JLeSS,"I 6.:cL„ell �c J� __ll �Lil I:v ale phi, -2017 �L.1 �)Lu,"v"I i� i�L -E. Washington Street 410 A-',)9 4ArP�4it7*r1i 2017 in0Nf9KZ ANt�JM1Xt&IIIA A9 -N! �A ch�� 3Zin0 N -4A f �J> 5nil)'6lrr1ifA FTA �,3r.47 410 s) a AAf'-N-i��,FfM! Vous 6tes Fun du petit nombre de residents qui a ete selectionne pour recevoir le Sondage aupres des Residents de la Ville de Flowa 2017. Votre avis est tres important pour nous! Pour obtenir de 1'aide pour completer le sondage en Frangais, veuillez visiter 1'116tel de Ville a FAvenue Oto E. Washington. Merci pour le temps que vous nous accordez! The City of Iowa City 2017 Citizen Survey Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult's year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box) that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of fife in Iowa Iowa City as a place to live................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood as a place to live................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Iowa City as a place to raise children................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Iowa City as a place to work.............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Iowa City as a place to visit................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Iowa City as a place to retire............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 The overall quality of life in Iowa City .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Iowa City as a whole: Overall feeling of safety in Iowa City ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of overall natural environment in Iowa City ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall "built environment" of Iowa City (including overall design, 1 2 3 4 5 buildings, parks and transportation systems) .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Health and wellness opportunities in Iowa City ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall opportunities for education andenrichment........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall economic health of Iowa City ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sense of community...2A0� ........................ ,.......1 2 3 4 5 Overall image or reputation of Iowa City .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 3. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Peru Somewhat Som xhat Very Don't Recommend living in Iowa City to someone who asks ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 Remain in Iowa City for the next five years ........................................... 1 2 3 4 5 4. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Pert Don't In your neighborhood during the day ................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Iowa City's downtown/commercial area during the day............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Iowa City as a whole: Traffic flow on major streets.............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of public parking........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by car in Iowa City ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by public transportation in Iowa City ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by bicycle in Iowa City ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in Iowa City .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of paths and walking trails.............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Airquality .......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of Iowa City .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of Iowa City ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Public places where people want to spend time ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality housing.......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) .......... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality food................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality health care ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of preventive health services........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality mental health care ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Pagel of 5 THE NCS The National Citizen Survey - 6. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Iowa City as a whole: Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 K-12 education.................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Adult educational opportunities......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities ......... 1 2 3 4 5 Employment opportunities................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cost of living in Iowa City ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Iowa City .................. 1 2 3 4 5 Vibrant downtown/commercial area................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of new development in Iowa City ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities ................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to volunteer................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in community matters .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of 2 times a 2-4 times diverse backgrounds....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Neighborliness of residents in Iowa City ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 7. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. Made efforts to conserve water................................................................................................................................1 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient ..........................................................................................1 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Iowa City (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.).................................1 Household member was a victim of a crime in Iowa City .......................................................................................1 Reported a crime to the police in Iowa City ............................................................................................................1 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency..................................................................................................1 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate....................................................................................1 Contacted the City of Iowa City (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information....................................1 Contacted Iowa City elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion ............................1 8. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Iowa City? 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not Used Iowa City recreation centers or their services........................................................... 1 2 3 4 Visited a neighborhood park or City park......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Used Iowa City public libraries or their services................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Iowa City ................................................ 1 2 3 4 Attended a City -sponsored event_...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving ........................... 1 2 3 4 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone ...................................... 1 2 3 4 Walked or biked instead of driving.................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Iowa City ............................................. 1 2 3 4 Participatedin a club......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors......................................................... 1 2 3 4 Done a favor for a neighbor............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 9. Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not meek or more a month or less at all Attended a local public meeting........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Watched online or on television) a local public meehn .� Page 2 of 5 0 The City of Iowa City 2017 Citizen Survey 10. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Iowa City: Police/Sheriff services........................................................................................ 1 Fireservices........................................................................................................ 1 Ambulance or emergency medical services....................................................... 1 Crimeprevention............................................................................................... 1 Fire prevention and education........................................................................... 1 Traffic enforcement........................................................................................... 1 Streetrepair....................................................................................................... 1 Streetcleaning................................................................................................... 1 Streetlighting..................................................................................................... 1 Snowremoval.................................................................................................... 1 Sidewalk maintenance....................................................................................... 1 Trafficsignal timing........................................................................................... I Bus or transit services......................................................................................... 1 Garbagecollection............................................................................................. 1 Recycling........................................................................................................... 1 Yardwaste pick-up............................................................................................ 1 Stormdrainage.................................................................................................. 1 Drinkingwater................................................................................................... 1 Sewerservices .................................................................................................... 1 Power (electric and/or gas) utility ...................................................................... 1 Utilitybilling...................................................................................................... 1 Cityparks........................................................................................................... I Recreation programs or classes.......................................................................... 1 Recreation centers or facilities........................................................................... I Land use, planning and zoning.......................................................................... 1 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ...................................... 1 Animalcontrol................................................................................................... 1 Economic development..................................................................................... 1 Healthservices................................................................................................... 1 Public library services........................................................................................ I Public information services................................................................................ 1 Cabletelevision.................................................................................................. I Emergency preparedness 'services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) ............................................. 1 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts..... 1 Iowa City open space......................................................................................... 1 City -sponsored special events............................................................................ 1 Overall customer service by Iowa City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.).............................................................................. 1 City website experience (www.icgov.org)........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 11. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Fxce&e t Good Fav Poor Dm tknom The City of Iowa City ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 The Federal Government.................................................................................. I 2 3 4 5 12. Please rate the following categories of Iowa City government performance: The value of services for the taxes paid to Iowa City ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The overall direction that Iowa City is taking ................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The job Iowa City government does at welcoming citizen involvement ........... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall confidence in Iowa City government.................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Generally acting in the best interest of the community ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Beinghonest....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Treating all residents fairly................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Page 3 of 5 THE NCS The National Citizen Survey"' 13. Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Iowa City community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Very Somewhat Aid otall Overall feeling of safety in Iowa City................................................................................. 1 2 3 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ............................................ 1 2 3 Quality of overall natural environment in Iowa City ......................................................... 1 2 3 Overall "built environment" of Iowa City (including overall design, CityInstagram feed............................................................................................................................... 1 2 buildings, parks and transportation systems)................................................................. 1 2 3 Health and wellness opportunities in Iowa City................................................................ 1 2 3 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment......................................................... 1 2 3 Overall economic health of Iowa City............................................................................... 1 2 3 Senseof community........................................................................................................... I 2 3 14. In the last 12 months, how many times, if at all, have you attended a live performing arts event in Iowa City? O Not at all O 1 or 2 times O 3-5 times O 5-10 times O More than 10 times 15. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements: Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't I trust my neighbors and can rely on them to help me if needed ....................... 1 I like to be helpful to my neighbors..............................................WWW I feel like I belong in my neighborhood............................................................. I 16. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you would be to recommend living in Iowa City to other people your age: O Very likely O Somewhat likely O Somewhat unlikely O Very unlikely O Don't know 17. How much of a source, if at all, do you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about Iowa City government news, meetings, events, and alerts? MajorJ na Nota City website(ww"v.icgov.org)................................................................................................................. 1 2 CityFacebook page...............................................................................................................................1 2 Citi' Twitter feed.................................................................................................................................... l 2 Nextdoor................................................................................................................................................ l 2 Cityposts on LinkedIn........................................................................................................................... l 2 CityInstagram feed............................................................................................................................... 1 2 CityYouTube channel.......................................................................................................................... 1 2 E -subscriptions (email notifications)....................................................................................................... l 2 Local newspapers (Ione,•¢ City Press Citizen, The Gazette)............................................................................. 1 2 City Council meetings and/or other public meetings............................................................................ l 2 Talkingwith City officials...................................................................................................................... 1 2 Word-of-mouth...................................................................................................................................... l 2 Page 4 of 5 The City of Iowa City 2017 Citizen Survey Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. Dl. How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Recycleat home............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Iowa City ................... 1 2 3 4 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day ...................................... 1 2 3 4 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity ..................................... 1 2 3 4 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) ................... 1 2 3 4 Vote in local elections..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 D2. Would you say that in general your health is: O Excellent O Very good O Good O Fair O Poor D3. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: O Very positive O Somewhat positive O Neutral O Somewhat negative O Very negative D4. What is your employment status? O Working full time for pay O Working part time for pay O Unemployed, looking for paid work O Unemployed, not looking for paid work O Fully retired D5. Do you work inside the boundaries of Iowa City? O Yes, outside the home O Yes, from home O No D6. How many years have you lived in Iowa City? O Less than 2 years O 11-20 years O 2-5 years O More than 20 years O 6-10 years D7. Which best describes the building you five in? O One family house detached from any other houses O Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) O Mobile home O Other D8. Is this house, apartment or mobile home... O Rented O Owned D9. About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you five (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? O Less than $300 per month O $300 to $599 per month O $600 to $999 per month O $1,000 to $1,499 per month O $1,500 to $2,499 per month O $2,500 or more per month D 10. Do any children 17 or under five in your household? O No O Yes Dl 1. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? O No O Yes Page 5 of 5 D12. How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) O Less than $25,000 O $25,000 to $49,999 O $50,000 to $99,999 O $100,000 to $149,999 O $150,000 or more Please respond to both questions D13 and D14: D13. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? O No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino O Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino D14. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) O American Indian or Alaskan Native O Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander O Black or African American O White O Other D15. In which category is your age? O 18-24 years O 55-64 years O 25-34 years O 65-74 years O 35-44 years O 75 years or older O 45-54 years D16. What is your sex? O Female O 'dale D17. Do you consider a cell phone or land fine your primary telephone number? O Cell O Land line O Both D18. Are you currently a student at a university, college, or community college? O Yes O No Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage -paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 Iowa City, IA Trends over Time DRAFT 2017 NRC L, iJ 'i- j e -vier iric. 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 Boulder, Colorado 80301 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 ICMA Leaders at the Core of Better Communities 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Summary The National Citizen Survey` (The NCS''") is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. The NCS captures residents' opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). This report discusses trends over time, comparing the 2017 ratings for the City of Iowa City to its previous survey results in 2013. Additional reports and technical appendices are available under separate cover. Trend data for Iowa City represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time, especially, represent opportunities for understanding how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents' opinions. Meaningful differences between survey years have been noted within the following tables as being "higher" or "lower" if the differences are greater than five percentage points between the 2013 and 2017 surveys, otherwise the comparison between 2013 and 2017 are noted as being "similar." Additionally, benchmark comparisons for all survey years are presented for reference. Changes in the benchmark comparison over time can be impacted by various trends, including varying survey cycles for the individual communities that comprise the benchmarks, regional and national economic or other events, as well as emerging survey methodologies. Overall, ratings in Iowa City for 2017 generally remained stable. Of the 86 items for which comparisons were available, 49 items were rated similarly in 2013 and 2017, 12 items showed a decrease in ratings and 25 showed an increase in ratings. Notable trends over time included the following: Residents were less likely to give positive ratings to some aspects of Built Environment in 2017 than in 2013; ratings that decreased over time included the availability of affordable quality housing and variety of housing options. Further, more residents reported being under housing cost stress in 2017 than in 2013. However, respondents were more likely in 2017 to positively rate the overall quality of new development; land use, planning and zoning; and code enforcement. Within Safety, while evaluations for police, crime prevention and emergency preparedness declined over time, residents were more likely in 2017 than in 2013 to indicate that they felt safe in Iowa Citys downtown/commercial area. Residents tended to give less positive ratings to aspects of Natural Environment, including garbage collection, recycling, yard waste pick-up and drinking water, in 2017 than in 2013. Survey respondents were also less likely in 2017 to have recycled at home. However, they were more likely to favorably rate the cleanliness of the city. Levels of Participation for many aspects of Community Engagement declined over time. These activities included voting in local elections, attending or watching a public meeting, volunteering or participating in a club. However, residents were more likely in 2017 than in 2013 to give positive ratings to openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds, the overall direction of the City and the job City government does at welcoming citizen involvement. The National Citizen Survey'" 2 Pe 20nt 13 rating positively (e.g., escellen209 ]�) J 2017 rating compared to 2013_ lk �2013ri�n to benchm Z 17 ' Overall quality of life 90% 88% Similar Much higher Similar Overall image 80% 82% Similar Higher Similar Place to live 93% 90% Similar Much higher Similar Neighborhood 86% 80% Lower Higher Similar Place to raise children 90% 85% Similar Much higher Similar Place to retire 76% 71% Similar Much higher Similar Overall appearance 74% 84% Higher Similar Similar Table 2: Community Characterist_ic_s by Facet Percent rating positively (e.g., escellent/good, very/somewhat safe) _.. 2017 rating compared Comparisonto benchmark 2013 2017 to 2013 2013 2017 Overall feeling of safety NA 76% NA NA Similar Safe in neighborhood 95% 96% Similar Higher Similar Safety Safe downtown/commercial area 85% 92% Higher Lower Similar Overall ease of travel NA 75% NA NA Similar Paths and walking trails 72% 75% Similar Much higher Similar Ease of walking 80% 83% Similar Much higher Higher Travel by bicycle 60% 57% Similar Much higher Similar Travel by public transportation NA 50% NA NA Similar Travel by car 67% 64% Similar Higher Similar Public parking NA 38% NA NA Similar Mobility Traffic flow 52% 54% Similar Similar Similar Overall natural environment 76% 80% Similar Similar Similar Cleanliness 73% 80% Higher Similar Similar Natural Environment Air quality NA 90% NA NA Similar Overall built environment NA 63% NA NA Similar New development in Iowa City 55% 67% Higher Lower Similar Affordable quality housing 37% 24% Lower Lower Lower Housing options 53% 41% Lower Similar Similar Built Environment Public places NA 81% NA NA Similar Overall economic health NA 80% NA NA Higher Vibrant downtown/commercial area NA 76% NA NA Higher Business and services 69% 78% Higher Higher Similar Cost of living NA 32% NA NA Similar Shopping opportunities 55% ]0% Higher Similar Higher Employment opportunities 67% 65% Similar Much higher Higher Place to visit NA 71% NA NA Similar Economy Place to work 85% 80% Lower Much higher Higher Health and wellness NA 86% NA NA Higher Mental health care NA 57% NA NA Similar Preventive health services NA 80% NA NA Higher Health care 74% 76% Similar Much higher Higher Faod NA 75% NA NA Similar Recreation and Recreational opportunities 82% 80% Similar Much higher Similar Wellness Fitness opportunities NA 81% NA NA Similar Education and Religious or spiritual events and activities 91% 90% Similar Much higher Higher Enrichment Cultural/arts/music activities 87% 89% Similar Much higher Much higher 2 The National Citizen Survey— Percent rating 2017 rating compared I Comparienn to benchmark Adult education NA 83% NA NA Higher K-12 education 86% 87% Similar Much higher Higher Child care/preschool NA 48% NA NA Similar Social events and activities 86% 83% Similar Much higher Higher Neighborliness NA 69% NA NA Similar Openness and acceptance 76% 69% Lower Much higher Similar Oppor unities to participate in community Natural areas preservation Natural Environment Open space Similar NA Community matters 81% 82% Similar Much higher Higher Engagement Opportunitlestovolunteer 92% 89% Similar Much higher Higher Services provided by Iowa City Customer service Value of services for taxes paid Overall direction Welcoming citizen involvement Confidence in City government Acting in the best interest of Iowa City Being honest Treating all residentsfairly Services provided by the Federal Government Table 9, Governance by Facet 2013 Fire Lower Ambulance/EMS 013 Crime prevention 85% Fire prevention Similar Animal control Safety Emergency preparedness 79% Traffic enforcement Much higher Street repair 560% Street cleaning Similar Street lighting Similar Snow removal 63% Sidewalk maintenance Much lower Traffic signal timing Mobility Bus or transit services Higher Garbage collection Similar Recycling 60% Yard waste pick-up NA Drinking water NA Natural areas preservation Natural Environment Open space 2013 2017 Lower 2017 rating compared to 2013 013 2017 _7 85% 83% Similar Higher Similar 87% 79% Lower Much higher Similar 560% 61% Similar Similar Similar 44% 63% Higher Much lower Similar 550% 64% Higher Similar Similar NA 60% NA NA Similar NA 63% NA NA Similar NA 66% NA NA Similar NA 56% NA NA Similar 50% 36% Lower Much higher Similar 2013 1 2017 1 2017 m&g compared W 2013 1 2013 2017 88% 77% Lower Higher Similar 98% 95% Similar Much higher Similar NA 95% NA NA Similar 67% 61% Lower Similar Similar 90% 85% Similar Much higher Similar 75% 79% Similar Much higher Higher 77% 71% Lower Much higher Similar 64% 65% Similar Similar Similar 36% 39% Similar Much lower Similar 60% 68% Higher Similar Similar 61% 61% Similar Similar Similar 62% 60% Similar Lower Similar 59% 59% Similar Similar Similar 53% 55% Similar Similar Similar 82% 63% Lower Much higher Similar 94% 88% Lower Much higher Similar 88% 71% Lower Much higher Similar 92% 85% Lower Much higher Similar 80% 73% Lower Much higher Similar 62% 62% Similar Similar Similar NA 67% NA NA Similar 3 The National Citizen Survey— Table 5: Participation General 2013 Percent rating positively (e.g., escellent/good_) 12017 rating compared to 2013 Comparison to benchmark Sense of community 74% 2013 I 201] 201] rating compared tu 2013 2013 201] 88% Storm drainage 78% 76% Similar Much higher Similar Much higher Similar Sewer services 89% 8916 Similar Much higher Similar 76% Power utility NA 85% NA NA Similar Visited a City Park Utility billing NA 79% NA NA Similar 96% Land use, planning and zoning 41% 52% Higher Lower Similar NA Code enforcement 51% 60% Higher Similar Similar Built Environment Cable television 41% 42% Similar Much lower Similar Economy Economic development 53% 66% Higher Similar Similar NA City parks 91% 91% Similar Much higher Similar 91% Recreation programs 84% 87% Similar Much higher Higher NA Recreation centers 77% 82% Similar Higher Similar Recreation and Wellness Health services 89% 85% Similar Much higher Higher Special events NA 82%NA NA HigherEducation and Enrichment Public libraries 94% 95%...... Similar Much higher Higher Community Engagement Public information 83% 83% Similar Much higher Higher Table 5: Participation General Table 6: Participation by Facet 2013 2017 12017 rating compared to 2013 2013 _ 2017 Sense of community 74% 71% Similar Higher Similar Recommend Iowa City 90% 88% Similar Higher Similar Remain in Iowa City 89% 77% Lower Much higher Similar ContacRd Iowa Cityemployees 64% 44% Lower Much higher Similar Table 6: Participation by Facet NA Percent rating positively (e.g., aWays/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2017 rating compared to 2013 Comparison to benchmark 2013 2017 2013 2017 NA Stocked supplies for an emergency NA Did NOT report a crime Safety Was NOT the victim of a crime 80% Used public transportation instead of NA driving 90% Carpooled instead of driving alone Mobility Walked or biked instead of driving Similar Conserved water 45% Made home more energy efficient Natural Environment Recycled at home NA Did NOT observe a code violation Built Environment NOT under housing cost stress Similar Purchased goods or services in Iowa City 76% Economy will have positive impact on income Economy Work in Iowa City NA Used Iowa City recreation centers NA Visited a City Park Similar Ate 5 portions of fruits and vegetables Recreation and Participated in moderate or vigorous Wellness physical activity NA 18% NA NA Lower NA 80% NA NA Similar 90% 89% Similar Similar Similar NA 45% NA NA Higher NA 52% NA NA Similar NA 76% NA NA Higher NA 73% NA NA Similar NA 69% NA NA Similar 96% 85% Lower Much higher Similar NA 60% NA NA Similar 81% 66% Lower Much higher Similar NA 98% NA NA Similar 25% 24% Similar Much higher Similar NA 70% NA NA Much higher 63% 64% Similar Much higher Similar 91% 93% Similar Much higher Similar NA 81% NA NA Similar NA 85% NA NA Similar The National Citizen Survey— In very good to excellent health Percent ratng posdively (e.g., always/sometmes, more than once_ a_ _ month, yes) _ _ _ _ _ 2013 2017 2017 rating compared to 2013 Conq ar een to benchmark 20131 2017 In very good to excellent health NA 65% NA NA Similar Used Iowa City public libraries 81% 78% Similar Much higher Higher PaHicipand in religious or spiritual 52% 43% Lower Much higher Higher Education and activities 60% 41% Lower Much higher Similar Enrichment Attended a City -sponsored event NA 79% NA NA Much higher Campaigned foran issue, causeor 36% 26% Lower Much higher Similar candidate NA 42% NA NA Higher Contacted Iowa City elected officials NA _... 22% NA NA Similar Volunteered 69% 60% Lower Much higher Much higher Parbainated in a dub 52% 43% Lower Much higher Higher Talked to or visited with neighbors NA 82% NA NA Similar Done a favor for a neighbor NA 71% NA NA Lower Attended a local public meetng 36% 26% Lower Much higher Similar Watched a local public meetng 51% 28% Lower Much higher Similar Community Read or watched local news NA 76% NA NA Similar Engagement Voted in local elections 90% 81% Lower Much higher Similar Iowa City, IA Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups DRAFT 2017 NRC Li i:, ,i -s :ai.r;ienlerInr. 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 Boulder, Colorado 80301 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 ICMA Leaders at the Core of Better Communities 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002 cma.org • 800-745-8780 Summary The National Citizen Survey` (The NCS''") is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. This report discusses differences in opinion of survey respondents by housing tenure, annual household income, race/ethnicity, age and presence of children in the household. Responses in the following tables show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as "excellent' or "good," or the percent of respondents who attended a public meeting more than once a month. ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions. A "p -value" of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between subgroups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed are "real." Where differences were statistically significant, they have been shaded grey. The margin of error for all respondents (1,400 completed surveys) is generally no greater than plus or minus three percentage points around any given percent. The margin of error for subgroups is less precise. For subgroups of approximately loo respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points. Notable differences between demographic subgroups included the following: Within Community Characteristics, where patterns in differences in opinion were observed, residents who owned their homes or who were white alone, not Hispanic tended to give more positive ratings to General aspects than other residents. Respondents who rented their homes, were white alone, not Hispanic, age 18-34 or who did not have children in their homes were less likely than others to give favorable marks to Mobility. Those earning less than $50,000 per year or who were Hispanic and/or another race were less inclined than their counterparts to positively rate aspects of Economy, Education and Enrichment, or Community Engagement. Residents who earned at least $50,000 per year or who were age 55 or older tended to be more pleased with Recreation and Wellness than other residents. Strong patterns in response by demographic groups across most facets of Governance did not emerge. Where differences were observed, Iowa City residents who owned their homes or who were white alone, not Hispanic were more likely than other residents to positively rate Safety-related services, whereas those who rented their homes, made less than $50,000 per year or were age 18-34 tended to give less favorable marks to Natural Environment. Survey participants who rented their homes, earned less than $100,00o per year or were age 18-34 were less likely than other residents to indicate that they would recommend living in the city to someone who asked, planned to remain in Iowa City for the next five years or had contacted the City for help or information in the 12 months prior to the survey. Residents age 55 and older were more likely than younger residents to recycle at home, to have made their homes more energy-efficient or made efforts to conserve water. Respondents who owned their homes, earned at least $50,000 per year, were white alone, not Hispanic, or were age 35 or older were more likely than other respondents to have participated in various aspects of Community Engagement (including engaging with their neighbors, attending a public meeting, reading or watching local news and voting in local elections). Participants who rented their homes, earned less than $50,000 per year or were age 18-34 were less likely than others to indicate that they trusted their neighbors or felt that they belonged in their neighborhood. Percent rating posdively (e.g_, excellent/good) Rent Own The overall quality of life in Iowa City 8646 9046 Overall image or reputation IN of Iowa City]946 8646 Iowa City as a place to live 8846 9346 Your neighborhood as a place to live 7646 8446 Iowa City as a place to raise children 8246 8846 Iowa City as a place to more 68% 74% Overall appearance of lows City 83% 85% Table_ 2: Community Characteristics - Safe Housing enure The National Citizen Survey'" 7546 8046 90% 81% 72b 7546 8546 8646 93% 91% Children in 81% Household income 84% Race/eMnicity 826 87% 89% Age household Less than 1 $50,000- More than White alone, Hispanic and/or 18- 35- 83% 84% $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic other race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overa 87% 9046 88% 8346 92% 94% 8946 8046 87% 87% 91% 8146 8546 8246 80% 84% 1 850k 83% 7546 80% 1 8346 8646 7546 8046 90% 81% 72b 7546 8546 8646 93% 91% 80h 81% 89% 88% 84% 90h 826 87% 89% --7946----8546 83% ff 89% 85% 6746 71% 88X.6 71% ]6h 68X6 69X6 SOh 70% 751% 71% 85% 83% 84% 85% 78% 85% 82% 840K, 830K, 870K, 840K, Less than $50,000 - safe) Rent Own $50,000 $100,000 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 72% 800A 72% 75% Children in 50h 57% Household income 49% Race/eMmaty Age , household_ 38% Ease of travel by car in Iowa City 56% 70% Hispanic 66 Ease of travel by public Percent rating positively (e.g., Less than $50,000- More than Whitealone, and/or other 18- 35- exellent/good,very/somewhat safe) Rent Own $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic race _ 34 54 55+ No Yes Cvera Overall feeling of safety in Iowa City ]lh 80h� 69°6 82°.6 8246 76h 80°/X 80°.6 7446 83°.6 7646 In your neighborhood during the day 97% 94% 95% 970k 98% 9746 91°/X 960% 980k 93% 96h 96h 9646 In Iowa City's downNwn/commercial �_ ]6°/X _ area during the day 93% 91% 91% 92% Table 3: Community Characteristics - :: _ail its ]9 h ]5°/X 57% Housing 69% tenure 626 620k Household in, Percent rating positively (e.g., 54% 49% 37% exo?Ilent/good, very/somewhat Less than $50,000 - safe) Rent Own $50,000 $100,000 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 72% 800A 72% 75% Traffic flow on major streets 50h 57% 54% 49% Ease of public parking 32% 43% 32% 38% Ease of travel by car in Iowa City 56% 70% 59% 66 Ease of travel by public transportation in Iowa City 47% 56% 51% 51% Children in Hispanic More than Whitealone, and/or other 1 18- 35- 84°/X �_ ]6°/X _ ]] h]3% ]846 1 81% i _ ]S h ]9 h ]5°/X 57% 51% 69% 46% 626 620k 51h 6246 54% 49% 37% 46% 28% 51% 47% 35/ 48% 38% 69% 62% 71% 56% ]2°/X 710/X 60/ 730% 64% 52% 50% 55% 46% 53% 63% 49h 57%X 50% 2 Percent rabug positively (e.g., excollent/good, very/somewhat safe) Ease of travel by bicycle in Iowa City Ease of walling in Iowa City Availability of paths and walldng Housing Less than Rent I Own 450.000 trails 1 75% 1 76% 1 ]]% 1 Table 4: Community Characteristics - Natural Environment Housing Percent ra8ng positively (e.g., ex�llent/good, very/somewhat afe) _ Quality of overall natural environment in Iowa City Air quality Cleanliness of Iowa City Less than Rent I Own 1 450.000 90% go% ]8% 82% ;tics - Built Env Housing enure rat ng positively (e.g., 1 66% Hispanic LPercent ex�llert/good, very/somewhat safe) Rent Own Overall'built environment' of Iowa City 1-.63% 82% 39% 21% (including overall design, buildings, parks More than Whitealone, and transportation systems) 66% 61% Public places where people want to fiend 81% 41% 240/b time 81% 82% Variety of housing options 33% 48% Availability of affordable quality honing 24% 23% Overall quality of new development in lows 54 55+ City 69% 64% The National Citizen Survey— Children in 73% 1 75% 1 75% 1 78% I 73% 1 75% 1 81% ]]% Children in 1 66% Hispanic Hispanic b7% 1 63% 1 64% 1-.63% 82% 39% 21% 0,000- More than Whitealone, and/orother 18- 35- 81% 41% 240/b 40% 310k 00,000 $100,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall 58% 57% 57% 61% 57% 595n 57% 56% 64% 57% 795n 85% 84% 75% 82% 83% 86% 83% i 83% 83% 73% 1 75% 1 75% 1 78% I 73% 1 75% 1 81% ]]% Children in Children in Household income Race/eMnicity Age household Hispanic Lessthan I $50,000- More Man fWhitealone, and/orother 18 1 35- 39% 33% 51% 28% 16% 26% 3 63%_ 1 66% Hispanic I 62% b7% 1 63% 1 64% 1-.63% 82% 39% 21% More Man White alone, and/or other 18- 35- 82% 36% 200/b 81% 41% 240/b 40% 310k $100,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall 78% 80% 84% 80% 79% 84% 79% 84% 80% 92% 90% 90% 90% --' a9% 1--, 91% 1390/b 93_-. 90% 82% 80% 78% 790C 7901. 84°/a 7901. 81% 80% Children in Household income Race/eMnicity Age household Hispanic Lessthan I $50,000- More Man fWhitealone, and/orother 18 1 35- 39% 33% 51% 28% 16% 26% 3 63%_ 1 66% b3% I 62% b7% 1 63% 1 64% 1-.63% 82% 39% 21% ]]% 44% 37% 83%]4% 37% 21% 85% 48% 230/b 1 81% 41% 25% 82% 36% 200/b 81% 41% 240/b 40% 310k 66% ]0°/a 72% 62% 59% 670k 1 66% 1 67% The National Citizen Survey— Table 6: Community Characteristics - Economy tenure [Pe.effrcrating positively (e.g., lent/good, very/somewhat safe) Rent Own Health and wellness opportunities in Iowa City 85% 8946 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 81 % 82 % Recreational opportunities 82% ]]% Availability of affordable quality food 69% ]9% Availability of affordable quality health care Availability of prevenOve health services Availability of affordable quality mental health care Housing Children in tenure Household income Race/ethnicity Age household Hispanic Percent raging positively (e.g., lenLess than $SQ000- More than White alone, and/or other 34 54 exo?It/good, very/somewhat safe) Rent Own 35- $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No Yes Oaera Overall economic health of Iowa City 80% 82°/o ]6% 84% SS% 82% 77% 83% ]5% 83% 81 % 81% 80% Iowa City as a place to work ]5% 84% ]3% 85% 85% 80% ]5°/o ]8% ]5% 8]46 SO / ]9°/o 80%Iowa City as a place to visit ]0°/o ]1°/o 6]% ]5% ]2% ]1% 68% 65% ]0% 85% ]2°/o 66°/o ]1% Employment opportunities_ 69% 64% 65% ]2% 6]% 55% 68% 59% ]O% 65% 69°/a 65% Shopping opportunities _ ]0°/a ]0°/a 6]% ]6% 69% ]2% 56% ]2% 65% ]1% 68% ]5% ]0% Cost of living in Iowa City 30% 33% 33% 26% 35% 31°/o 34% 32°/o 31°/o 31°/o 32% 28% 32% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Iowa Gty 78% ]]% ]4% '. 80% 82% 80% 64% 80% ]3% 77% ]]% ]9% ]8% Vibrant downNwn/commercial area 79% 73% ]5%g 81%1]3% ]]% 68% 82% ]0% 68% ]5 % ]]% ]6°/o Table 7: Communi Characteristics -Recre Lessthan I $50,000- Morethan I Whitealone, ]0% 81% 69% 1 80% 1 83% 1 75% 75% 85% 72% 87% 87% 80% 55% 58% 57% 57% 58% 5]% ation and Wellness Housing Children in Lessthan I $50,000- Morethan I Whitealone, ]0% 81% 69% 1 80% 1 83% 1 75% 75% 85% 72% 87% 87% 80% 55% 58% 57% 57% 58% 5]% 4 Hispanic and/or other 1 18- 35 - race 34 54 83°/a 81% 76% 87% 82% Sio 1 81% 78% SO% 7445 82% 80% 76% 80% 65% 71% 74% 82% 73% 80% 75% 76% 73% 74% 82% r -I_-_]4% I_ ]S°/a 76% 83% ]]% 79% 86% ]]%� 89% 80°/a 59% 55% 630% 55°/a 5]°/a 5]°/a 5]°/a The National Citizen Survey'" TahlP R- [nmmi inity fharartPrictirc - Frli iratinn and FnrirhmPnt Overall opporWnitiesfor educatinn Housing Children in tenure Household income Race/ethnicity Age household 93% 90% 95% 95% 93% 89% 92% Hispani 96% 93% 91% 92% Availability of affordable quality child 1.1yezut/good, rct rating positively (e.g., Less than $So,000- More than White alone, and/or other 18- 11 care/preschool 46% 48% very/somewhat safe) Rent (Ave $So,000 $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall Overall opporWnitiesfor educatinn 1 1 and enrichment 92% 93% 90% 95% 95% 93% 89% 92% 90% 96% 93% 91% 92% Availability of affordable quality child :kb care/preschool 46% 48% 49% 41% 53% 45% 60% 44% 48% 54% 50 45 h _ K-12 education 86% 88% 85% 8]% 91% 88% 84% _480k 85% 88% 90% 87% 88% 87% 82% 85% ]9% 86% 88% 85% ]6% Adult educational opportunities 82°/o 83% 85% 83% 84% 83% 74% 84% 81% 85% Opportunities to attend 86% cultural/arts/music activities 88% 90% 84% 93% 95% 91% 79% 90% 86% 92% 89% 88% 89% Opportunities to participate in 90% 83% 890k 880k 920k 88% 93% 89% e in 78% religious or spiritual events and ]]% 85% 87% 83% 76% 82% 84% 82% 81% 86% Table 9: Community Characteristics - Community En agerrert Percent rating positively ( . 11ent/good, very/some Opportunities to participa ents and activities Opportunities to volunteer Opportunities to participa community matters Openness and acceptance community toward people backgrounds Neighborliness of residen city Housing Children in tenure Household income Race/ethnicity Age household e.g., Les than $50,0(10- More than White alone, and/or other 18- 35- wha_tsafe) Rent Own $50,000 $180,000 $18Q000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall t ev is o in social 81% 85% 81% 84% 87% 84% 74% 84% 81% 85% 82% 86% 83% 87% 92% 87% 92% 92% 90% 83% 890k 880k 920k 88% 93% 89% e in 78% 86% ]]% 85% 87% 83% 76% 82% 84% 82% 81% 86% 82% of the of diverse 670k 700k 65% 73% 70% 69% 66% 70% 63% 73% 680k 69% 69% in Iowa 64% 73% 65% 68% ]]% 71% 56% 71% 67% 66% 67% 74% 69% 5 Housing tenure LPercent rating positively (e.g., Les than excollent/good) Rent Own $50,000_ The City of Iowa City 83% 83% ]8%_ The value of services for the taxes paid to Iowa City 64% 58% 63% The overall direction that Iowa City is taking 68% 58% 61°/o The pt, Iowa Cry government does at The National Citizen Survey— Children in Household income Race/ethnicity Me household 0,000- 00,000 More than $100,000 White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race 18- 34 35- 54 55+ No Yes Overall Age household 84% 80% 820k 810k 86% 81% 87% 83% 59% 6(1% 62% 540k welcoming cit¢en involvement 66% 62% 62% Overall confidence in Iowa City 61% bs% 62% government_ 64% 56% 57% Generally acting m the best interest of 62% 68% 63% the community 65% _ 60% 60% Being honest 650k 66% 63% Treating all residentsfairly 57% 56% 55% Overall customer service by Iowa City 61% 58% 62% 60% 63% 52% 56% 84% ]9% 64% 73% 59% employees (police, receptionists, 53% 80% 81% ]9% planners, etc.) 74% 84% 76% The Federal Government 33% _400% 36% Table 11: Governance - Safety The National Citizen Survey— Children in Household income Race/ethnicity Me household 0,000- 00,000 More than $100,000 White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race 18- 34 35- 54 55+ No Yes Overall Age household 84% 80% 820k 810k 86% 81% 87% 83% 59% 6(1% 62% 540k 630k 57 % 61 % 600k 64% 61% bs% 62% 64% 56% 69% 59% 56% 62% 68% 63% 66°/a 66% 68°/a 70% 60% 79% 38% 65% 58% 61°/a 68°/a 57% 84% 37% 66% 61% 63% 67% 57% 81% 36% 51% 580k 60% 57% 540%___ 68% 39% 660k 63% 660k 70% 6136 76% 32% 63% 60% 64% 64% 64% 60% 63% 66% 56% 58% 56% 60% 62% 61% 58% 62% 60% 63% 52% 56% 84% ]9% 64% 73% 59% 64% 53% 80% 81% ]9% 38% 46% 36% 40% 36% Police/Sheriff seryices Housing 79% 74% ]]% Children in 76% tenure Household income Race/ethnicity Age household 98% 96% Ambulance or emergency medical services_ _ Hispanic 96% 93% Percent rating positively (e.g., 97% Les than $50,000- More than White alone, and/or other 18- 35- 660k excollent/good) Rent Own $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall Police/Sheriff seryices 74% 79% 74% ]]% 82% 76% Fire services 92% 97% 93% 97% 98% 96% Ambulance or emergency medical services_ 94% 96% 93% 96% 97% 96% Crime prevention 5]% 660k 59% _ 61% 67% 62% Fire prevention and education 82% 87% 1 82% 1 88% 87% 86 Animal control I 790k 790k 76% 1 84% 82% 81% Emergency preparedness (services Mat 69% 66% 80°.b prepare the community for natural disasters ]1% 72% 71% or other emergency situations) 699n 72% 699n 70% ]]% 71% 6 90% 95% 92% 98% 94 % 9] % 95 % 89% 96% 92% 96% 94% 96% 95% 60°/a 55% 64% 72% 60°/a 66°/a 61°/a 79% 85% 82% 90% 84% 87% 85% 69% 8496 780k 750/b 780ib 840k 790k 69% 66% 80°.b ]2% ]1% 72% 71% The National Citizen SurveyT' Table 12: Governance - Mobility Housing Children in tenure -Household income Race/e_Ihmaty , Age household Percent rating positively Less than $50,000- More than White alone, Hispanic and/or 18- 35- (e.g., excellent/good) Rent Own $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic other race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall _. Traffic enforcement 67% 620% 67% 59% 68% 640k 68% 66% 620k 670k 64% 6]% 65% Street repair 41% 38% 410% 390% 390% 39% 45% 41% 39% 38% 44% 390% Street cleaning 69°/o 6]°/o 73% 63% 66% 70% 59% 65% 62% 68% 68% 68% Street lighting 57% 65% 61% 61% 62% 63% 50% 60% 63% 60% 66% 61% Snow removal 57% 63% 61% 58% 63% Wok 61 % 1590k 59% 69% 640k 60% 60% Sidewalk maintenance 58% 61% 62% 58% 56% 59% 61% 59% 61% 59% 58% 59%Traffc signal timing 61% 49% 63% 51% 4]% 55% 60% 53 % 53% 54 % 59% 55%Bus or transit services 1 58% 6]% 63°/o 60 % 65% 62 % 6] % 63% 74% 61 % 67% 63% Te,ble t' Gor,ernance - Natu Housing Children in tenure Household income Race/eMniaty Age household [.Proert -_ erating positively(e.g., Less than $50,000- More than White alone, and/orother 18 1 35 o?Ilent/good) Rent Own $50,000 $100,000 $IDO,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 1 55+ No Yes --- Overall Garbage collection_ 84% 92% 83% _ 93% 92% 88°/a 88°/a 85% 90% 93% 86% fff 93% 88% Recyding 59% 82% 61% 78% ]8% 70% 70% 60% ]8% 85% 69% 75% ]1% Yard waste pick-up ]9% 90% 82% 88°/o 88°/o 87% 76% 83°/o 88°/o 88°/o 84% 88% 850/o Drinking water 64% 82% 67% 74% 81% 73% 68% 69% 73% 82% 71% ]]% 73% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 63% 62% 620% 62% 62% 62% 65% 63% 651 561 61% 64% 62% Iowa City open space 70% 65% 67% 67% 70% _ 69% 60% 73% 64% 60% _ 6]% 68% 67% Table 14: Governance - Bui'.t '. Housing Children in tenure Household income _ Race_/eMnicity 1 Age h_ousehold___ Percent rating positively(e.g., Less than $50,000- More than White alone, Hispanic and/or I 18- 35- ..Ilent/good) Rent Own $50,000__ $100,000 $100,00 not Hispanic other race +-34 54 55+ No Yes Overall Storm drainage 74% 79% ]4% ]]°/o 8201. ]8% 65% ]]% ]4% 80% ]6% ]9% ]6% Sewer services 8]% 90% 89% 89% 90%__ 89°/a 8]°/a 91% 84% 91% 89% 89% 89% Power (electric and/or gas) _ utility 81% 88% 82°/a 85% 88% 85% 81% 84% 80% 91% 84% 85% 850k Utility billing 73% 84% 76% 79% 85% 80% 72% 77% 77% 85% 80% ]4% 79% Land use, planning and zoning 54°/o 49% 52°/o 50% 54% I 50% I 60% 54% 54% 45% 49% 58% 52% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 63% 55% 62% 59% 55% 59% 61% 59% 66% 52% 5]% 640k 60% 7 The National Citizen Survey— wei11L1[]9-G1L'YN 0 Housing Children in Race/e_thnicity Age Children in h_ouseho_ld___ tenure___ Household income_ _ _ Race/ethnicity 4ge use Rent Own Percent rating positively(e.g., Less than $W,OW- More than Whitealone, I Hispanic and/or 18 35 I Children in Yes exrellent/good) Rent Own $W Ogg $100 WO $100 WO not Hispanic other race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall wei11L1[]9-G1L'YN 0 Table 17: Governance - Education and Enrichment Housing Household in_c_ome Race/e_thnicity Age Children in h_ouseho_ld___ Percent rating positively (e.g.,excellent/good) Rent Own _ Les Man $W,OW- More than $W,OW $1W,W0 $1W,W0 Whitealone, Hispanic and/or 18- 35- not Hispanic other race 34 54 55+ Children in Yes Overall _ tenure 9]% 95% Household income 9]% 9 9]% 96% 94% Race/eMmcity 96% !ge City -sponsored special events household_ 80% 81% 85% 82% ]9% 83% 80% 8016 Percent rating positively 83% 82% Less than $50,000- More than Whitealone, Hispanic and/or 18- 35- (e.g.,excellent/gocd) Rent Own $W,OW $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic other race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall Economic development 72% 61% 1 69k b20k 69k bb% ]1% 73% 1 61% 60% b50k 72% 66% Table 16: Governance - Recreation and Wellness Housing I Children in tenure Household income Race/ethnicity Age household Percent rating positively Lesthan $50,000 More than White alone, _ Hispanic and/or 18- 35 .6) Rent Own $%,OW $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic other race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall City parks 90% 93% 89% 96% 92% 93% 81% 92% 90rk 92% 91% 91% 91% Recreation programs or classes 86% 89% 85% 93% 86% 89% 79% 9046 85% 87% 87% 88% 870k Recreation centers or facilities 84% 80% 80% 850k 81% 82% 81% 83% 82% 81% 82% 83% 82% Health services 83% 8]% 82% 8]k 90% 85% 880% 84% 83% 89% 84% 87% 85% Table 17: Governance - Education and Enrichment Table 18: Governance - Community Enaaaement Housing tenure Household in_c_ome Race/e_thnicity Age Children in h_ouseho_ld___ Percent rating positively (e.g.,excellent/good) Rent Own _ Les Man $W,OW- More than $W,OW $1W,W0 $1W,W0 Whitealone, Hispanic and/or 18- 35- not Hispanic other race 34 54 55+ _ No Yes Overall Public library services 9]% 95% 95% 97% 97% 9]% 9 9]% 96% 94% 96% 96% 95% City -sponsored special events 81% 82% 80% 81% 85% 82% ]9% 83% 80% 8016 81% 83% 82% Table 18: Governance - Community Enaaaement Public intormation services 1 83% 1 83% 1 80% 1 86% 1 85% 1 84% 1 //% 1 86 k 1 810% 1 81% 1 82% 1 8tib 1 83% 8 Housing Children in tenure Household income Race__/e_Mnicity Age household Percent rating positively Lesthan $W,OW- __ More than _ Whitealone, Hispanic and/or 18- 35- (e.g.,excellent/good) Rent Own $W,OW $1W,W0 $1W,W0 not Hispanic other race 1 34 54 55+ No I Yes Overall Public intormation services 1 83% 1 83% 1 80% 1 86% 1 85% 1 84% 1 //% 1 86 k 1 810% 1 81% 1 82% 1 8tib 1 83% 8 The National Citizen Survey— Housing tenure Household_ income _ Race/ethmaty _ Age Percent rating positively (e.g., Hispanic always/sometimes, more than once a Lees than $50,000- Morethan Whitealone, I and/orother 18- 35 1, yes) Rent Own $S 'R: 71% Sense of community 75% 69% $58,000 Recommend living in Iowa City to someone who asks 86% 91% 85% 84% Remain in Iowa City for the next five years 62% 90% 66% 45% Contacted the City of Iowa City (in- person, phone, email or web) for help or Housing old ircome Race/iMnic information 32% 55% 35% Table 20: Participation - Safety ,000 10.000 More than 4100.000 White alone not Hispanic i and/or other race Housing 3 544 55+ Percent rating positively (e.g., V 96% 1 88% always/sometimes, more Man once a 1 86% Les than month, yes) Rent Own $58,000 87% Was NOT the victim of a crime SS°/o 90% Did NOT report a crime 81% 790k 790k 84% Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 15% 20 15% Table 21: Participation - Mobility 45% 34% 36% Housing old ircome Race/iMnic tenure Age Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Walked or biked instead of driving Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone Used bus, rail, subway or offer public transportation instead of driving Children in household 88% V 96% 1 88% 1 91% 1 86% 1 91% 1 92% 1 87% 1 92% 88% ]9% 91% 76% 73% 64% 84% 92% 60% 73% 85% 42% 1 47% 77% 1 44% 4]% 55% 45% 34% 36% 44: old ircome Race/iMnic Age Children n hoeodHispanic ,000 10.000 More than 4100.000 White alone not Hispanic i and/or other race 18- 34 3 544 55+ No Yes Overnll 20% 1 19% 1 17% 23% 12% 1 22% 1 24% 1 15% 1 25% 1 18% Children in Household income _ _ _ _ j Race/ethnicity Age household Hkpanic fees Man $50,000 - More than White alone, and/or other 18- 35- $5'000 $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 79% 74% 74% ]8% 66% 85% 69% 58% 45% 50% 54% 40% 61% 47% 52% 40% 3]95 45% 48% 53% 41% 9 The National Citizen Survey— Housing Housing Children in tenure Household Race/ethnicity Age household _income Children in Hspanicays/sometimes, ur_e_ [Percent positively (e.g., Household income omen more than oncea Race/eMmaty Age I Percent rating positively (e.g., $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No _ Overall _ Hispanic _household____ always/sometimes, more than once a Les than $50,000- Morethan White alone, and/or other 18- 35 month, yes) Rent_ Own $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall Recycle at home 780k 940% 78% SS% 95% 88% ]0% 81% 86% 95% 840K, 90% 850k Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 62% 75% 66% ]2-1, ]0°/a 68% ]3% 65% 69% 76% 66% 77% 69% Mad eeffortstoconservewater 71% 74% ]1% 74% 73% 71% 83% 69% 74% 790A 721/b 75% 73% Tahle 73- P,arrirination - Nnit Fr,,, 't Housing Children in tenure Household Race/ethnicity Age household _income Hspanicays/sometimes, [Percent positively (e.g., omen more than oncea Less than $50000- More than Whitealone, and/orother 18- 35 - I nth, yes) Rent Own $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall NOT under housing cost stress 53% ]9% 39% 85% 96% 66% 60% 9% ]1% ]]% 64% 71% 66% Did NOT observe a code violation 69% 52% 6]% 5]% 53% 60% 64% " 65% 5]% 54% 62% 55% 68 Table 24: Porti P tor=,onomy IPercent ratng go always/wmetime month, yes) Purchase goods business located Economy will hav income Work in Iowa Ci Housing - Children in tenure Household income Race/ethnicity Age honhild sitively (e.g., Hispanic w inorethan oncea Le. than $60,000- More than White alone, and/or other 18- 35 - Rent Own $5'000 $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ NoOverall or services from a in Iowa City 98% 98% 97% 99% 98% 99% 94% 99% 9]% 9]% 98% 98% 98% e positive impact on 20% 28% 20% 26% 31% 22% 33% 20% 32% 25% 20% 36% 24% City 10 71% 67% 69% 67% ]4% 69% ]3% ]6% ]6% 46% 68% 76% 70% 10 The National Citizen Survey— Table 25: Participation - Recreation and Wellness Housing Children io tenure Household income _ Race/ethmcity Age _household Percent radon positively (e.g., Hispanic always/sometimes, more Man once a fees than $50,000- More than White alone, and/or other 18- 35 - month, yes) Rent Own $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall Used Iowa City recreation centers or their services62% 65% 60% 66% 66% 63% 64% 66% 66% 57% 58% 83% 64% Visited a neighborhood park or City a park 92% 93% 90% r 96%93% 93% 89°/o 95% 93% 86% 91% 98% 93% Eat least5 portions of fruits and vegett ables a day 75% 86% 75% 84% 87% 80% 81% 800k 800k 8.40/o 7901. 850% 81°/o Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 8.4°/o 86% 83% 8]% 8]% 85% 86% 86%820k 8]% 86% 83% 85% Reported being in "very good" or "excellent" health 63% 68% 56% 71% 1 75% 66% 55% 69% 61% 60% 64% 1 70% 65% Table 26: Participation - Education and Enrichment Housing Children in tenure Househo_I_d_income Race/ethnicity Age household Percent radon positively (e.g., Hispanic always/sometimes, more Man oncea Less than $50,000- More than White alone, and/or other 18- 35- month,yes) Rent Own $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall Used Iowa City public libraries or their services ]]% 80% 73% 85% 81% 7% ]3% ]8% 82% 76% 76% 85% 78% Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Iowa City 39% 43% 40% 39% 45% 40% 47% 35% 43% 52% 38% 51% 41% Attended a City -sponsored event ]]% 80% 731 84% 83% 81% 65% 82% 781 81% 790k Table 27: Participation - Communit Engagement Housing Children in tenure Household_ income Race/ethnicity Age household Percent raring positively (e.g., Hispanic always/sometimes, more than once Less Man $50,000- More than White alone, and/or other 18- 35 - month, yes) Rent Own $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overnll Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 41% 42% 40% 43% 47% 45% 24% 38% 48% 45% 41% 45% 42% Contacted Iowa City elected officials (in- _ person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 200k 23% 22% 20% 24% 220k 21% 18% 23% 29% 21% 23% 22% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Iowa City_ 60% 59% 59% 58% 64% 60% 57/0 60% 60% 59% 59% 64% 60% Participated in a dub 46% 41% _ 42% 44% 35% 48% 33% 43% 45% 36% 43% 11 The National Citizen Survey— Children in More than $180,000 Housing Hispanic and/or other race 18- 34 35- 54 tenure No Overall _Household 84% ]3% 27% 28% 75% 84% Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a 90% 82% 32% 32% 80% 86% 94% 86% 34% 41% 93% 92% Less than $mI,OSI month, yes) Rent Own $50,008 $lq),q 28% 28% 28% Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 70% 93% 71% 87% _ Done a favor for a neighbor 58% 85% 62% 75% Attended a local public meeting 19% 34% 21% 28% Watched (online or on television) a local 54 55+ No Yes Overall public meeting 24% 32% 26% 28% 84% Sense of community _ Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 66% 85% 68% 80% Vote in local elections 1 72% 9096 74% 84% Table 28: Communitv Focus Areas Children in More than $180,000 White alone, not Hispanic Hispanic and/or other race 18- 34 35- 54 55+ No Yes Overall 95% 83% 34% 32% 85% 91% 84% ]3% 27% 28% 75% 84% _ 70% 60% 17% 31% ]]°/, 1 63% _ 72% 58% 20% 20% 65% 1 74% 90% 82% 32% 32% 80% 86% 94% 86% 34% 41% 93% 92% 79% 92% 82% 68% 81% 71% 250k 30% 26% 28% 28% 28% 74% ]g% 76% 81% 82% 81% Housing IChildren 84% 88% 1 85% in 89°/a 1741°/, tenure Household mcome Race/ethnicity Age household 82% Quality of overall natural environment in 85% ]9% 85% ]2h ]9%]3°/, 73% H spanic 81 % Book Book Overall'built environment' of Iowa City [Peeftrc �1,1- rating positively (e.g., Less than $5,000- More than White alone, and/orother 18- 35- ]]% Health and wellness opportunities in Iowa 54 55+ No ssontial/very important) Rent Own $50000 $100000 $100000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall Overall feeling of safety in Iowa City 84% 88% 1 85% Overall ease of getting Is the places you 89°/a 1741°/, 86°/a 1% 8651o%/, usually have to visit 81% ]]% 82% Quality of overall natural environment in 85% ]9% 85% ]2h ]9%]3°/, 73% Iowa City 81 % Book Book Overall'built environment' of Iowa City �1,1- Age householdnot (including overall design, buildings, parks Hispanic and/or Hispanic and transportation systems) 73%-_ 81% ]]% Health and wellness opportunities in Iowa 54 55+ No Yes Overall City ]4% ]4% 75% Overall opporounities for education and enrichment 170% 75% 80% Overall economic health of_Iowo City 82% 90% 84% Sense of community _ 68% 79% 69% Table 29: Line Addition to_Qi.: Housing 89% 1 86% 1 86% 1 88% 184% 1 85% 1 93% 1 86% 1 86% I 86 % Book 88% 77% Household income Percent rating positvely (e.g., Less than $50,000 - L lent/good) Rent Own $50,000 $100,000 City website experience (www.icgov. erg) 73% 61% 69% t 68% 69% 1 76% 86% 74% 78% 87% 78/, 75% ]]% 89°/a 1741°/, 86°/a 1% 8651o%/, 91% 86 /a 88%79% ]]% ]4°/, ]1°/a 65% 85% ]9% 85% ]2h ]9%]3°/, 73% Children in Race/eM �1,1- Age householdnot Hispanic and/or Hispanic 35not HiSlonic Hispanic other race 54 55+ No Yes Overall 12 Percent rating as "as least once in the last 12 months" In the last 12 months, how many times, if at all, have you attended a live performing The National Citizen Survey— Rent_ or own J Household income J__ _ le.thanT $50,000- I More than I White Table 31: Feelings Toward Neighbors and Neiohhorhood Hispanic and/or other 18- 1 35 - Children in household Housing IfChildren te_n_u re Children in Race/ethnicity Please indicate the extent to which you agree tenure Household income Race/ethnicity Age household White H'spanic H'spanic or disagree with each of the following statements: (Percent rating as "strongly agree" Less than $50,000- More than alone, not and/or other asverylilo?ly"or Less than $5,000 - or "somewhat agree"). Rent Own $50,000 $180,000 $180,000 Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall I trust my neighbors and can rely on them to help me if needed —1like to be helpful to my neighbors. I feel like I belong in my neighborhood ] Tabie 32'. Recommeno Iowa City to Peers [palng IfChildren te_n_u re Household income Race/ethnicity Age in H'spanic _ _ _household asverylilo?ly"or Less than $5,000 - More than Whitealone, and/or other 18- 35likely" Rent Own $50,000 $18,000 $18,000 not Hispanic race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall Pease indicate how likely or unlikely you would here recommend living in Iowa City to other people your age: 83% 9016 81% 89% 95% 88% 81% 83% 88% 93% 84% 94% 86% How much of a source, if at all, do you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about Iowa City government news, meetings, events, and alerts? (Percent rating as "major source" or "minor source"). City website (www.icgov.org) City Facebook page City Twitter feed Nextdcor City posts on Linkedlo City Instagram feed Housing Children in White Hispanic Less than $50,000- Morethan alone not and/or 18- 35 - Rent Own $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 Hispanic otherrace 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall 81°.6 84k 86% 90% 85% 86°/1 84% 90% 8646 83k 920 861/1 69k Sbk 6]k 62% 56% 62% 67% 75k 59% 39% 61% 68% 63% 43k 33k 44°/1 36% 301/1 37% 44% 47k 35% 21% 38% 38% 38% ", Slk 341/1 38% 49% 37% 501/1 33% 48% 41% 33% 58% 39% 15% 151/1 181/1 13% 11% 13% 32% 141/1 18% 14% 13% 22% 15% 301/1 19% 31% 22% 14% 23% 35% 32% 201/1 12% 24% 2J% 25% 13 The National Citizen Survey— How much of a source, if at all, do you consider each Housing of the following to be for obtaining information about tenure Children in Iowa City government news, meetings, events, and Children in tenure hold income alerts? (Percent rating as "major source' or "mirror Race/ethnicity household_ Less than source) Rent Own $So,00o City YouTube channel 280k 270k 32% E -subscriptions (email notifications) 50% 65% 5346 Local newspapers( Iowa City Press Citizen, The 0,000 More than alone, not Gazette) 86% 84% 84% Council meetings and/or other public meetings 54% 6646 550% _City Talking with City officials 45% 53% 500/1 Word-of-mouth 830k 820k 83% Table 34: Student Status 14 Housing Children in Children in tenure hold income Race/ethnicity Race/ethnicity household_ Age LYes"" household Less than $50,000- More than White alone, Hispanic and/or 18- 35- White Hispanic Rent Own $50,000 $1Oorwo $100,000 not Hispanic other race 34 54 55+ No Yes 0,000 More than alone, not and/or 18- 35- 00,000 $100,000 Hispanic other race 34 54 55+ No Yes Oaerall 24% 22% 26% 40% 30°/a 22, _ 2]°/a _ 31°/a 2]4b 60h 63% 5]°/a 62% 55°/a _28°h 59h 6146 55% 66% 57h 90% 83% 85% 88°/a 85% 83% 89% 85% 850/a 85% 64% 62% 59% 62% 580/a 590% 630k 600% 590/a 60°/a 45% 52% 47% 58% 470/a 49h 52h 48h 50°/a 490% 83% 81°/a 83% 84% 81°/a 84h 85h 82h 840% 830% 14 Housing Children in tenure _ Household income Race/ethnicity _Age household_ LYes"" Less than $50,000- More than White alone, Hispanic and/or 18- 35- Rent Own $50,000 $1Oorwo $100,000 not Hispanic other race 34 54 55+ No Yes Overall ....................... Are you currently a student at a university, college, or community college? 38% 746 41% 8% 6% 23% 25% 40% 9% 1% 28% 7% 23% 14 Iowa City, IA Comparisons by Geographic Subgroups DRAFT 2017 NRC Li i:, ,i -s :ai.r;ienlerInr. 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 Boulder, Colorado 80301 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 ICMA Leaders at the Core of Better Communities 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002 cma.org • 800-745-8780 Summary The National Citizen Survey` (The NCS''") is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. This report discusses differences in opinion of survey respondents by geographic area. Responses in the following tables show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as "excellent' or "good," or the percent of respondents who attended a public meeting more than once a month. ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions. A "p -value" of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between area are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed are "real." Where differences were statistically significant, they have been shaded grey. The margin of error for all respondents (481 completed surveys) is generally no greater than plus or minus four percentage points around any given percent. The margin of error for subgroups is less precise. For subgroups of approximately loo respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points. Six geographic subareas were tracked for comparison and the number of completed surveys for each are in the figure below. Due to the low number of responses in certain subgroups as well as the overall number of subareas, differences in opinion by subarea of residence should be interpreted with caution. The National Citizen Survey— The overall quality of life in Iowa City V 99% 93% 78% 87% 92% 88% 89% Overall image or reputation of Iowa City 88% 88% 77% 78% 81°/0 77% 81% Iowa City as a place to live 99% 91% 86% 89% 96% 94% 1 92% Your neiqhborhood as a dace to live 93% 92% 65% suis 85% 81% 62% 1 81% Table 2: Community Characteristics - Safety Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) East South Geographic Area South West Central Downtown Overall Overall feeling of safety in Iowa City 79% 879/b 71% 76% 77% 38% 74% In your neighborhood during the day 609/b "97%93% 87% 97% 98% 88% 95% In Iowa City's downtown/commercial area during the day 71% 61% 89% 89% 95% 93% 92% Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit Traffic Flow on major streets Ease of public parking Ease of travel by car in Iowa City Availability of paths and walking trails Table 4: Community Characteristics - Natural Environment North East South West Centn 72% 71% 77% 79% 879/b 47/a Q% 44% 57% 48% 609/b 41% 27/a 41% ._36% 74% 67°/a 71% 61% 56% �52°/a 62% 60°/a 56% 570/3 67/a 55°/a 66% 64% 64% 98% 88% 899/b 78% 70%j 80% 87% 1 80% 949/b 1 69% 64% 78% 47/a 52% 23% 37°/a 56% 63% 61% 53% 62% 79% 87% 81% 77% Air quality 81% 91% 84% 89% 89q 77°/0 ,,. 87% Cleanliness of Iowa City 90% 85% 80% 72 1 71% 78% 2 The National Citizen Survey— Overall systecnpla"built ces where oeode want to sce dtime6% 87� 73% 86% 81% 7 (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation 1 4 82% Table 6: Community Characteristics - Iowa City as a place to visit in Iowa Area 81% 77% i 61% i 70% 69% 48% 69% ..l 79% 639/a 74% 70% _ 64% 73% 68% 85% 73% 73% 74% 61% 56% 70% 43% 35% 23% 36% 37% 32% 34% 84% 78% 59% 79% 72% 65% 73% iouiei wnimw uiunamacvenxics- rteaeauari anu vveune» Geographic Area Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) L North East South West Central Downtown Overall Health and wellness opportunities in Iowa City 95% 84% 90% 93% 73% 880/0 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 86% 83% 80% 85% _86% 84% 880/0 84% Recreational opportunities 81% 82% 77% _ 77% 78% 76% 78% Availability of affordable quality food 84% 85% 70% 77% 74% 50% 75% Availability of affordable quality healthcare 87% 82% 77% 78% 77% _ 58% 77% Availability of preventive health services 94% 84% 80% 81% 83% 67% 82% 3 The National Citizen Survey— TahlP R- Cnmmi inity fharartPrictirc - Frfi iratinn and FndrhmPnt Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) North East Geographic South Area West Central Downtown Overall Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 100°% 95% 87% 94% 94% 84% 93% Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 51% 60% 39% 61% 57% 50% 56% K-12 education 94% 88% 84% 93% 85% 63% 88% Adult educational opportunities 81% 89% 82% 82% 90% 72% 85% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 85% 93% 84% 86% 91% 93% 89% Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 94% 90% 86% 93% 90% 95% 91% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 94% 83% 82% 83% 86% 72% 83% Opportunitiestovolunteer 96% 88% 85% 89°/0 88% 83% 88% Opportunities to participate in community matters96% 57% 80% 76% 77% 84% 81% 81% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 61% 71% 77% 73% 69% 43% 69% Neighborliness of residents in Iowa City .. .. 92%. 78% 720% 67% 67% 61% 71% Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) North East South West Central Downtown Overall The City of Iowa City 769/b 88% 69% 84% 839/b 70% 81% The value of services for the taxes paid to Iowa City 57% 65% 49% 53% 72% 40% 59% The overall direction that Iowa City is taking 42-/062% 51% 65% 64% 92% 63% The Iob Iowa City government does at welcoming citizen involvement 61% 72% 43% 52% 72% 68% 61% Overall confidence in Iowa City government 389/b 66% 45% 58% 62% 91% 60% Generally acting in the best interest of the community48% 67% 51°% 65%� 64% 63% _ Being honest 700/a 71% 48% 70% 71% _86% 59% 67% Treating all residents fairly 66% 590/0 42% 58% 64% 54% 58% Overall customer service by Iowa City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 92% 88%76% 76 0 73% 64% 78% The Federal Government 51% 42% 43% 49% 29% 15% 40% 4 The National Citizen Survey— Police/Sheriff services 90% 1 79% 1 80% 1 77% 70% 1 67% 1 76% Fire services 100% 96% 90% 98% 90% 74% 93% Ambulance or emergency medical services 100% 96% 90% 97% 94% 81 94% Crime prevention 71% 81% 56% 54% 58% 75% 58% Fire prevention and education 100% 89% 81% 78% 75% 77% 81% Animal control 72% 82% 71% 77% 79% 84% 77% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 75% 73% 72% 67% 60% 76% 69% Tahb 12- r; vcrnanro - Mnkdity Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) North East South Geographic Area West Central Downbown Overall Traffic enforcement 58% 66% 70% 68% 61% 72% 66% Street repair 48% 40% 33% 43% 31% 58% 39% Street cleaning 42% 74% 68% 62% 71% 75% 68% Street lighting 85% 61% 73% 38% 70% 75% 58% Snow removal 55% 60% 54% 66% 59% 57% 60% Sidewalk maintenance 61% 70% 49% 59% 53% 52% 58% Traffic signal timing 41% 52% 48% 65% 55% 50% 55% Bus or transit services 60% 69% 72% 65% 64% 669% 669/. Table 13: Governance - Natural Environment Yard wastepick-up Drinking water Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts Iowa City open space 5 Geographic Area North East South West Central Downtown Overa 86°O/a 91% 89% 87% 86% 83% 87% 70% 81% 78% 63% 71% 49% 70% 83% 88% 86% 81% 82% 86% 84% 79% 77% 85% 61% 73% 38% 70% 75% 70% 60% 58% 46% 58% 58% The National Citizen Survey— LPercent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) North I East I South West I Central Downtown Overa Storm drainage 87°% 81°% 69°% 72°% 76°% 89°% 76°% Sewer services 92°% 92°% 89°% 89°% 84°% 85°% 88°% Power (electric and/or gas) utility 95% 85% 88% 86°% 80°% 91°% 859% Utility billing 85% 85% 75% 73°% 75°% 92°% 78°% Land use, planning and zoning 9345 59% 54% 58 City -sponsored special everts 85°% 52°% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 31% 63% 51% 63°% 52°% 70°% 58°% Cable television 55°% 33°% 41°% 49°% 45°% 51°% 44°% Table 15'. Governance - Economy Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Economic development Table 16'. Governance - Recreation and Wellness North 51% East 1 63% Geographic South 56% Area West I 77°/a Central Downtown Overal 67°% Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) City parks Recreation programs or classes Recreation centers or Facilities Health services _North _ 98% 95% 79% 81% East 85% 92% 83% 80% South 90% 85% 77/o 83% West Central Downtown Ovens 88°% 92°% 95°% 90°% 84°% 85°% 93°% 87°% 85°% 78°% 94°% 82°% ) " 84°% Table 17: Governance - Education and Enrichment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Geographic Area Ovens NorthEast South West Central Downtown Public library services 95°% 98°% 90°% 95°% 97°% 100°% 969b City -sponsored special everts 85°% 77°% 72°% 84°% 77°% 86°% 79°% Public information services 1 74°% 1 84°% 1 76°% 1 83°% 1 79°% 1 83°% 1 81°% 6 The National Citizen Survey— Sense of community 86% 75% 62% 74% 84% 83% 76% Recommend living in Iowa City to someone who asks 97% 91% 81% 93% 92% 56% 88% Remain in Iowa City for the neat five years 93% 89% 77% 70% 72% 34% 73% Contacted the City of Iowa City (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 37% 53% 33% 30% 50% 26% 40% Table 20: Participation - Safety Geographic Area Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) North East South West Central Downtown Overall Was NOT the victim of a crime 94% 91% 93% 87/o 85% 89% 89% Did NOT report a crime 98% 81% 84% 85% 72% 76% 81% Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 1 23% 33% 15% 15% 14% 22% 19% Table 21: Participfton - Mobility Geographic Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) North East South West Central Downtown 1 Walked or biked instead of driving 83% 69% 45% 77% 93 % 78% .Overall 75% Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 58% 55% 42% 51% 61% 36% 52% Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 49% 48% 23% 51% 48% 50% 45% Table 22: Participation - Natural Environment Geographic Area Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) I North1 East South West I Central 1 Downtown Overall Recycle at home 80% 939/o 789/o 79% 919/o 63°/0 84% Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 49% 74% 83% 59% 64% 65% Made efforts to conserve water 71% 72% 81% 66% 73% 73% 72% Table 23: Participation - Built Environment Geographic Area Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) North I East South I West Central Downtown Overall NOT under housing cost stress 61% 67/a 65°/a 67/a 60% 1 48% 63% Did NOT observe a code violation 53% 1 60% 1 49% 1 75% 1 58%68� 62% 7 The National Citizen Survey— Purchase goods or services from a business located in Iowa City100°% 98% 95% 99% 98% 100% 98% Economy will have positive impact on income 26% 24% 33% 31% 13% 27% 25% Work in Iowa Citv 70% 1 66% 1 66% 1 64% 1 81% 1 43% 68% Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a Used Iowa City recreation centers or their services Visited a neighborhood park or Citv park Table 26: Particioation - Education and Enrichment Attended a City -sponsored event Table 27: Particioation - Comi Contacted Iowa City elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Iowa City Participated in a club Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors Done a favor for a neighbor _Attended a local public meeting _Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting _ Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) Vote in local elections 8 Geographic Area North East South West Centrad Downtown Overall 57% 68% 47% 70% 69% _ 61% 65% 93% 92% 86% 92% 94% 82% 91°/a Area 42% 49% .1 42% 5340 39% 16% 44% 71% 70% 67% 630/0 73% North East South West Central Downtown Overal 20%_39% 24% 28% 40% 26% 32% 12% 24% 11% 14% 18% 17% 17% 62% 66% 37% 56% 649/b 36% 56% 349/b 339/b 349/b 439/b 579/b 489/b 439/b 74% 97% 83% 79% 86% 64% 83% 58% 88% 81% 75% 72% 56% 75% 19% 25% 23% 23% 22% 59X. 229/b 189/b 36% 31% 25% 18% 19% 259/b 830%79% 72% 65% 65% _ 72% 70% l00% 89% I 69% I 60% I 81% I 73% 759/b Overall feeling of safety in Iowa City Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit Quality of overall natural environment in Iowa City Overall built environment" of Iowa City (including overall de The National Citizen Survey— transportation 86% 1 819% 1 94% 1 87% 1 72% 1 84% 1 83% 87% 79% 819/a 70% 71% 89% 76% 78% 78% 68% 76% 83% 97% 79% systems)90% 1,.77%,,.1._78%_ 1_64%�_ 78% 69% 74% Health and wellness opportunities in Iowa City 73°/0 779/o 79°/o 75°/o 70% 82% 75% Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 66% 75% 79% 73% 76% 91% 769/b Overall economic health of Iowa City 84% 83% 95% 83% , 73% 84% 82% Sense of community 1 59% 1 81% 1 67% 1 62% I 63%_1.___70%i 87% 67% Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) North East South Wntral DownWwn Overall City website excerience (www.icaov.ora) 83% 70% 63% est Ce 78% 61% 73% 69% In the last 12 months, how many times, if at all, have you attended a live performing arts event in Iowa Table 31: Feelinas Toward \, cors anc borhood Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements: (Percent rating as "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree"). I trust my neighbors and can rely on them to help me if needed I like to be helpful to my neighbors I feel like I belong in my neighborhood Tahle 37. Rernmmend Tnwa City M Peers GeographicArea North I East I South 1 West Central 7 Downtown Overall 87% 82% 54% 81% 91% 83% 80% 98% 1 97% 1 86% 1 85% 1 75% 89% 99% 95% 99% 90% 100% 95% 76% 90% 83% 84% 85% 85% 95% 50% 85% 9 IGeographic Area _ Percent rating as "very likely' or "somewhat likely' I North East South West Central Downtown Overall Please indicate how likely or unlikely you would be to recommend living in Iowa City to other people your 1 age: 99% 91% 87% 93% 89% 45% 87% 9 The National Citizen Survey— How much of a source, if at all, do you consider each of the following to be for obtaining information about Iowa City government news, meetings, events, and alerts? (Percent rating as "major source" or "minor source"). City website (www.icaov.ora) City YouTube channel E -subscriptions (email notifications) Local newsoaoers (Iowa City Press Citizen, The Gazette) Table 34: Student Status 10 North I East South West Central Downtown Overall 91% 88% 81Y88°/a 78% 61% _ 83% 48% 60%68% 60% 59% 47% 59% 45% 42% 53°/a 41% 42% 32% 43% 51% 58% 42% 43% 34% 14% 42% 22% 21% 26% 19% 12% 23% 19% 42%25% 32°/a_ 270/a 18% 48% 27% 27% 32% 36°O/a 25°/a 23% 33% 28% 55% 58%a 57°/a 49% 54% 44% 53% 95% 85°/x 78°/a 8:% 87% 83% 86% 74% 64% 62% 62% 59% 26% 600/a 41% 47% 58°/a 44% 53% I 309/a 489/b `e CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P5 MEMORANDUM Date: January 17, 2018 To: City Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Operating and Capital Budget Discussion with Updates 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 V° and 9"' 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. Additions and changes to this memo that have been made after the initial distribution are highlighted in yellow. 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 FY1 g. 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 akemaWs 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 fire City better understands the impact of the session on our future revenue streams. No decision has been reached 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 paygrede. The lowest paygrades in all four pay plans have starting wages well above the $I &hour target. The lowest starting wage as of July 2018 will be $17.52 (AFSCME pay plan). January17, 2018 Page 2 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 $15ihour. The vast majority of these positions support our recreation 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 $60 4700k annually. If the City raised alt 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. Council decided not to budget for changes, but deferred the discussion to the Strategic Plan. Council requested a list of position titles as well as the hourly employee wage scales for employees earning under $15/hour (attached). 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. Council has directed staff to increase the grant allocation for FY to $75k 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 January 17, 2018 Page 3 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. Council decided not to budget for changes, but deferred the discussion to the Strategic Plan. • 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 Council decided to keep funds in the budget for this purpose but directed staff to focus the effort on underserved populations. • Increase local foods budget from $30k to $50k Council directed staff to make this change • Add $20k for a public art and waytinding concept plan along the Iowa River Council directed staff to make this change 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. No discussion has taken place • North Market Square Park Improvement Project No discussion has taken place Strategic Plan Future Work Session or Requested Staff Information • Pursue citywide inclusionary zoning • Pursue use of land banking funds with a goal of creatlng 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 January 17, 2018 Page 4 • 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 • 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. • Consider elevating hourly staff wages to $15/hour or more within two years • Create a Council appointed committee to discuss enhancing apprenticeship and job training opportunities • Consider a Safe Streets Action Plan • Develop a policy for 20mph "Slow Streets" initiative in select neignoorhoods • Consider communication strategy to ensure the Bike Master Plan is well received by all Iowa City residents, especially people of color • In the Affordable Housing Action Plan, consider an action point specifically addressing the housing needs of students (e.g. exploring housing types such as micro -housing and congregate housing) • Explore incentiviang house renovation through tax rebates/low interest loans in historic neighborhoods and established neighborhoods with below-average increases in property assessment. • Explore opportunities for house -form "missing middle" housing types in historic/established neighborhoods that would be subject to the 30% rental cap (and therefore would not be considered multi -family dwellings). Consider formation of a redevelopment area to allow for the capture and re -investment of the development increment. • Equitable distribution of `destination" parks within an easy and safe distance of all residents, placing each person in a more complete neighborhood that provides "the constantly renewed experience that the center of the world is where one stands, walks and lives." (Ivan Illich, Energy and Equity). • Consider steps toward creating a downtown form based code t A � eta.® �uiYirr�.s CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: January 17, 2018 To: City Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Requested Hourly Wage Information At the January 16th work session, the City Council requested more information on the types of hourly positions that earn less than $15/hour. We have compiled that information below and will gladly supplement as needed. Please keep in mind that the number of hourly fluctuates throughout the season and the numbers presented below are a snapshot of active employees currently in our payroll system. Numbers for any particular position may be different at other points throughout the year. Police Department (4) Animal Control Assistant $10.10 Clerical Assistant $12 City Manager's Office (6) Media Assistant / Interactive Assistant / Intern $10.10 — $11.50 Management Intern $11 Communications Creative Assistant $14 Communications Aide $12 Neighborhood and Development Services (2) Intern $10.50 -11 Energy Efficient Assistant $11 Sustainability Communications Assistant $11 Minute Taker $13 Research Assistant $12 Public Works (2) Clerical Assistant $12 (2) Intern $13 (2) GIS Assistant $11 (5) Assistant Water Plan Operator $10.50411.50 Senior Center Video Production Specialist $12.50 Fire Intern $10.10 January 17, 2018 Page 2 Parks & Recreation (employee numbers will grow considerably during warmer months) 238 Recreation positions — See attached Recreation Hourly Pay Plan document for wage scales 4 Parks positions — See below for wage scales Seasonal Maintenance staff (nonCDL) Year 1: $11.50 Year 2: $12.25 Year 3: $13.00 Year 4: $13.75 Seasonal Maintenance staff (CDL) Year 1: $12.00 Year 2: $12.75 Year 3: $13.50 Year 4: $14.25 Libra 48 positions— See attached Library Hourly Pay Plan document for wage scales Recreation Hourly Wage Scale Recreation Temp 1 Starting at $10.50/hr. 50 cent increments per year $11.00-11.50-12.00-12.50 Recreation Temp 2 Starting at $12.50/hr. 50 cent increments per year $13.00-13.50-14.00-14.50 Recreation Temp 3 Starting at $18.00/hr. 50 cent increments per year $18.50-19.00-19.50-20.00 Recreation Temp I Customer Service Customer Service Attendant Dog Park Supervisor Aaaatics Lifeguard — City Park Lifeguard — Recreation Center Lifeguard - Mercer WSA - City Park WSA — Mercer WSA Recreation Adapted Aquatics Inst Adult Sports Adult Sports Sup. —BB Adult Sports Sup. — Other Sports Adult Sport Sup: VB Social/Cultural Arts Supervisor - Adult Arts Supervisor - Youth Playground Supervisor Potter's Studio Supervisor Science & Nature Sup. Special Event Supervisor Summer Camp Supervisor City Park Ride Attendant Rollerskate Supervisor SPI SPI Art Inst — Recreation Prog. SPI Instructor - Club SPI Instructor — Rec Prog SPI Instructor — Spec. Events Adapted Aquatics Inst. Youth Sports Youth Sports Supervisor — FB Youth Sports Supervisor — V Adult Sports Supervisor — SB Building Supervisor -Grant Wood Tennis Supervisor Recreation Temp 2 Adult Sports Sports Coordinator - SB Aauaties Pool Manager — City Park Pool Manager — Mercer Pool Manager — RALCRC Aerobics Instructor Aquacise Instructor WSI-40 minute class -City Park WSI-40 minute class -Ree Cent WSI-40 minute class -Mercer Youth Smarts Tennis Coordinator Coordinator — Youth Sports Social/Cultural Playground Coordinator Science & Nature Coordinator Special Events Coord. Summer Camp Coordinator Dance Instructor Fine Arts Instructor — Adult Fine Arts Instructor — Youth SPI Spec. Oly Coord. —Ree Prog SPI Aquatics Coordinator SPI Coord. — Recreation Prog Farmer's Market Attendant Customer Service Farmer's Market Att. - MPAC Senior Customer Service Dog Park Coordinator City Park Ride Coordinator Maint — TTRA Maint — Ballfields Maint — Soccer Fields Recreation Temp 3 Farmer's Market Coordinator Lesson Coordinator —MPAC, RALCRC, CITY a r' IOVv/A CI'Y PUBLIC LIBRARY HOURLY EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN Effective January 1, 2017 Position Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Start 6 months 1 V2 years LibraryAide • Administration • Adult Services • Children's Services • Collection Services 10.50 11.25 12.00 5% on anniversary date to 13.00 • Community & Access Services • Development Office • Facilities Services • IT Maintenance Aide II (requires driver's license) 12.00 13.00 14.00 High School Intern 10.10 minimum wa e) No raise, 1 year appointment Undergraduate Intern • Adult Services • Channe120 • Children's Services 12.00 No raise; 1 year appointment • Development Office • Graphics • IT Graduate Intern (MLS) • Adult/Teen 13.00 No raise; 1 year appointment • Children's Services Hourly Librarian Start 400 hours 800 hours 22.00 23.00 24.00 I b 1 T- ®� CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P6 MEMORANDUM Date: January 16, 2018 To: City Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Housing Study Report In 2017, the University of Iowa, City of Coralville and City of Iowa City jointly decided to contribute to a housing market analysis. The University hired Brailsford & Dunlavey to conduct the analysis. A final report was recently distributed and contains a wide range of information on the local housing market with a focus on student -oriented housing. City staff continues to have discussions with the University on housing related matters. We will continue to explore ways to work together to best meet the housing needs of our university population. There are no actions related to the plan that the City Council needs to take at this time. If there are questions about the plan, please let me know. Similarly, if the Council wishes to discuss elements of the plan we can add the topic to a future work session agenda. STRATEGIC HOUSING MASTER PLAN University of Iowa, Iowa City, & Coralville December 2017 In March of 2017, the University of Iowa ("UP'), Iowa City, and Coralville jointly engaged Brailsford & Dunlavey ("B&D") to prepare a Strategic Housing Master Plan ('Plan"). The goal of this Plan was to develop a long-term strategy to handle housing challenges in the community. In an effort to develop this strategy, B&D conducted the following analyses: • A strategic visioning session with key project stakeholders to define challenges and opportunities, • A review of current on -campus housing offerings at the University of Iowa, • Comparative benchmarking to other town and university housing characteristics, • Research on best practices to address comprehensive town/gown housing challenges, F1 • Market research on rental housing within the Iowa City / Coralville communities, and • The development of strategies to address housing issues identified in the area. ABOUT B&D Founded in 1993, Brailsford & Dunlavey, Inc. is a 120 -plus person program management and development advisory firm dedicated to serving educational institutions, public agencies, and non- profit clients. B&D is one of the premier student housing, dining, and recreation advisory firms in the country, having performed over 500 student housing studies and master plans nationwide including previous engagements at the University of Iowa. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES APPENDICES APPENDIX A: MAY 18, 2017 PRESENTATION APPENDIX B: JULY 27, 2017 PRESENTATION APPENDIX C: IOWA REGENT & BIG TEN COMPARISON APPENDIX D: OFF -CAMPUS HOUSING MAP APPENDIX E: HOUSING AFFORDABILITY COMPARISON Strategic Housing Master Plan 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Brailsford & Dunlavey (°B&D") was engaged to help the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and Coralville develop a strategy to address housing challenges in the community which include the following: The loss of affordable housing options in close proximity to Downtown Iowa City Increased pressure on rental options in surrounding neighborhoods due to enrollment growth Growing numbers of upper -division and graduate students in the private rental market due to an on -campus housing supply that has not increased with enrollment The proliferation of renter -occupied houses in neighborhoods that were once predominantly owner -occupied leading to reduced supply, diminished character, and strained resources B&D initiated a comprehensive planning process to further identify and under- stand housing challenges within the community. The goals of this process were three -fold: 1. Analyze existing conditions within the multi -family rental housing market serving University of Iowa students and the adjacent communities in Iowa City and Coralville, 2. Compare housing characteristics (on and off campus) to those in other comparable town/gown communities through a benchmarking analysis, and 3. Identify and synthesize best practices utilized within these other town/gown communities. 4 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey KEY FINDINGS OF ASSESSMENT UI has a similar percentage of students residing in university and affiliated hous- ing when compared to peer institutions. University of Iowa's housing program, based on fall 2017 data, houses 26% of the total enrollment versus a peer aver- age of 28%. Comparing off -campus rental options shows that the market for UI students offers the smallest inventory of "student -oriented" properties. Iowa City and Coralville's limited number of large-scale student housing developments has led to a higher than average percentage of students occupying housing within the general rental market. These key findings, coupled with low vacancy rates and adjacency of campus and downtown has contributed to housing short- ages and incompatibility issues seen across the community. The 2019 delivery of additional large-scale, "student -oriented" properties will reduce the percent of students occupying units in the general rental market. However, to reach a more comfortable proportion, additional university beds and/or student -oriented properties would need to be added to the market. ®A -1t Private Housing University Options Housing Rental options in Iowa Compared to peers, UI has a City/Coralville offer the smallest Infiltration of single-family similar percentage of students inventory of large-scale, neighborhoods with student renters "studentoriented" properties in residing in university and close proximity to campus Diminished supply of owner -occupied affiliated housing housing options dose to downtown STRATEGIES B&D outlined a series of recommended strategies to explore based on an understanding of the housing challenges within this community, demographic trends, and best practices nationwide. While it is recognized that a holistic, multi -faceted approach to addressing these challenges is ideal, individual strategies are organized into private market strategies, University of Iowa strategies, and hybrid approaches. IJAPLA d=16F1d.4=hd1 Cy-Ai=14I=&i Development Zones: Development zones or districts have been created in many campus towns in an effort to control the location, scale, and aesthetics of student housing development. The zones typically allow for increased flexibility with regards to height and density in locations that would be most attractive to student housing developers with the goal of taking pressure away from single-family, owner -occupied neighborhoods. Strategic Land Acquisition: To spur private development within specific areas, cities have strategically acquired and assembled land with the purpose of redevelopment by the private sector. After gaining control of the land the city can choose to undergo a process to find a suitable development partner willing to build the amount, type, and scale of student housing stipulated through a competitively bid process. Partnerships with Existing Land Owners: With the vast majority of sites in close proximity to the University of Iowa built -out, a realistic approach may be partnering with select property owners to redevelop. Iowa City and/or Coralville could incentivize redevelopment and work with stakeholders to ensure efforts align with the shared needs of the community. HYBRID APPROACHES Mixed -Use Development on University Land: An opportunity to facilitate necessary student housing development, along with other uses, would be to enable privately -developed facilities on university land which meet specific usage and design standards. Certified / Affiliated Housing: An approach that other institutions have utilized to transfer financing and construction risks and responsibilities to the private sector is through a certified or affiliated housing program. While this type of arrangement could come in many varieties, in general it allows for the university to market private properties in exchange for housing constructed, maintained, and operated according to standards set by the institution. UI STRATEGIES Second Year Live -On Requirement: B&D performed a preliminary analysis on the housing need required to accommodate a second year live -on requirement at the University of Iowa. Based on both future enrollment growth and capture rates assumptions, there would be a projected need for an additional 2,845 – 3,465 beds on campus by fall 2025 to accommodate this requirement. While implementing a 2nd year residency requirement would provide many ancillary benefits to the institution, this magnitude of construction would require significant institutional will, capital funds, and land availability. Demand -Based Housing Increase: Absent a live -on requirement, there may be additional students interested in living on campus if the options were desirable. This approach would increase on -campus residents while limiting the number of upper -division students moving off campus. Strategic Housing Master Plan 15 I :KA =14Vj11 LVA #VIJUVIUV►_1:YJ MOVING FORWARD As a town/gown community, University of Iowa, Iowa City and Coralville face interconnected housing challenges of affordability, proximity to downtowns and campus, enrollment growth, and increasing rental pressures. A combination of the discussed strategies will help UI, Iowa City and Coralville move towards their primary housing and development goals. This Strategic Housing Master Plan is intended to act as a framework for further discussion between the three entities to define the specific approaches moving forward. Immediate next steps recommended include determining the appropriate mix of strategies to implement, developing a long-term on -campus housing plan at UI, and conducting preliminary conversations with the private market development community to gauge interest and market conditions. 6 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey This page has been left intentionally blank. Strategic Housing Master Plan 17 8 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey INTRODUCTION Brailsford & Dunlavey was engaged to help the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and Coralville develop a strategy to address housing challenges identified in the community. At the outset of this Plan, B&D met with key stakeholders from all three entities to discuss the primary challenges that this Plan should address. The initial strategic session also included discussions on a vision for the future of these communities that this Plan should respond to. CHALLENGES: • The loss of affordable housing options in close proximity to Downtown Iowa City • Continued enrollment growth of the university has increased pressure on rental options in surrounding neighborhoods On -campus housing supply has not increased with enrollment, pushing increasing numbers of upper division and graduate students into the private rental market The proliferation of renter -occupied houses in neighborhoods that were once predominantly owner -occupied has reduced supply, diminished character, and strained resources GOALS: • Preserve affordable and walkable single-family housing options • Concentrate multi -family development where infrastructure and resources are in place to support it • Improve the balance of owner- versus renter - occupied housing units across the community • Explore opportunities to increase on -campus housing offerings that could support enrollment growth and lessen student impact on the private housing market ASSESSMENT B&D initiated a comprehensive research and analysis effort to further identify and understand housing challenges within the community. The goals of this process were three -fold: 1. Analyze existing conditions within the multi -family rental housing serving University of Iowa students and the adjacent communities in Iowa City and Coralville, 2. Compare housing characteristics within the communities to those in other comparable town/gown communities through a benchmarking analysis, and 3. Identify and synthesize best practices utilized within these other town/gown communities. B&D conducted a variety of primary and secondary research to gather benchmarking data and understand best practices related to strategies. Telephone interviews were conducted with city managers, development directors, planners, and relevant university representatives in all communities. Discussion topics included formal town/gown relationships, housing issues experienced in the communities, approaches to address these housing issues, and the overall residential development climate. Through these conversations, B&D gained a clearer understanding of the relationship between on- and off -campus student housing and specifics on the strategies implemented to address local housing issues, including development plans, neighborhood master plans, housing and infrastructure projects, zoning code development incentives and protections, and university housing growth. The town/gown peer benchmarking examined how similar institutions and their local communities supply housing to students and the resulting impact on their general housing markets. The group of peers, selected by university and community stakeholders, included the following: • Indiana University (Bloomington, IN) • Purdue University (West Lafayette / Lafayette, IN) • University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) • University of Florida (Gainesville, FL) • University of Georgia (Athens -Clarke County, GA) • University of Illinois (Urbana -Champaign, IL) • University of Kansas (Lawrence, Kansas) • University of Virginia (Charlottesville, VA) • University of Wisconsin (Madison, WI) • Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO)* *Recommended for inclusion by B&D after discussions with the International Town and Gown Association (ITGA) regarding best practices in town/gown relationships. I. EXISTING CONDITIONS & TOWN/GOWN BENCHMARKING B&D's town/gown benchmarking methodology utilized Internet research, Co - Star data, and telephone interviews to examine university and off -campus housing offerings. The intention was to compare the housing offerings available to University of Iowa students (both on and off campus) to those available at the other identified institutions. To normalize the data across communities, Strategic Housing Master Plan 19 B&D compared these figures to enrollment, the communities' supply of student- PEER BENCHMARKING oriented properties, and the general rental housing stock. Student -oriented properties are defined as properties that cater specifically to student renters On -campus Housing Supply Peer Analysis (Exhibit 2) with offerings such as individual bed leases, academic lease terms, roommate University Total Universit ' matching, all-inclusive utilities and student centric amenities. The general Enrollment Beds rental market is considered all other units available for rent in the community, excluding the student -oriented properties or on -campus / affiliated student housing. University of Iowa Housing Capture Rates from Fall 2017 (Exhibit 1) First -Time Freshmen 95% 4,756 ...................................................................................................................,,,,,,,,,,................................................,,,, Sophomores 15% 918 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Other Graduate/Prof Students 10% 894 ALL 22% 71318 Beginning with the university housing supply, the University of Iowa's housing stock predominately caters to a freshman resident profile. Exhibit 1 outlines that without any live -on requirement UI captures over 90% of first-time freshmen and 15% of second year students based on fall 2017 enrollment and housing data provided to B&D. In total, UI houses 22% of its entire population on campus. In fall 2017, UI's bed count increased to 7,858 with the opening of Catlett Hall UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 33,564 7,858 49,695 13,445 40,451 12,950 43,625 6,921 52,367 9,066 36,574 7,610 /_F*i4*1UV14►Yi 935 26% 3,350 34% 2,925 39% 1,175 19% 1,575 20% 1,650 25% 43,893 13,359 2,500 27,565 5,301 2,105 23,898 6,617 43,336 8,697 39,497 9,182 580 NA 1,866 36% 27% 30% 20% 28% 24,771 32,900 24,576 35,529 41,726 27,314 28,034 20,159 16,701 34,639 28,653 B&D compared the percentage of total enrollment that can be housed in university housing across all institutions. In relation to the peer average (28%), University of Iowa's housing program (fall 2017) can accommodate a slightly lower proportion of students. As seen in Exhibit 2, UI's total enrollment is approximately 15% smaller than the peer average. Therefore, despite a much smaller overall housing inventory, UI houses a similar percentage of their student body. and, concurrently, taking existing university -owned and leased beds (Burlington, The Off -Campus Students figure in Exhibit 2 is calculated by subtracting Davenport, Dubuque North, Parklawn and Hawkeye Drive) offline. 10 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey the total number of on -campus students, Greek housing residents, and a 5% assumption for "non -renters" (i.e. those living at home with family or who own a home) from total enrollment. This number is intended to portray those students renting within the private market. It is important to note that since 2011, only four peers have added or are Iowa City and Coralville together provide nearly 40,000 housing units (see currently pursuing additional beds on campus (Purdue University, University of Exhibit 3). Iowa City and Coralville have similar proportions of single family to Kansas, University of Florida and University of Arizona). As of spring 2017, the remaining peer institutions are currently not planning to increase bed capacity. Significant changes in the number of off -campus students seen in Exhibit 2 would likely put greater pressures on local rental markets. With nearly three quarters of UI students living off campus, student renters are a significant segment of the local rental market. A similar chart to Exhibit 2 comparing all Big Ten Schools and Iowa Regent Universities can be found in Appendix C showing that UI is slightly below the average among these institutions when comparing on -campus housing stock as a percentage of total enrollment. Community Demographics— Housing (Exhibit 3) IOWA CITY, IA 30,259 55%45%"% 25,446* 52% 2% UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 26.1% 24,576 9,234 37.6% 35,529 9,689 CORALVILLE, IA 89287 58% 42% 55% 45% 5% Indiana University Bloomington, IN 339388 46% 54% 34% 66%5% Wast Lafayette, IN 14,836 38% 62% 30% 70%.... 3% Purdue University Lafayette, IN 339722 63% 37% 47% 53%6% UniversityalfArizona Tucson,AZ 2069342 66% 34% 49% 51%9% University.fFimide Gainesville, FIL 569924 47% 53% 38% 62%11% University of e .. Athens, GA 519529 57% 43% 41% 60%.... 12% Universityalfillimis, Urbana, IT 179915 45% 55% 38% 62%.... 9% Champaign, IT 369803 56% 44% 47% 53%.... 7% Lawrence, KS 389789 62% 38% 46% 54%7% UniversityalfViginia Charloft.,ille,VA 199886 62% 38% 44% 56%5% • .. -. Mndiaon,WI 1089824 49% 51% 48% 52%.... 2% Average .........54.690 54% 46% 43% 57% 6% An analysis of the overall community rental markets was conducted to determine the impact of student renters and the context in which the universities are located. The examination of the off -campus housing market utilized the U.S. Census' American Community Survey's 2015 5 -year estimates. multi -family housing. With UI's campus adjacency to Iowa City's downtown, it is not surprising that Iowa City has a slight majority renter -occupied housing market compared to Coralville. In relation to its peers, Iowa City and Coralville retain two of the highest owner occupancy percentages. Importantly, both Iowa City and Coralville have strong housing markets with low rental vacancy rates. This should not be unexpected as the low vacancy rates are contributing to the challenges this Plan is intending to resolve. Moving forward, town/gown coordination is critical to ensuring a strategic mix of housing that keep a desirable number of owner- vs. renter -housing options without oversaturating the market. Student -Oriented Off -Campus Market (Exhibit 4) UNIVERSITY OF IOWA UNIVERSITY OF IOWA (FUTURE) IOWA CITY, IA CORALVILLE, IA IOWA CITY IA CORALVILLE, IA Bloorrni IN West Lafayette, IN Lafayette, IN Tucson, AZ Gaiir lle, FL Athens, GA Urbana, IT Champaign, IT 24,771 3,485 14.1% 25,446* 6,404 25.2% 32,900 8,599 26.1% 24,576 9,234 37.6% 35,529 9,689 27.3% 41,726 22,230 53.3% 27,314 11,282 41.3% 28,034 16,899 60.3% University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 20,159 5,466 27.1% University of Virginia Chadottesville, VA 16,701 5,315 31.8% Madison. WI 34,639 6,385 18.4% AVERAGE 28,635 9,898 33.7% *Future University of Iowa refers to fall 2019 and assumed a 1% enrollment growth. For additional data comparing housing affordability amongst the UI market and the peer communities see Appendix E. Strategic Housing Master Plan 11111 As stated earlier, student -oriented beds are those in purpose-built properties specifically targeting student renters. Student -oriented properties can create concentrated neighborhoods of students with specific amenities and features. Since these types of developments often cater exclusively to student renters they can help relieve pressure on the general rental market. Exhibit 4 depicts the number of student -oriented beds found in the off -campus markets, as reported by Costar and B&D market research. The percent of off -campus students living in the student -oriented properties indicates the concentration of each institution's off -campus population within this type of development. /_F*i=*1LVA I=1:Yi properties in Iowa City and Coralville are small in scale. The majority of these properties are under 60 units, or less than 150 beds, and are owned by local developers versus national student housing developers seen in other large campus markets. Accounting for pipeline projects in Iowa City and Coralville, however, results in an additional 2,919 student -oriented beds scheduled to be available by 2019. This will increase the percent of students living in student -oriented properties to 25%, but still remain well below the benchmark average of 34% (which assumes no additional student -oriented beds in these other markets). Assuming Between Iowa City and Coralville, the UI student body is served by the smallest a 1 % annual growth in enrollment at UI and therefore, additional off -campus student -oriented market (3,485 beds). Currently, only about 15% of off -campus students, an extra 2,000 student -oriented beds would be needed to reach the students are residing in student -oriented properties. The peer average for peer average percent in student oriented beds by 2019. percent of off -campus students living in student -oriented properties, 34%, is double that seen in the University of Iowa market. In addition to being the lowest For a map of all student oriented properties in the University of Iowa market see proportion of student -oriented beds among all institutions, most student -oriented Appendix D. Student Renter Impact on General Rental Markets UNIVERSITY OF IOWA IOWA CITY, IA 20,047 8,910 15,157 16,867 53% CORALVILLE, IA 3,494 IOWA CITY IA UNIVERSITYOFIOWA(FUTURE) CORALVILLE, IA 17 770 7 898 16,125....... 4,625 19 251 41% Indiana University Bloomington IN 22,656 10,069 20,032 16,289 62% Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 14,113 6,273 9,334 21,486 0 29/0 Lafayette 16,225 University of Arizona Tucson AZ 24,064 10,695 101,470 11% University of Florida Gainesville FL ......... 17,410 ............. ..._105,668.............. 7,738 29,886......... 21,414 36"/0 ...... University of Georgia Athens GA ......... 14,666 ......... 6,518 25,807......... 21,380 . ...-30% University of Illinois, Urbana- Urbana, IL _ 119,733 4,326 9 678 � mm 19,794 22% adottesville, VA 10,551 41689 101017 71866 1 60% Madison, WI 26,522 11,788 54,294 50,528 23% AVERAGE 17,345 7,709 1 33,604 29,370 36% 12 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey In an effort to assess the impact of student renters on the overall market, B&D went one step further and isolated those students residing outside of either university housing or student -oriented properties. In order to calculate this figure, the number of students in student -oriented properties was subtracted from the total number of off -campus students. The remaining students represents the number of students assumed to be residing in Iowa City and Coralville's general rental market. The same methodology was applied to the peer institutions. Exhibit 5 shows that despite U I's enrollment being 15% less than the peer average, the percent of students living in the general rental market (53%) is higher than the peer average (36%). This is an important finding showing that the low number of student -oriented beds may be directly contributing to the housing challenges within the community. Comparing these remaining student renters to the overall market shows that 53% of Iowa City and Coralville's combined rental markets are occupied by students. Exhibit 5 shows considerable variation across the communities as larger housing markets are able to absorb these residents within their broader housing stock. For instance, larger metropolitan areas such as Tucson, AZ and Madison, WI see students occupying 11% and 23% of their general rental market, respectively. Smaller housing markets such as Bloomington, IN and Charlottesville, VA have a heavier dependency on student renters at 60% or higher. A higher percentage suggests the market relies more on student tenants and thus vulnerable to significant fluctuations in enrollment. Iowa City and Coralville's limited number of large-scale student housing developments has led to a higher than average percentage of students occupying housing within the "general rental" market. This, coupled with low vacancy rates and adjacency of campus and downtown has contributed to housing shortages and incompatibility issues seen across the community. The 2019 delivery of additional large-scale, student -oriented properties will reduce the percent of students occupying units in the general rental market to 41%, nearing the peer average. However, to reach a more comfortable proportion, additional university beds and/or student -oriented properties would need to be added to the market. Exhibit 6, while not to scale, graphically illustrates how a combination of both strategies could over time help relieve the pressure on the general rental market from students. Illustration of Student Housing Options Before & After Strategy Implementation (Exhibit 6) Before: On -campus Housing General Rental Market After: .op KEY TAKEAWAYS Existing Conditions ■ Student Oriented Non -renters Off Campus When compared to other institutions, UI has a similar percentage of students residing in university and affiliated housing. Z The off -campus community surrounding UI offers the smallest inventory of "student -oriented" properties. Large developments scheduled to open in the coming years will increase supply, but still remain below the peer average. The limited number of large-scale student housing developments, in 3 combination with low vacancy rates and proximity between university & downtown, has contributed to housing shortages and incompatibility issues. Strategic Housing Master Plan 113 II. TOWN/GOWN BEST PRACTICES B&D's benchmarking research provided quantitative data allowing for comparison between institutions including potential gaps in housing stock, causes of major housing challenges, and identification of issues to resolve. Town/gown case studies consist of qualitative research that provide a clearer understanding of the housing climate within each community and best practices used to address on- and off -campus housing issues. The additional context provided through these case studies allowed for the identification of similarities and differences to UI as well as how various approaches could be applied to the local Iowa City and Coralville markets. Overall, the town/gown case studies are organized into two strategic approaches to addressing on- and off -campus housing issues: proactive and reactive development strategies. Additional details on town/gown case studies and best practices can be found in Appendix and B. OVERALL HOUSING ISSUES Through the conversations with various stakeholders within each community and/or institution, B&D learned that UI's peer institutions face many similar housing issues. Most prominently, student renter behavioral concerns, single- family neighborhood development pressures, and affordability concerns were discussed. However, place specific issues, including the proximity of downtowns in relation to campuses and current private development climates result in varying issues and degrees of concern over student renters in the general rental market. A summary of consistent housing issues and factors seen in the case study research are outlined below: • Single-family neighborhood encroachment by student renters • Location of campus in relation to downtown, geographic boundaries, and size of metro area influence the severity of housing conflicts 14 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey ASSESSMENT • Low vacancy rates and growing institutions exacerbate housing affordability concerns for students and the broader rental market + Affordable inventory (rent and own) has been pushed further from the core leading to strained existing resources, infrastructure, and community amenities TOWN/GOWN RELATIONSHIPS Overall, the 1_11, Iowa City and Coralville relationship is a unique collaboration. The majority of peer universities and their respective communities are not engaging in strategic conversations surrounding housing from a holistic town/ gown perspective. The following trends summarize the most typical town/gown relationships: TYPICAL TRENDS Town/gown relationships 1 Partnerships are commonly developed in response to housing conflicts (i.e., community outreach groups, committees, university neighborhood associations) Z Several institutions have proactively developed formal partnerships to guide development + P3 developments, infrastructure projects, collaboration on strategic plans + Joint funding of projects to spur development 3 Limited coordination to evaluate student housing -specific supply and demand from both university and private market perspectives DEVELOPMENT APPROACHES Multiple strategies are followed by communities to tackle housing challenges. However, the most common approaches can be organized into two overarching categories: I. Proactive Approaches 11. Reactive Approaches These strategies illustrate how municipalities effectively address housing issues related to student renters and their market impact. Proactive development strategies are, in general, attempts to get ahead of the private market and primarily involve incentivizing development or removing barriers (regulatory or financial) in an effort to have more control over the location, scale or types of development. Reactive strategies respond to current conditions with an emphasis on regulations and outreach programs controlling student renter behavior or addressing owner/occupancy affordability issues. While many of these approaches have been successful across the country they should not be viewed as one -size -fits -all. Each community has unique characteristics and challenges that require customized solutions. The approaches outlined below are solely meant to provide an overview of what has been implemented in other communities to attempt to resolve similar housing challenges. The next section, Strategy, discusses options that may be more appropriate for UI, Iowa City, and Coralville. Proactive Development Approaches The most common proactive approaches identified in the research and conversations are summarized below: 1. Creation of development districts to prioritize and encourage higher -density projects in strategic locations (i.e., areas with a heavy proliferation of student renters, away from single-family neighborhoods, convenient access to transit) + Example (Athens -Clarke County, Georgia) - Created a Future Development Map that guides intensity of development by areas of town, proximity to corridors and relationship to zoning districts. The county also uses the map to ensure quality of developments by maintaining greater oversight on developments that initially fail to pass "by right," and seek variances. The University of Georgia and neighboring private properties lie in a specific University District, which is "governed by an agreement jointly adopted by the University and the community coordinating development of these areas," more specifically when dealing with University expansion. The Future Development map began in 2000 and is revisited annually. 2. Elimination of parking and FAR ("floor -to -area ratio") requirements + Example (Champaign, IL) - Strategically incentivized development in designated near -campus zones by eliminating parking requirements. Champaign also utilizes height limits and setback requirements instead of FAR requirements. 3. Zoning code simplification + Example (Gainesville, FL) -Streamlined zoning in "Innovation Square" allowing for development flexibility and encourage mixed-use projects. The technology/science/research focused district is a development collaboration between the Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, the University of Florida, and the City of Gainesville to reclaim 16 acres between campus and downtown. A recent project is Infinity Hall, a 312 -bed university housing facility completed in collaboration with Signet Development. Innovation Square - Gainesville, FL (Exhibit 7) eYow+erawrx n Strategic Housing Master Plan 115 4. Increase downtown/near campus densities ASSESSMENT The majority of these development approaches include ways to spur and + Example (Athens -Clarke County, GA) - Commercial downtown district influence development in strategic locations. An outcome of enabling this was overlay zone allows for "critical mass" density (200 beds/acre) to get students adjacent to campus in the downtown and out of single-family neighborhoods. 5. Up -zone single-family neighborhoods overtaken by student rentals to allow for redevelopment 6. Down -zone specific neighborhoods to preserve single-family housing stock from development encroachment + Example (Urbana,1L) - Down -zoned the east campus border in the mid-1990s from multi -family to single-family/duplex while concurrently allowing concentrated development south of Green Street. In addition the corridor connecting downtown Urbana to campus allows a limited scale of uses prohibiting lot consolidation for large-scale apartment growth. 7. Utilization of TIF District funding + Example (West Lafayette, IN) - $120M "State Street Corridor" infrastructure project is jointly funded through the University and City TIF funds. The infrastructure project primed the area for future development, including an eventual 2,000-3,000 private student beds steering renters away from residential neighborhoods. 8. Infrastructure projects as a development catalyst + Example (Fort Collins, CO) - The Bus Rapid Transit line & West Elizabeth Transit Corridor infrastructure improvements (bike lanes, pedestrian underpass, and street scape improvements) steer new developments along transit corridors leading to campus. The federally funded Bus Rapid Transit line (MAX) was built in 2015. 16 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey that several institutions experienced student renters vacating house rental neighborhoods as new purpose-built developments opened. Examples include: + Example (Madison, WI) - Combating a housing shortage, policy -driven shifts such as, zoning changes and specified areas designated for additional height allowances allowed for higher density development that aligned with market demand for large-scale housing projects. The opening of attractive, purpose-built developments closer to campus shifted many students away from single-family house rentals. + Example (West Lafayette, IN) -The public-private partnership (P3) joint venture "State Street Corridor' infrastructure project was implemented as development catalyst for large student -oriented properties along the improved transit corridor. A goal of this project is to open up a new part of town to students and relieve single-family neighborhoods. + Example (Lawrence, KS) - The Oread Neighborhood Plan up -zoned portions of a single-family neighborhood adjacent to campus which had transitioned into primarily student house rentals. The overlay districts allow for higher -density housing and mixed-use development. West Elizabeth Corridor Plan (Exhibit 8) 7 cam pus West �1P9 �____..___________ """""" „m Ev M[�LBERRV sl vrr � 1 AD WMSR... _ _ Reactive Development Approaches Reactive development approaches can be summarized into the following: 1. Occupancy limits as a mechanism to monitor the mass of student renters in lower -density residential areas + Example (Athens -Clarke County, GA) -Restricts the number of unrelated persons allowed to rent a unit (i.e. two for single family districts and four in the mixed -density district in Athens -Clarke County near University of Georgia). 2. Noise ordinances to enforce nuisance student rental behavior in single- family neighborhoods 3. Rental housing inspection programs run by the city to ensure buildings are maintained to a certain quality and safety standard + Example (Champaign, IL) -Provides inspections for the University of Illinois' private -certified housing program. 4. Behavioral programs / educational outreach for student renters (i.e. "how to be a good neighbor") often conducted at the beginning of the academic year + Example (Urbana, IL) - Joint (City and University) outreach program distributes "welcome packets" to off -campus students to inform student renters of residential neighborhood regulations (i.e. noise and trash ordinances). Urbana and UIUC's joint fire station conducts fire safety outreach programming to students. 5. Owner/occupancy rehab and ownership assistance programs to address affordability barriers (similar to the UniverCity program) + Example (Madison, WI) -Small cap TIF program funds owner - occupancy rehab projects in neighborhoods seeing a loss of student renters. Over the past decade, the Bassett Neighborhood was granted 23 loans ($1.9 million). The Greenbush neighborhood's small cap TIF also covers South Park and Mills Streets where new large scale developments are built. The increment captured from the new developments fund the owner -occupancy rehab program to transition the Greenbush units from rentals. A key to the program's success is awarding funds to owner -occupied homes that would "anchor blocks" provide a diversity of housing stock, and encourage improvements to neighboring homes. + Example (Charlottesville, VA) -Established an Affordable Housing Fund (city contributes $600,000 annually and $800,000 additional funds pledged for 2018). Developers make contributions to the housing fund if they are seeking rezoning or special use permits. Strategic Housing Master Plan 117 STRATEGIES Following extensive market research, benchmarking, and discussions with While B&D recognizes that a holistic, multi -faceted approach to addressing university and community stakeholders, B&D developed strategies to address these challenges is ideal, individual strategies are organized into three the housing challenges identified earlier in this document. These strategies categories: outline high-level approaches and are meant to serve as a guide to inform future I. Private Market Strategies conversations between relevant stakeholders and decision makers in Iowa City, Coralville, and at the University of Iowa. Once the recommended approach has been agreed upon, further assessment of specific plans, policies, and implementation tactics is suggested. II. University of Iowa Strategies I II. Hybrid Approaches This approach does not imply that the solution should solely be the responsibility of either the University of Iowa or Iowa City / Coralville. A holistic This Plan has highlighted several factors that are likely influencing the housing approach mixing multiple strategies and utilizing collaboration between the challenges experienced in the community. Exhibit 9 below summarizes these multiple entities is a preferred solution. major drivers appearing to result in the infiltration of single-family neighborhoods with student renters and a diminished supply of owner -occupied housing options Strategy Spectrum (Exhibit 10) close to Downtown Iowa City / Pentacrest. Housing Problem Statement (Exhibit 9) 10ina- Private Housing Options Rental options in Iowa City/Coralville offer the smallest Infiltration of single-family inventory of large-scale, neighborhoods with student renters "student -oriented" properties in close proximity to campus Diminished supply of owner -occupied housing options dose to downtown 18 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey ®nom Hybrid PrivateApproach Market Strategies University PRIVATE MARKET STRATEGIES Housing Private market strategies entail options that are assumed as primarily Iowa City Compared to peers, has a students similar percentage of students or Coralville responsibilities with the intent of directly impacting the rental market residing in university and affiliated housing within one or both of these communities. The general strategies outlined are largely derived from examples utilized in comparable campus towns as a way to spur private development in a location and scale that can help address broader housing challenges. Development Zones Development zones or districts have been created in many of the campus towns researched in an effort to control the location, scale, and aesthetics of student housing development. Several examples of these development zones were overlay districts in neighborhoods directly adjacent to that particular campus edge. These locations typically contain a mixed housing stock and are ripe for redevelopment. The zones typically allow for increased flexibility with regards to height and density in locations that would be most attractive to student housing developers. Such conditions include: 1. Close proximity to campus and desirable commercial uses (less than a 10 -minute walk), 2. Access to transportation/ along highly visible corridors, 3. Aging / retrofitted housing stock (usually single —family and small scale multi -family buildings with little to no building amenities), 4. Incompatible adjacent uses, and 5. Vacant or less than desirable commercial / industrial properties. Oread Neighborhood Plan in Lawrence. Kansas (Exhibit 11) M.n Memorial ll .i Allowing increased density development to occur in these zones has the benefit of taking development pressure away from neighborhoods that the city would like to preserve as predominantly single-family, owner -occupied housing. An example of this type of development zone is the Lawrence, Kansas Oread Neighborhood Plan (Exhibit 11), which is adjacent to the University of Kansas. The HERE at Lawrence across from Memorial Stadium was the first purpose- built development realized from this plan. Further study of local attributes, zoning codes, and site characteristics is needed to identity locations that would be appropriate in Iowa City and Coralville. One potential area that should be considered for a development zone due to its proximity to campus is the Johnson / Van Buren corridor between Burlington and the railroad tracks. Strategic Land Acquisition An additional approach to spur private development within specific areas is for a city to strategically acquire and assemble land with the purpose of future redevelopment by the private sector. After gaining control of the land the city can choose to undergo a process to find a suitable development partner willing to build the amount, type, and scale of student housing stipulated through a competitively bid process. The city may also choose to prepare the site for development to make it more attractive to potential development partners. While obvious challenges of this strategy are having the necessary capital and land available for acquisition, the potential benefits of development control and long- term financial return (through ground lease proceeds) are significant. Madison, Wisconsin has been working on this approach by utilizing land banking with a long-term goal of assembling land for future development including student housing. In 2010, the City's budget appropriated $5 million for a land banking fund to purchase parcels within an existing development Strategic Housing Master Plan 119 plan or special area plan where, "no development is forthcoming due to overall economic conditions or the financial condition of the developer," (City of E`id d*]1*1 Mixed -Use Development on University Land An opportunity to facilitate necessary student housing development would be to Madison Land Banking Fund Guidelines). Land banking in conjunction with TIF enable privately -developed facilities on university land. Development could be funding and infrastructure improvements subsidizes and targets development controlled in a way that meets specific usage and design standards adhering specifically in Madison's Capital East District. Through an RFP process, a significant, underutilized site was developed into a mixed-use market rate rental building, The Constellation. As a result, this district's redevelopment is underway with additional projects under construction and in the pipeline. One of the primary goals of Madison's 2016 Economic Development Strategy is to implement a more aggressive land banking effort through a Municipal Real Estate Development Fund. Such funds would go towards repositioning "development zone" sites through land banking and pre -development costs. The city can then engage developers that align with Madison's objectives of growing the tax base and vision of strategic housing development in "priority areas." Partnerships with Existing Land Owners An alternative strategy to land acquisition and development is to encourage to the needs of both the university and the community. Additionally, depending on the ownership structure, if these are privately -owned and financed they could still generate property tax revenue for the municipality. Advantages of this approach include that new student housing beds are delivered without financing from the university, additional property tax revenue is created, and guidelines can be set to ensure standards (construction, maintenance, design, etc.) are upheld. Further exploration on the specifics of this approach at the University of Iowa including land availability, feasibility, and the legality are necessary. Examples of this type of arrangement can be found at University of Wisconsin - Madison and University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign. In both cases, mixed- use developments that fulfill student housing needs were constructed on university land. The example in Madison, 333 E. Campus Mall, also includes redevelopment through partnerships with existing land owners. With the vast approximately 225,000 square feet of student services space that was sold majority of sites in close proximity to the University of Iowa built -out, a realistic back to the university in a condominium arrangement. approach may be partnering with select property owners to redevelop. Iowa City and/or Coralville could incentivize redevelopment and work with stakeholders 333 East Campus Mall, University of Wisconsin -Madison (Exhibit 12) to ensure efforts align with the shared needs of the community. Sites in close proximity to the University of Iowa should be prioritized as they are most suitable for student housing development and would require less transportation and parking needs. HYBRID APPROACH Hybrid solutions are viewed as more collaborative partnerships in which both the municipalities and university would participate. These solutions would encourage private development but involve certain levels of input, control, or oversight from University of Iowa, Iowa City and Coralville. 20 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey Certified /Affiliated Housing An approach that other institutions have utilized to transfer student housing financing and construction risks and responsibilities to the private sector is UI STRATEGIES University of Iowa strategies are options for the campus to respond to the community -wide housing challenges by accommodating additional students in through a certified or affiliated housing program. While this type of arrangement on -campus housing. These options would be the responsibility of the university. could come in many varieties, in general it allows for the university to market While the proactive and reactive development strategies are grounded more on private properties in exchange for housing constructed, maintained, and operated according to standards set by the institution. the municipal side of the spectrum, an additional avenue for relieving pressure on the existing rental market would be for increased university capacity accompanied by a second year live -on requirement. A prominent example of this type of arrangement exists at the University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign. The university has a private -certified housing Second Year Live -On Requirement program that provides over 3,000 beds in 15 facilities that are privately - owned on non -university land. Each facility must adhere to strict residence life programming requirements and pass annual facility inspections in exchange for residents fulfilling the university's first-year live -on requirement. Buildings are annually inspected by Champaign or Urbana officials to ensure they meet fire safety, occupancy standards, and maintenance requirements. Residential life B&D performed a preliminary analysis on the housing need required to accommodate a second year live -on requirement at the University of Iowa. Based on both future enrollment growth and capture rates assumptions, there is a projected need for an additional 2,845 - 3,465 new beds on campus by fall 2025 (Exhibit 13). staff within private certified housing is separate from the university residence life There are significant factors for UI to consider if planning to implement this staff but undergoes training and works closely with other campus entities. policy change. To demonstrate the potential scale and site requirements, B&D developed a high-level phasing scenario and programs for these new facilities. Second Year Housing Need Analysis (Exhibit 13) After Policv Enforcement 65% capture rate 3,864 3,903 3,942 3,981 4,021 4,021 4,021 4,021 4,021 70% capture rate 4,162 4,203 4,245 4,288 4,331 4,331 4,331 4,331 4,331 75% capture rate 4,459 4,503 4,548 4,594 4,640 4,640 4,640 4,640 4,640 Additional Beds Needed to Accommodate 2nd Year Live -On 65% capture rate 2,755 2,565 2,657 2,750 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 70% capture rate 3,052 2,865 2,960 3,056 3,153 3,153 3,153 3,153 3,153 75% capture rate 3,349 3,166 3,264 3,362 3,462 3,462 3,462 3,462 3,462 Strategic Housing Master Plan 121 The assumption was that five, 600- bed facilities would be constructed. In Potential Housing and Dining Program (Exhibit 14) order to account for non -apartment residential communities appropriate for w second year students, B&D assumed 275 gross square feet per bed to allow for adequate community, programming, and academic space. However, the .................. expansion of a university housing program at a 3,000 bed scale would put increased pressures on existing university resources and infrastructure. For instance, assuming non -apartments would be constructed, new dining space must be offered. Accounting for these five phases of housing along with two new dining centers amounts to over 880,000 gross square feet (see Exhibit 14). In addition to the significant site requirements to accommodate these facilities, the university would need to consider other components such as parking, green space, transportation, and academic resources to name a few. Needless to say, this magnitude of construction would require substantial capital funds, institutional will, and land in order to implement. Despite the obvious challenges to implementing a second year live -on requirement policy there are numerous student developmental advantages to keeping more second years in on -campus housing. Many studies have shown that students who live on campus during their second year have higher retention rates, are more likely to graduate, and are more engaged in the campus culture.' z As UI continues to explore this option, attention should be given to these additional considerations: • Increase the scale of individual projects to shorten the phasing timeline • Various delivery methods including public-private partnerships could allow for quicker delivery along with the transfer of financing and other risks to a third -party. • Private -certified housing offerings (mentioned earlier) could satisfy a live -on requirement 22 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey Project 1 Project 2 165,200 34,800 165,200 Project (3 165,200 Project 4 165,200 Project S ................................ TOTAL 165,200 did d=]RJI*I 200,000 826,000 58,500 884,500 1. Pascarella & Terenzini. "How College Affects Students," 2005. 2. Gallup -Purdue Index. It's Not 'Where'You Go to College, But 'How' You Go to College, 2014. Potential Housing Phasing Plan (Exhibit 15) Bui3 Nina Beds Residence Halls Online Future Project#1 600 Future Project#2 600 Future Project#3 600 Future Project#4 600 Future Project#5 600 TOTAL NEW BEDS Online Demand -Based Housing Increase Fall 2018 Fall 2019 Fall 2020 Fall 2021 Fall 2022 Fall 2023 Fall 2024 Fall 2025 Fall 2026 Fa112027 Offline Offline Offline Online Online Online Online Online Online Online Offline Offline Offline Offline Online Online Online Online Online Online Offline Offline Offline Offline Offline Online Online Online Online Online Offline Offline Offline Offline Offline Offline Online Online Online Online Offline Offline Offline Offline Offline Offline Offline Online Online Online 0 0 0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 3,000 3,000 3,000 An alternative method for UI to explore is offering additional on -campus housing for upper -division or graduate students. Absent a live -on requirement, there may be additional students that would choose to live on campus if the options were desirable. This approach would increase on -campus capacity to limit the number of upper -division students moving off campus. This method relies on the potential to capture upper -division students that would currently prefer to live on campus if new beds were provided at the optimal location, unit mix, and price point. The current upper -division offerings on campus are limited with a capture rate at only 6% or only 750 students (as shown earlier in Exhibit 1). Further study to quantify this potential demand is recommended. Specific details on the type, location, and cost of these housing options would need to be understood prior to initiating next steps. Strategic Housing Master Plan 123 MOVING FORWARD As a town/gown community, University of Iowa, Iowa City and Coralville face interconnected housing challenges of affordability, proximity to downtowns and campus, enrollment growth, and increasing rental pressures. These challenges present a collaborative opportunity to holistically address issues and transform the town/gown housing experience. A combination of the previously discussed strategies will help UI, Iowa City and Coralville move towards their primary housing and development goals: • Preserve affordable and walkable single-family housing options • Concentrate multi -family development where infrastructure and resources are in place to support it • Improve the balance of owner- versus renter -occupied housing units across the community • Explore opportunities to increase on -campus housing offerings that could support enrollment growth and lessen student impact on the private housing market This Strategic Housing Master Plan is intended to act as a framework for further discussion between the three entities to define the specific approaches moving forward. Collaboration in the planning phase will allow for coordinated development that enhances and strengthens the entire town/gown community. 24 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey IMMEDIATE NEXT STEPS University of Iowa, Iowa City, & Coralville Determine specific strategies to address housing + Appropriate mix of UI + private market strategies 2 Market Sounding l7 + Preliminary conversations to solicit development community feedback intended to gauge interest, market conditions, and feasibility + Can be done through either informal one-on-one conversations or a more structured RFI process 3 Determine long-term on -campus housing plan + Opportunity to accommodate more upperdivision students + Study feasibility of a 2nd year live -on requirement APPENDICIES The following appendices are provided as supplemental information to the preceding report. The PowerPoint files include content developed for meetings held at the University of Iowa with representatives from Iowa City and Coralville present on May 18 and July 27, 2017. While the majority of the information presented during these meetings is reflected in the report narrative, the PowerPoint slides have been updated to reflect UI's fall 2017 enrollment/ housing data. TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A: MAY 18, 2017 PRESENTATION APPENDIX B: JULY 27, 2017 PRESENTATION APPENDIX C: IOWA REGENT & BIG TEN COMPARISON APPENDIX D: OFF -CAMPUS HOUSING MAP APPENDIX E: HOUSING AFFORDABILITY COMPARISON Strategic Housing Master Plan 123 APPENDIX A 26 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey STRATEGIC HOUSING MASTER FLAN UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, IOWA CITY & CORALVILLE MAY 18, 2017 BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY INSPIRE. EMPOWER. ADVANCE. J �) ' Ilk � + 1 Canmpus Context 2 own/ own Bon�hma �T014/ .n Case Stbdies % �4 UI `� OUST JIsctISSI,� I s r y i F �51 .fes t 2A v _a BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY rtAMP".q rtnklTFVT WIA r � '?, ID -,Mmw -1 M , j��- II meq'- ra\�� r. r^ a� u 4A BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY EXISTING CONDITIONS STRATEGIC HOUSING MASTER PLAN Challenges ♦ Loss of affordable housing options in close proximity to Downtown Iowa City ♦ Enrollment growth of university has increased pressure on rental options in surrounding neighborhoods ♦ Consistent on -campus housing supply has pushed increasing numbers of upper division and graduate students into the private rental market ♦ Proliferation of renter -occupied houses in neighborhoods that were once predominantly owner -occupied has reduced supply, diminished character. and strained resources Goals ♦ Preserve affordable and walkable single-family housing options ♦ Concentrate multi -family development where infrastructure and resources are in place to support it ♦ Provide a better balance between owner- and renter -occupied housing units ♦ Consider possibilities (2ND year live -on) to increase on -campus housing supply to support enrollment growth and keep pressure off of the community Ilk TOWN/GOWN BENCHMARKING -mw--i " 21 �A ♦ Studied 11 Town/Gown relationships — Indiana University (Bloomington, IN) — Purdue University (West Lafayette, IN) — University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) — University of Florida (Gainesville, FL) — University of Georgia (Athens -Clarke County, GA) — University of Illinois (Urbana, IL) — University of Illinois (Champaign, IL) — University of Kansas (Lawrence, Kansas) — University of Virginia (Charlottesville, VA) — University of Wisconsin (Madison, WI) — Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) 10 institutions/ 11 cities BENCHMARKING 1W TOWN/GOWN RELATIONSHIPS �I. Enrollment 6 60,000 50,000 49,695 COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHICS ENROLLMENT Average ■ Total 39,497 52,367 ■ First Time FR 6,119 III, Total Undergrad 29,085 43,893 ■ Total Grad 10,412 36,574 34,554 33,243 27,951 27,565 23,898 1 17,813 9,262 _ 16,331 43,336 31,710 10,650 43,625 11,626 6,833 39,184 40,451 8,303 40,000 6,430 1 5'10 I 1 I 4,,3 I '33,564 ------------r rr 1 34,072 r r r r 30,043 University of 30;000 ; r University of University of University of Florida r r r 24,503 i r Illinois, Urbana- Kansas Virginia Wisconsin, r r r r r Champaign 20,000 r r ; r r � r i r 9,061 10,511 10,408 9,553 10,000 r r 6'11 7'� 3 7,753 5,029 r r r r r r I I I I I 0 r r r 1 r i r UNIVERSITY OF: Indiana Purdue University of IOWA University University Arizona ------------- Sources. 2016 Common Data Sets, Institution's enrollmentfigures, UI 2017 enrollment data Average ■ Total 39,497 52,367 ■ First Time FR 6,119 III, Total Undergrad 29,085 43,893 ■ Total Grad 10,412 36,574 34,554 33,243 27,951 27,565 23,898 1 17,813 9,262 _ 16,331 43,336 31,710 10,650 11,626 6,833 8,623 7,593 8,303 7,567 6,430 1 5'10 I 1 I 4,,3 I 313 1 1 University of University of University of University of University of University of Florida Georgia Illinois, Urbana- Kansas Virginia Wisconsin, Champaign Madison FIRST-TIME FRESHMAN ON -CAMPUS HOUSING First -Time Freshman Freshman Live- University Housing Capture Rate on Requirement UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 95% N Indiana University 94% Y Purdue Universitv 94% N Universitv of Arizona 73% N Universitv of Florida 83% N Universitv of Georgia 98% Y Sources: 2016 & 2015 Common Data Sets, Institutional housing policies, UI 2017 housing and enrollment data 89% Average First -Time Freshmen capture rate UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHICS ON -CAMPUS HOUSING 339564 7,858 935 49,695 13,445 31350 40,451 12,950 21925 43,625 61921 1,175 52,367 91066 11575 36,574 71610 11650 43,893 13,359 21500 279565 51301 21105 239898 69617 580 439336 89697 NA 39.497 9.182 1.866 26% 34% 39% 19% 20% 25% 36% 27% 30% 20% 28% 249771 Recently/currently 32,900 pursuing additional beets Purdue University (current) 24,576 University of Kansas (current) 35,529 University of Florida (2016) University of Arizona (2011) 41,726 NOT planning to 27,314 Increase capacity 28,034 Indiana University 209159 University of Georgia University of Illinois, Urbana -Champaign 16 701 University of Wisconsin -Madison University of Virginia 34,639 289653 University beds includes: Residence Halls, Graduate Housing, Private Certified Housing & Affiliated Housing COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHICS RENTAL HOUSING + STUDENT DEMAND UNIVERSITY OF IOWA IOWA CITY, IA CORALVILLE, IA 24,771 3,485 14.1% Iowa City UNIVERSITY OF IOWA (FUTURE) ..................................................................................................................... IOWA CITY, IA CORALVILLE,/A 25,446* 6,404 25.2% Coralville will Indiana Bloomington, IN 32,900 8,599 26.1% add 2,919 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Purdue ..............................................y....................................... West Lafayette, IN 24,576 9,234 37.6% "student- .............................. 9tarqe4. I N.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 35,529 9,689 27.3% oriented" beds ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. University of Florida Gainesville, FL 41,726 22,230 53.3% by 2019. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. University of Georgia ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Athens, GA 27,314 11,282 41.3% *Assumed 1%groth on the number of off-campus . students to match enrollment growth assumptionUniversity of Illinois, Urbana- ......................................................................................... Champaign Urbana, IL 28,034 16,899 60.3% ..Champaign...��...................................... Lawrence, KS o ....................... 2,000 additional University of Kansas 20,159 5,466 27.1 /° 7 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 ......................... ........................ ., beds needed to University of Virg Charlottes villeVA , 16,701 5 315 31.8% University of Wisconsin, Madison Madison, WI 34,639 6,385 18.4% reachaverage. ............................ AVERAGE ................... 28,635 9,898 33.7% Sources. 2015 ACS 5 -year Estimates.. U.S. Census Bureau, CoStar COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHICS RENTAL HOUSING + STUDENT DEMAND UNIVERSITY OF IOWA IOWA CITY, IA 24,771 3,485 14.1% 1,239 20,047 CORALVILLE, IA UNIVERSITY OF IOWA (FUTURE) IOWA CITY, IA 25,446* 6,404 25.2% 1,272 17,770 CORALVILLE lA Indiana UniversitBloomington, IN 32,900 8,599 26.1% 1,645 22,656 Purdue ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... West Lafayette, IN 24,576 9,234 37.6% 1,229 14,113 Lafayette, IN University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 35,529 9,689 27.3% 1,776 24,064 University of Florida ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Gainesville, FL 41,726 22,230 53.3% 2,086 17,410 University of Georgia ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Athens, GA 27,314 11,282 41.3% 1,366 14,666 University of Illinois, Urbana- ChampaignCham..P..al.9�!.,..�� ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Urbana, IL 28,034 16,899 60.3% 1,402 9,733 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 20,159 5,466 27.1% 1,008 13,685 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 16,701 5,315 31.8% 835 10,551 University of Wisconsin, Madison Madison, WI 34,639 6,385 18.4% 1,732 26,522 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................o AVERAGE 28,635 9,898 ................................................................................................................................................ 33.7% 1,432 17,345 Sources. 2015 ACS 5 -year Estimates., U.S. Census Bureau, CoStar *5% of off -campus studerts COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHICS CITY POPULATOINS Population Estimates Average population: 125,402 600.000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200.000 100;000 71,832 528,374 20, 038 67,140 127,559 124,707 0 82,813 43,999 IOWACITY, CORALVILLE, Bloomington, West Lafayette, Tucson, Gainesville, Athens, IA IA IN Lafayette, IN IN Az FL GA Sources. 2015 ACS 5 -year Estimates., U.S. Census Bureau 243,122 84,008 41,988 91,305 45,084 Urbana, Champaign, Lawrence, Charlottesville, Madison, IL IL KS VA WI COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHICS * I HOUSING IOWA CITY, IA 309259 55% 45% 48% 52% 2% UNIVERSITY OF IOWA CORALVILLE, IA 8,287 58% 42% 55% 45% 5% IndianaBloomington, IN 339388 46% 54% 34% 66% 5% West Lafayette, IN 14,836 38% 62% 30% 70%° 3% Purdue University Lafayette, IN 33,122 63% 37% 47% 53% 6% University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 206,342 66% 34% 49% 51% 9% FloridaUniversity of Gainesville, FL 567924 47% 53% 38% 62%° 11% University of Georgia Athens, GA 51,529 57% 43% 41% 60%° 12% University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 17,915 45% 55% 38% 62%° 9% Urbana-ChampaignChampaign, IL 36,803 56% 44% 47% 53%° 7% University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 387189 62% 38% 46% 54%° 7% University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 19,886 62% 38% 44% 56%° 5% University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 108,824 49% 51% 48% 52% 2% Madison Average 541690 54% 46% 43% 57%° 6% Sources. 2015 ACS 5 -year Estimates, U.S. Census Eur a_ COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHICS RENTAL HOUSING + STUDENT DEMAND UNIVERSITY OF IOWA IOWA CITY, IA CORALVILLE, IA 20,047 ' 8 910 ' 15,157 31494 16 867 ' 53% UNIVERSITY OF IOWA (FUTURE) IOWA CITY lA CORALVILLE lA 17,770 ' 7 898 ' 16,1,25 4 625 19 251 ' 0 41/o Indiana Bloomington.,..!N 20,032,.,,,,,,,,,. x.6.x289.............. 62%0 Purdue University .................................22,656..................................... ,West Lafayette, IN 14 113 .................. 6273 ........ 9 334 x ............................ .......... .................. 21486 Lafayette......................................................'..............................................................'. .6.x225 ' .............................29% University of ' Tucson, AZ University of Florida .........................................24,064..................................1.0.x695........................105,668.................101,470........... Gainesville,..FF .................1..1.%, .......... ....................................1�.x41.0....................................7x738.............................29,886......................21,414.............. Athens, G.A. 6x51.8.............................25807. ......... .................36%0 30/........... University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign..........Champaign...�� . rbana, IL .1.4..x666. .. .... . . .. 9,733 .. .. 4,326 9x678 .21..,380............. ..... 19,794 22% University of Kansas ...........................................'.................................................................'...............................................�.�.x565..................................'............................... Lawrence,..Ks ..................................... ....................................131.685.....................................6,082..............................I.8..x880.......................16,609...............................37%�. VA 10,551......................................41.689..............................1.0x01.7.........................71.866............................. 60%g Jniversity of Wisconsin, Madison ......Charlottesville, .......................... Madison, WI .... 26,522 11,788 54,294 50,528 ... 23% AVERAGE 17,345 7,709 33,604 29,370 36% Sources 2015 ACS 5 -year Estimates, U. S. Census Bureau, CoStar 'Off- campus students in generalmnier market divided by 225students to estimate numberofoff -campus antis occupiedby students TOWN/GOWN BENCHMARKING SUMMARY ♦ When compared to other institutions, UI has a similar percentage of students residing in university and affiliated housing ♦ The off -campus community surrounding UI offers the smallest inventory of "student -oriented" properties — Accounting for large developments in the pipeline this number remains below the average for comparable campus towns ♦ The limited number of large-scale student housing developments in combination with low vacancy rates and proximity between university & downtown creates housing shortages and incompatibility issues 4 TOWN/GOWN CASE STUDIES l,' ol ON Overall Housing Issues ♦ Single-family neighborhood encroachment by student renters is common — Dependent on location of campus in relation to downtown, geographic boundaries, and size of metro area ♦ Several institutions have seen student renters vacating house rentals for new purpose-built, amenitized developments ♦ Housing affordability issues due to low vacancy rates & large institutions affect not only students but general market — Affordable inventory (rent & own) pushed further from core and available transportation, resources, and amenities ru CASE STUDIES GENERAL TOWN/GOWN HOUSING THEMES Town/Gown Relationships ♦ Most common partnerships are developed in response to housing conflicts (i.e. outreach groups, committees, university neighborhood associations) ♦ Several institutions have proactively developed formal partnerships to guide development — P3 developments, infrastructure projects, collaboration on strategic plans — Joint funding of projects to spur development ♦ Limited coordination in understanding student housing - specific supply/demand Proactive Development Strategies ♦ Identify Development Districts to encourage higher -density projects in locations that have seen a heavy proliferation of student renters and/or have convenient access to transit, amenities, and resources ♦ Removing development barriers: — Eliminating parking & FAR requirements — Increasing downtown/near campus densities — Up -zoning SF neighborhoods eroded by rentals beyond repair ♦ Down -zoning specific neighborhoods to preserve single-family character ♦ TIF Districts used to help fund infrastructure improvements, owner/occupancy rehab program, and to allow for greater control ♦ Infrastructure projects as a development catalyst CASE STUDIES GENERAL TOWN/GOWN HOUSING THEMES Reactive Development Strategies ♦ Occupancy limits ♦ Noise ordinances ♦ Rental housing inspection programs run by the city ♦ Behavioral programs / educational outreach for student renters ("how to be a good neighbor") ♦ Affordable Housing Owner/Occupancy rehab & ownership assistance programs Interlocal Cooperation Agreement ♦ Purdue University annexed into West Lafayette in 2014 — GOAL: foster private development, attract Purdue grads & entrepreneurs — Joint Board & Management Team comprised of mayoral and Purdue president appointees State Street Corridor Project ♦ DEVELOPMENT CATALYST: Infrastructure improvements to prime corridor for development ♦ $120 million joint funded infrastructure project — Roadway, streetscape, bike/ped improvements ♦ GOAL: Attract large student housing developments around "State Street corridor project' and away from single-family neighborhoods — 2,000-3,000 new beds by 2019 — TIF district utilized with housing developments that can be taxed to capture the "increment' ♦ Innovation District Master Plan — Joint Foundation + West Lafayette Master Plan — $1 billion investment to attract tech companies with Purdue partnerships — 7 million sf (research facilities, office, retail, conference, hotel space) University Housing ♦ Expand to house up to 50% of undergraduates CASE STUDIES PURDUE UNIVERSITY, WEST LAFAYETTE Clty Contact: Erik Carlson, Director of Development Student Housing Issues • Mixed housing leads to zoning and neighborhood compatibility issues • Tax base erosion from University land purchases (30% tax exempt) • Developers have more leverage with "twin cities' Chamoaian: removed from campus and single family neighborhoods not threatened by student renters, removed development barriers (parking/ FAR requirement) Urbana: restrictive regulation on multi -family development, outreach programs to influence behaviors and limit conflicts Gregory Place Apartments • P3 development that allowed UIUC to add housing/retail and generates tax revenue: — University owns the land and developer owns the improvements — City preserves tax base by levying property taxes on improvements • University and City agreement established regarding intensity of development • Urbana created a new district around the site with higher review standards to protect city and university interests Private Certified Housing • Privately -owned and operated housing that fulfills UIUC live -on requirement • Buildings are inspected by Champaign • Allows university to expand capacity without building CASE STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, URBANA & CHAMPAIGN City Contact Elizabeth Tyler, City Planner/Community Development Significant Housing Growth ♦ Strong rental market with low vacancy rates driven by UW student demand shifts and general population growth ♦ Developments began on "easy" sites, transitioned to large projects downtown, focus shifting to neighborhoods adjacent to SF neighborhoods Housing Strategy Committee ♦ Bankers, realtors, developers, and UW real estate faculty issue annual housing report recommending: — Student high-rise district, up -zone & allow for micro -units near campus — Connect Madison Economic Development Strategy Connect Madison Development Districts ♦ Identify areas beyond downtown with capacity for more intense development — Near transit, proximate to retail & amenities that could support additional units Land Banking ♦ City purchasing large parcels and subsidizing for development — RFP's issued to outline development objectives ♦ Looking to create a fund for repositioning parcels and establish acquisition targets and outcomes CASE STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MADISON TIF Districts ♦ TIF district funds revitalization of neighborhoods that lost student renters — Increment from the new developments captured to help fund transition from rental to owner occupied units $80,000 loans for renovation, debt forgiven, land restricted to owner occupied for 10 years Affordable Student Housing ♦ City investigating partnership with university financial aid — Refer students from low-income families to live in TIF funded building (ex. with 10% below market rate student units) City Contact: Matt Wachter, Housing Strategist, City of Madison Source: 2016 Madison Biennial Housing Repon College park / University Heights Redevelopment Area • University expansion • Concentrate students within walking / biking distance to campus • Encouraging technology / medical related research and enterprises to commercial and industrial districts currently under utilized 5 infrastructure improvement projects completed to prime area for development Innovation Square: • Tech / science / research oriented development with housing and commercial space • Collaboration between Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, University of Florida, and City of Gainesville • Reclaimed 16 acres between downtown Gainesville and University of Florida • Community Redevelopment Agency streamlined and simplified zoning code to allow for flexibility and spur mixed-use development in area • Infinity Hall: 312 bed University Housing project opened in fall 2015 — Entrepreneurial LLC — P3 with Signet Development CASE STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, GAINESVILLE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA uWNYOWN Community Housing Shortage ♦ Low -vacancy rates, limited supply of multi -family housing, increasing rents ♦ Enrollment, young professional & retirement population growth ♦ Single-family neighborhood preservation issues ♦ National development companies focused on student housing market Student Housing Action Plan (2013) ♦ Joint group of City and University representatives ♦ 'The purpose of this effort was to work with Colorado State University (CSU), Front Range Community College (FRCC), neighbors, students, property owners, developers, and other stakeholders to identify strategies to address the increasing need for multi -family student housing, identify key issues for development or redevelopment, and identify potential impacts and compatibility issues" ♦ Examines enrollment growth, current on -campus beds and pipeline off -campus projects to evaluate supply & demand of student housing in Fort Collins Community Liaison ♦ Position began in 2001;joint funded by city and university ♦ Time split in half between the entities ♦ Brings student voice to planning boards City Contact. Emily Allen - Community Liaison & Cameron Gloss CASE STUDIES COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, FORT COLLINS Infrastructure / Transit Projects ♦ Transportation improvements: BART, West Elizabeth Transit Corridor ♦ Development catalysts West Central Area Plan ♦ Neighborhood plan focused on a district with a high density of students near CSU's campus (79% rentals) University Housing ♦ Used off -campus housing as an example to build a competitive product for upper division and international students ♦ University goals of providing housing for all freshmen, international students & 25% of returning students ,Vesr 757 MM1 anm 77117 ❑'71 r =-- t -------- �---==='= �� West Elizabeth Transit µora�•------Sxu� . _. J ..... .: Corridor Plan Ul HOUSING SUPPLY ol -"now Residence Halls I Capacity Burge Hall 992 Catlett Hall 1,049 Currier Hall 628 Daum Hall 330 Hillcrest Hall 824 Mayflower Hall 1,027 Petersen Hall 516 Rienow Hall 488 Slater Hall 489 Stanley Hall 396 Apartments Capacity Bloomington House 48 Centerstone 118 Dubuque South 59 Aspire at West Campus 894 UNIVERSITY HOUSING SUPPLY — FALL 2017 University Housing Breakdown 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2017-2018 ■ Residence Halls 'Apartment supply includes Aspire and leased beds Apartments 7,858 beds L RiE UNIVERS11Y OF IOWA UNIVERSITY HOUSING CURRENT CAPTURE RATES & ENROLLMENT First -Time Freshmen 95% 49756 ...................................................................................................................... Sophomores 15% 918 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Other undergraduates 6% 750 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Graduate/Prof Students 10% 894 ALL 22% 7,318 University of Iowa Enrollment: Assanws !% annaa/Increases thropfh Fa//2020 First -Time Freshmen 5,029 5,078 5,138 5,181 5,233 5,233 5,233 5,233 5,233 Sophomores 5,945 6,005 6,085 6,125 6,187 6,187 8,187 6,187 6,187 Juniors 5,754 5,811 5,868 5,828 5,887 5,987 5,887 5,987 5,887 Seniors 6,196 6,258 6,321 6,384 6,448 8,448 6,448 6,448 6,448 Other Undergrads 1,579 1,595 1,611 1,627 1,643 1,643 1,643 1,643 1,643 Post -Graduates 1,353 1,367 1,381 1,394 1,408 1,408 1,408 1,408 1,408 Professionals 1,879 1,898 1,917 1,936 1,955 1,955 1,955 1,955 1,955 Graduate Students 5,829 5,887 5,946 6,005 6,665 6,065 6,065 6,665 6,065 33,564 33,900 346239 346581 34,927 346927 346927 346927 34,927 "Enrollment growth based on Board of Regents report from February 24-25, 2016 stating "enrollment at the Universityof Iowa is projected to steadily increase from the FY2076 enrollment of 32,150 to 34,599 in FY2027 " UNIVERSITY HOUSING FUTURE HOUSING NEED Projected University Housinq Needs - Assumina same capture rates First -Time Freshmen 6,756 4,804 6,852 66600 66600 66600 66500 66500 6,500 Sophomores 918 627 936 9" 646 966 9" 9" 9" Other undergraduates 750 758 765 773 773 773 773 773 773 Graduate/Prof Students 894 903 9112 921 921 9211 9211 921 921 Total Demand 7,3118 7,391 7,465 71540 71540 71540 71540 71560 7,560 Projected University Housing Demand vs. Supply '17218 118=19 '19220 '20221 '21222 '22223 '23224 '24225 First -Time Freshmen Sophomores Other undergraduates Graduate/Prof Students — —Available Bed Spaces UNIVERSITY HOUSING 2nd YEAR LIVE -ON REQUIREMENT After Policy Enforcement 65% capture rate 3,864 3,903 3,942 3,981 4,021 4,021 4,021 4,021 4,021 70% capture rate 4,162 4,203 4,245 4,288 4,331 4,331 4,331 4,331 4,331 75% capture rate 4,459 4,503 4,548 4,594 4,640 4,640 4,640 4,640 4,640 Additional Beds Needed to Accommodate 2nd Year Live -On 65% capture rate 2,755 2,565 2,657 2,750 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2, 43 70% capture rate 3,052 2,865 2,960 3,056 3,153 3,153 3,153 3,153 3,1 3 75% capture rate 3,349 3,166 3,264 3,362 3,462 3,462 3,462 3,462 3,482 Projected need for 2,845 - 31462 NEW beds to handle 2"d year live -on requirement by 2025 r. tjt:r7 ,moort. - DISCUSSION & NEXT STEPS ol -Mwz-i M , jm �A DISCUSSION & NEXT STEPS STRATEGIC HOUSING MASTER PLAN ♦ Confirm assumptions & data ♦ Additional research on best practice "specifics" ♦ Develop strategies for UI / Iowa City / Coralville ♦ Market sounding + Preliminary conversations to solicit development community feedback intended to gauge interest, market conditions, and feasibility + Can be done through either informal one-on-one conversations or a more structured RFI process STRATEGIC HOUSING MASTER R FLAN UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, IOWA CITY & CORALVILLE BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY INSPIRE. EMPOWER. ADVANCE. This page has been left intentionally blank. 59 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey Strategic Housing Master Plan 159 APPENDIX B 60 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey STRATEGIC HOUSING MASTER PLAN UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, IOWA CITY & CORALVILLE JULY 271. 2017 BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY + ..ti SPIRE. EMPOWER. AOVAN.CE. ti 1 Re riew of,` Findiihigeil 2trate ies `Disc n-& Ne'act Slept 7V � r it .tea 1 2B BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY Work Completed — Project Initiation / Strategic Anal — On -Campus Housing Scenarios — Case Studies / Best Practices — Off -Campus Market Research — Strategy Development AGENDA STRATEGIC HOUSING; MASTER PLAN - Indiana University (Bloomington, IN) - Purdue University (West Lafayette, IN) - University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) - University of Florida (Gainesville, FL) - University of Georgia (Athens -Clarke County, GA) - University of Illinois (Urbana, IL) - University of Illinois (Urbana -Champaign, IL) - University of Kansas (Lawrence, Kansas) - University of Virginia (Charlottesville, VA) - University of Wisconsin (Madison, WI) - Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) RR xr-4 M i r Ale lip �•. iii'" _�rt� � .i ..^ .r WNW w University Housing: J Compared to peers, UI has a similar percentage of students residing in university and affiliated housing TOWN/GOWN HOUSING PROBLEM STATEMENT n Private Housing Options: Rental options in Iowa City / Coralville offer the smallest inventory of large-scale, "student - oriented" properties in close proximity to campus COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHICS RENTAL HOUSING + STUDENT DEMAND UNIVERSITY OF IOWA IOWA CITY, IA 24,771 3,485 14.1% Iowa Crit y CORALVILLE, IA UNIVERSITY OF IOWA (FUTURE) IOWA CITY /A 25,446* 6,404 25.2% Coralville will CORALVILLE, lA 11 add 2,919 Indiana Bloomington, IN 32,900 8,599 26.1% .......................................................................................... West Lafayette, IN ............................................................................................................................................................... student- . ............................................. ....................Lafayette,.. I N..............................................................................................................................................................................................................!f 24,576 9,234 37.6% oriented beds University of Arizona Tucson, AZ ...................................41,726........................... 35,529 9,689 27.3% by 2019. University of Florida Gainesville,..FL 22,230...................................53.3%................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. University of Georgia Athens, GA 27,314 11,282 41.3% ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign Urbana, IL Champaign,..IL...................... 28034 , 16899 , . 603% 2 000 additional .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................... ' University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 20,159 5,466 27.1% beds needed to University of Virginia ............... Charlottesville, VA ................................. 16,701 5,315 o 31.8% reach average. University of Wisconsin, Madison Madison, WI 34,639 6,385 18.4% AVERAGE 28,635 9,898 33.7% *Assumed 1% growth on the number of off -campus stude^ts to match e"o ume, t goo sd" as,Or,, TOWN/GOWN HOUSING STRATEGY If we provide more student -oriented, "certified / affiliated", or on -campus beds: • Percentage of general rental market options occupied by students decreases, • Percentage of student renters in purpose-built student housing increases, and • Single-family neighborhoods transition back to owner -occupied housing. Before: On -campus Housing After: M Student Oriented E General Rental Market Non -renters Off Campus TOWN/GOWN HOUSING STRATEGIES Hybrid Approach Private l! l Market Strategies Strategies ■ Development zones / incentives ■ Certified/affiliated off -campus housing . 2"d year live -on ■ Land banking ■ Jointly -funded infrastructure ■ Capture unmet demand ■ Partnership with existing land owners investment ■ Private rental housing with university services R RR 4W -4 . Ak, STRATEGIES SPUR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Private Market Solutions ® ®1Q IO Yi 9WI0R ♦ Zoning overlay districts in strategic areas that incentivize development in strategic areas ♦ Lawrence, Kansas: Oread Neighborhood Plan (2010) ® i" g51C AM! - Design guidelines paired with 5 overlay districts ya, d" L - Zones planned specifically for student housing development (District 2 - r�fK.n=Memorial - ` High Density) stadium"'"^'"... "" ° - Lot consolidation & large scale development allowed �� t • The HERE at Lawrence: 1 s project as a result of plan Upzoned SF area that was run-down by student rentals for higher ��"� e.. A $ Kapsas mem Go,dr.,�F intensityuse main) in medium density District 3 (mainly Y - )�Tr"°' M4moria[ on 's !PITTMITO Single-family housing preservation (Historic Districts) R " ® I_ ee°� Soiwe : Ckyo/Lawe e, Kansas l!A The HERE at Lawrence Oread Neghborla od Plan Boundary b Om,d Design Guidalim: peaed D'uNm rI gh 71 r D.r "1tl J y Dr I I F D< Ora,dY J' Ds .cnmerze Private Market Solutions • Strategic acquisition of land — Development Map linked to land banking efforts resulting in parcel repositioning via RFP process ♦ Areas where students live proximate to downtown and campus are predominately zoned: PD Planned Development District - Downtown Core District - Urban Mixed Use District - Downtown Residential 2 Both DC and UMX have stricter review standards and fall under the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines • Downtown Height Map — Secondary map outlines 8 areas where buildings can exceed max by 2 stories — Existing buildings higher than max are allowed to be redeveloped at their existing height as a Conditional Use STRATEGIES SPUR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Sources Ci(yo/Madison Wisconsin zoning code Additional Height Map /dam _— ®PI The HUB at Madison STRATEGIES ACCOMODATING STUDENTS, PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOODS Private Market Solutions Partnerships with Existing Property Owners ♦ Limited land availability in close proximity to campus — Desirable land is concentrated with several local owners ♦ Opportunity to capitalize on relationships with local developers / land owners to (re)develop / densify their land Single -Family Housing Investment ♦ Property tax increment from new development goes towards single-family home rehab ♦ TIF Districts established to fund UniverCity program Hybrid Solution: Mixed -Use UW -Madison 333 East Campus Mall ♦ Integrates private student housing and University services — 350 apartment units — 130,000 sf retail space (grocery store, Walgreens, food court, small retail) — 225,000 sf of student services space ♦ On University land — University floors are UW -M owned condos (3-12) UIUC Gregory Place Apartments • P3 development that allowed UIUC to add housing/retail and generates tax revenue: — University owns the land and developer owns the improvements — City preserves tax base by levying property taxes on improvements • University and City agreement established regarding intensity of development • Urbana created a new district around the site with higher review standards to protect city and university interests STRATEGIES MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ON UNIVERSITY LAND 333 E Campus Mall Ill Student Services Tower Tenants by Floor Greaory place Apartments STRATEGIES CERTIFIED / AFFILIATED HOUSING OFFERINGS Hybrid Solution: Certified / Affiliated Housing University of Illinois Private Certified Housing ♦ Provides approximately 3,000 beds across 15 facilities ♦ All on privately -owned land ♦ Fulfills 1st year live -on requirement but must meet Private Certified Housing Certification Standards — Residence Life Programming and Facility Inspections Relevance to UI ♦ Provides UI an opportunity to encourage new purpose-built student housing that adheres to certain standards (pricing, quality, programming) ♦ In exchange for certification / affiliation, developers would reduce occupancy risk ♦ Could fulfill future live -on requirement and spare UI the expense of constructing all new housing Im .r University Solution: 2"d Year Live -On STRATEGIES 2nd YEAR LIVE -ON REQUIREMENT After Policy Enforcement 65% capture rate 3,864 3,903 3,942 3,981 4,021 4,021 4,021 4,021 4,021 70% capture rate 4,162 4,203 4,245 4,288 4,331 4,331 4,331 4,331 4,331 75% capture rate 4,459 4,503 4,548 4,594 4,640 4,640 4,640 4,640 4,640 Additional Beds Needed to Accommodate 2nd Year Live -On 65% capture rate 2,755 2,565 2,657 2,750 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 70% capture rate 3,052 2,865 2,960 3,056 3,153 3,153 3,153 3,153 31753 75% capture rate 3,349 3,166 3,264 3,362 3,462 3,462 3,462 3,462 3,482 Projected need for approximately 3,150 NEW beds m How would we accommodate this? ♦ Potential program options: 20_ ♦ 5 phases of 600 beds each 1,600 Semi -suite units with appropriate community space (275 GSF / Bed) Dining included in 1St phase and 4th phase to accommodate new on -campus students 5250 Project , Project 1 165,200 ................................. 1......,,,,...,,...,,,,....,........................................................................................................................................................ 34,800 200,000 Project 2 165,200 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 165,200 Project 3 165,200 165,200 Project 4 165,200 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 23,700 188,900 Project S 165,200 ............ ._.__...__ ............ ...._........... .. 165,200 .............. ........._....... .................. .._.............. TOTAL 826,000 58,500 8840500 STRATEGIES PROJECTED SPACE NEEDS J5C 20_ 9000 1,600 Maill Package5ervias 74,8110 , 500 5250 eC , 900 2 40 4 544 ,5 1 Total Number of Beds® wwd6 Rooms eoo 2 1,600 Maill Package5ervias SCC , 500 Vending eC , 80 Pubuc Rebnoms eo 180 Social laragram Spaces BU IdngLobbyl Entry ,COC 1 1,W 0 Comm unTy Lounge 15C 2 1500 Mullipuryose Rooms 800 2 1600 Floor Lounges 350 _ 10 3,500 Study Rooms 150 10 1,500 Housing Admin Space Fmnt Desk 500 1 500 Foi Desk Storage IDU 1 -- 100 Ru lSittingArea 200 1 _ 200 Maill Package Room 500 1 500 Open WorkArea-Student Stab 250 1 --- -- 250 Campus Housing Stag Offices 120 3 360 Floor Support Spaces al Closet ,W 10 ,,000 Tu' T rib 1 Req, ng Rooms 100 10 1000 Supply Storage 80 4 320 Bu king Storage 750 1 750 T I EIecNcal Rooms 100 10 1000 Total Net Square Footage 107,376 Build ing Core B Circulatio in at 65% 57AN Grass Square Footage ,65,200 ♦ $350M+ projected project costs for full implementation to accommodate 2nd year live -on housing needs ♦ phasing options: — Increase scale of individual projects — Opportunities to "ease" into policy enforcement STRATEGIES PHASING F20181Fa112019 Fall 2020 Fall 2021 Fall 2022 Fall 2023 Fall 2024 Fall 2025 Fa112026 Fa112027 Offline Beds Residence Halls Online Future Project#1 600 Future Project #2 600 Future Project #3 600 Future Project #4 600 Future Project #5 600 TOTAL NEW BEDS Online STRATEGIES PHASING F20181Fa112019 Fall 2020 Fall 2021 Fall 2022 Fall 2023 Fall 2024 Fall 2025 Fa112026 Fa112027 Offline Offline Offline Online Online Online Online Online Online Online Offline Offline Offline Offline Online Online Online Online Online Online Offline Offline Offline Offline Offline Online Online Online Online Online Offline Offline Offline Offline Offline Offline Online Online Online Online Offline Offline Offline Offline Offline Offline Offline Online Online Online 0 0 0 600 1200 11 800 22 400 33 000 33 000 33 000 IM V Additional Questions STRATEGIES • Land available to accommodate new on -campus neighborhood(s) or add scale to existing — Provide appropriate student life resources and academic support services • Examine various delivery methods including public-private partnerships • Explore upperdivision housing demand absent a live -on requirement FURTHER EXPLORATION — How many additional upperdivision students would choose to live in university housing if provided at the optimal location, unit mix, and price point? 4 First -Time Freshmen 95% 41756 ................................................................................................................................................................ Sophomores ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15% 918 Other undergraduates 6% 750 Graduate/Prof Students 10% 894 ALL 22% 70518 IM W Purdue University — Innovation Place Apartments 841 bed mixed-use apartment complex • Designated for upperdivision and graduate students • "Academicizing housing" - strong ties between housing and academic units 1s1 phase of goal to provide on -campus housing for 50% of student population (3,000 new beds) STRATEGIES PURDUE UNIVERSITY SUMMARY STRATEGIC OPTIONS Private Market Solutions ♦ Development zones / incentives to spur new off -campus student housing ♦ Land banking - strategic acquisition of land for future development purposes ♦ Partnerships with existing land owners to (re)develop land Hybrid Approach ♦ Certified / affiliated housing ♦ Private rental housing on university land ♦ Jointly -funded infrastructure investments UI Strategies ♦ 2nd year live -on requirement ; Option i ♦ Capture unmet demand SUMMARY STRATEGIC OPTIONS Private Market Solutions ♦ Development zones / incentives to spur new off -campus student housing ♦ Land banking - strategic acquisition of land for future development purposes ♦ Partnerships with existing land owners to (re)develop land Hybrid Approach --------------------------- ♦ Certified / affiliated housing ---� ♦ Private rental housing on university land ♦ Jointly -funded infrastructure investments UI Strategies ♦ 2nd year live on requirement ; Option 1A ♦ Capture unmet demand SUMMARY STRATEGIC OPTIONS Private- Market Solutions Development zones / incentives to spur new off -campus student housing Land banking - strategic acquisition of land for future development purposes' Option 2 Partnerships with existing land owners to (re)develop land `--------------------------------------------------------------= Hybrid Approach • Certified / affiliated housing • Private rental housing on university land • Jointly -funded infrastructure investments UI Strategies • 2nd year live -on requirement • Capture unmet demand Private Market Solutions Development zones / incentives to spur new off -campus student housing Land banking - strategic acquisition of land for future development purposes Partnerships with existing land owners to (re)develop land Hybrid Approach -------------------------------- Certified / affiliated housing Private rental housing on university land Jointly -funded infrastructure investments ------------------------------------' UI Strategies 2nd year live -on requirement Capture unmet demand Option 3 SUMMARY STRATEGIC OPTIONS SUMMARY STRATEGIC OPTIONS Private Market Solutions ------------------------------------------------------------- Development zones / incentives to spur new off -campus student housing Land banking - strategic acquisition of land for future development purposes �♦ Partnerships with existing land owners to (re)develop land ; --------------------------------------------------------------- Hybrid Approach • Certified / affiliated housing • Private rental housing on university land • Jointly -funded infrastructure investments Option 4 Ul Strategies 2nd year live -on requirement -----------------------% Capture unmet demand ; --------------------- 25B BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY STRATEGIC HOUSING MASTER PLAN UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, IOWA CITY & CORALVILLE JULY 271. 2017 BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY + ..ti SPIRE. EMPOWER. AOVAN.CE. This page has been left intentionally blank. Strategic Housing Master Plan 187 APPENDIX C 88 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHICS IOWA REGENT & BIG TEN UNIVERSITY PEERS UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 33,564 7,858 23% Iowa Regent Iowa State 36,321 11,861 33% Universities University of Northern Iowa 11,907 41954 42% Indiana49,695 13,445 27% Purdue40,451 12,950 32% University of Illinois, Urbana -Champaign 43,893 13,359 30% University of Wisconsin, Madison 43,336 8,697 20% University of Minnesota 47,364 7,116 15% University of Michigan 44,718 9,500 21% Rig Tero Northwestern e 21,842 5,013 23%- Universities • • 47,789 NA NA University of Nebraska 25,897 7,162 28% Ohio State University 59,482 14,859 25% Michigan State 50,344 17,492 35% • 50,146 16,141 32% University of Maryland 39,083 12,374 32% AVERAGE 40,365 10,852 28% 'Penn State on -campus bed count is variable as they are currently undergoing multi-year renovation and new construction project of their on -campus housing (north t east housing areas). APPENDIX D 90 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey Prairie Park �- -- 1A •4 6 Ppfr The University Flnkbine Golf Coursef� of Iowa Kir • k Stadium O rV, I J:i211Y ^V Unlver+"_, A .. LJ `L HOgi _ KIA,nod Pert C) Q Source'. CoStar data; SO research; Iowa City and Coralville data v µ11T fR OI k J rc�p•, FS•• Hickory s Hrif Psrk., , Tang Ti �Qbluud Recreation Area OFF -CAMPUS MARKET EXISTING AND PIPELINE PROJECTS High concentration in downtown / near campus in Iowa City. Pipeline projects are scattered and most are NOT within walking distance to campus. LEGEND: }P6 Existing Pipeline Projects APPENDIX E 92 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey AFFORDABILITY COMPARISON PEER INSTITUTIONS Iowa City $898 $1,230 25% UNIVERSITY OF IOWA Coralville $936 $897 $1,179 25% University of Kansas Lawrence $702 $853 $1,229 26% University of Arizona Tucson $733 $804 $969 25% University of Georgia Athens $752 $849 $1,084 30% PurdueWest Lafayette $796 $936 $734 27% University of Florida Gainesville $852 $869 $793 28% University of ' Champaign $929 $866 $894 26% Urbana-ChampaignUrbana $708 $907 24% Indiana University Bloomington $981 $866 $750 28% florado State University Fort Collins $991 $1,102 $1,343 27% University of Virginia Charlottesville $1,203 $990 $1,443 26% niversity of Wisconsin- Madison $1,331 $938 $1,395 25% Madison AVERAGE $928 $890 $1,073 26% KEY TAKEAWAYS: • UI is one of 6 institutions with higher rents closer to campus, however, having downtown adjacent to campus also contributes to the higher price point • UI's median gross monthly rent is aligned with the peer average • The owner -occupancy markets in Iowa City and Coralville are on the higher -end • Housing costs as a % of income remains just under the average, whereas $39,575 $35,159 $36,729 $36,156 $47,499 $34,367 $35,671 $58,036 $52,121 $56,638 $45,425 median household income is $1,000 more in Iowa City and Coralville is $15,000 above average With adjacent campus and downtowns, new developments in these areas will increase the overall average rents for the UI, Iowa City and Coralville communities AFFORDABILITY COMPARISON PEER INSTITUTIONS Iowa City $898 $1,230 25% UNIVERSITY OF IOWA Coralville $936 $897 $1,179 25% University of Kansas Lawrence $702 $853 $1,229 26% University of Arizona Tucson $733 $804 $969 25% University of Georgia Athens $752 $849 $1,084 30% PurdueWest Lafayette $796 $936 $734 27% University of Florida Gainesville $852 $869 $793 28% University of Illinois Champaign $929 $866 $894 26% Urbana-ChampaignUrbana $708 $907 24% Indiana University Bloomington $981 $866 $750 28% florado State University Fort Collins $991 $1,102 $1,343 27% University of Virginia Charlottesville $1,203 $990 $1,443 26% niversity of Wisconsin- Madison $1,331 $938 $1,395 25% Madison AVERAGE $928 $890 $1,073 26% Notes: Average Monthly Effective Rent is per unit within a 2mi radius of each campus's' student union Source: Costar data Median gross monthly rent is used directly from the American Community Survey and represents the median monthly costs for renters paying cash rent. Median selected owner costs are used directly from the American Community Survey and represent the median monthly costs of owners with a mortgage Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology Housing and Transportation Affordability Index - https://htaindex.cnt.org/ $47 575 159 729 156 1 $52,121 $56,638 $45,425 This page has been left intentionally blank. 95 1 Brailsford & Dunlavey Strategic Housing Master Plan 195 y ' 1*s"" i k w..�� Y �f ti ELI 7 .i m � P,yW •"" .,i� rte;°�� „wr „ 1 � � � � � � �.. ' fi pfl'ru� � d City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: January 17, 2018 To: City Council From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney VI Re: Gender Balance on City Boards and Commissions and Gender Identity o1-,s=TF— IP7 In 2009 Section 69.16A of the Iowa Code was amended to require gender balance on appointive boards and commissions of cities and other political subdivisions that "are established" by the State Code. The City Council has chosen to apply the gender balance requirement to all city boards and commissions. The gender balance requirements of Section 69.16A mirror the gender balance requirements for state boards and commissions that have been in place since 1986. For a board with an even number of members, no appointment can be made if it would cause more than one-half of the membership to be of one gender. For a board with an odd number of members, no appointment can be made if it would cause more than one-half plus one of the membership to be of the same gender. Once the city has made a good faith effort to make a compliant appointment for three months without success, the city may appoint without achieving gender balance. On the City's application for boards and commissions identification of "gender" is mandatory and the options are "male' and "female". Other demographic information is provided on a voluntary basis. The question has come up recently as how to deal with the required gender balance when an applicant has a gender identity that is not male or female. The State Civil Rights Commission's definition of "gender identity" is "a gender -related identity of a person, regardless of the person's assigned sex at birth." Section 216.2 Iowa Code. An on-line search brings up the following Miriam Webster definition of "gender identity': a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female • Facebook provides more than 50 options beyond "male" and "female" for users to describe their gender identity, from "gender questioning" and "neither" to "androgynous." • —The Chicago Tribune Gender identity is not defined in binary terms (i.e. male or female). However, the gender balance provision of the State code is talking about a binary designation as it speaks in terms of one-half of the board being of one gender and the other half being of another gender. In one sense it is referring to "sex' and not "gender". However, to substitute "sex" for "gender" on the city application might prevent, for instance, a person of the male 11sex' who identifies as transgender from checking the female box. January 17, 2018 Page 2 After conferring with the Equity Director, City Clerk and City Manager's Office, I recommend that the mandatory question on the application be left as it is — titled as "Gender" with two options — male and female — and that "Gender Identity" be added to the demographic section of the application. An explanation would be added to the mandatory question noting that it is solely for the purpose of complying with the State's gender balance requirement which treats gender as binary, and that "Gender Identity" is included as a category for self -identification in the Demographics section of the application. A revised application is attached for your review. Cc: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Ashley Monroe, Asst. City Manager Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Stefanie Bowers, Equity Director Preview Preview Mode: Data entered will not be submitted. Page 1 of 5 _1 r Advisory Board/Commission Application Form -�a This application is a public document and as such can be reproduced T4 and distributed for the public. This application will be considered for CITY OF IOWA CITY twelve months only and automatically considered for any vacancy during UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE that time. NOTE: Must be 18 years of age and live within city limits of Iowa City to apply Date of Application Date captured on form submission First Name* Last Name* Home Address* City IOWA CITY State IA Zip Code* 1. Is your home address (listed above) within the corporate limits of Iowa City?* Contact Phone Number* http://citylaserfiche2.civic.iowa-city.org/Forms/form/preview/1081/0 1/17/2018 Preview Email Address* Boards & Commissions Select a Board or Commission you are interested in: v Add an another Board/Commission 2. How long have you been a resident of Iowa City?* 3. Occupation:* 4. Gender* Page 2 of 5 'This question is mandatory in order for the City to comply with the State's gender balance requirement, which treats gender as binary. "Gender Identity" may be provided in the Demographics section of the application below. ❑ Male ❑ Female 5. Experience and/or activities which you feel qualify you for this position:* 6. What is your present knowledge of each advisory board you are interested in?* Please contact the City Attorney at 356-5030 to discuss questions 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 http://citylaserfiche2.civic.iowa-city.org/Fortns/form/preview/1081/0 1/17/2018 Preview Page 3 of 5 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 family ties, during their tenure or for one year thereafter. Section 362.5 of the Code of Iowa (hfps://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/defauIt.asp? category=bill info&service=lowaCode&input=362.5) 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 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-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?* v 8. Do you currently serve on another Iowa City board or commission?* v Demographic Information http://citylaserfiche2.civic.iowa-city.org/Forms/form/preview/1081/0 1/17/2018 Preview Page 4 of 5 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 10. Country of Origin 11. Sexual Orientation 12. Religion 13. Do you have a disability? V1 14. Ethnicity 15. Race 16. Gender identity "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) http://citylaserfiche2.civic.iowa-city.org/Fortns/form/preview/1081 /0 1/17/2018 Preview Page 5 of 5 Signature of Applicant* Sign 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 (https://www.icgov.org/staff-directory?term_node_tid_depth=247) to express your interest in serving. Drop-down http://citylaserfiche2.civic.iowa-city.org/Forms/form/preview/1081/0 1/17/2018 OT -iii -f r_ - t p 1 IP8 CITY OF IOWA CITY --.�, MEMORANDUM Date: January 11, 2018 To: City Manager, City Council From: Jacklyn Budding, Budget & Compliance Officer Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending December 31, 2017 Introduction Attached to this memorandum are the City's quarterly financial reports as of December 31, 2017. The quarterly financial report includes combined summaries of all fund balances, revenues, and expenditures for fiscal year 2018 through the end of the second quarter, which is 50% of the way through the fiscal year. Below are some of the highlights from this quarter's financial activity. Revenue Analysis This revenue analysis pertains to the revenue reports, Revenues by Fund and Revenues by Type, on pages 4-6. In these two reports, the actual revenues would ideally be near 50% of budget since we have completed one-half of the fiscal year; however, due to accruals back to the previous year and quarter, many of these percentages are below 50%. A few examples of revenues that are below the 50% mark due to accruals include Hotel/Motel Taxes at 27.6% and Utility Franchise Taxes at 31.4% under Other City Taxes on page 5. Both of these revenue sources are received quarterly, and each had the first receipt during the fiscal year accrued back to last fiscal year. The report appears as if these revenues are behind budget projections; however, these two revenue sources are in line with last year. The utility enterprise fund service charges have a similar presentation. The City's utility enterprise fund service charges under Charges for Fees and Services on page 5 are monthly service charges that are also impacted by revenue accruals. For instance, the Water Charges are at 48.0%, the Wastewater Charges are at 46.6%, and the Refuse Charges are at 46.7%. These revenues are under the 50% benchmark due to the accrual of revenues back to last fiscal year, but they are still on target to achieve their annual budget projections. In addition, on page 5, Operating Grants revenue is at 90.2% due to the receipt of the Disney Play grant, and State 28E Agreements revenue is at 115.3% due to the timing of the receipt of the Fire Contract with the University of Iowa. Disaster Assistance Revenue is at 316.2% due to the receipt of FEMA funding for the reimbursement of FY13 Flooding Projects, and Interest Revenue is at 25.6% due to the timing of the interest accrual. Funds with budget anomalies on page 4 worth noting: the Parking fund has actual revenues at 91.3% due to the sale of land at Augusta Place; and the Risk Management fund has actual revenues at 102.6% due to the timing of the entries made for loss reserve payments to intra -city charges. Additionally, the Governmental Projects fund has negative revenues of -0.3% due to the transfer of bond funds from Governmental Projects to Enterprise Projects. The combined total actual revenues for all budgetary funds through December are $74,147,552 or 44.0% of budget. Overall, the City's revenues are not substantially different than projected, and the anomalies and budget variances can be explained. Expenditure Analysis This expenditure analysis pertains to the expenditure reports, Expenditures by Fund and Expenditures by Fund by Department on pages 7-9. The analysis of the City's expenditures for fiscal year 2018 through December is similar to the analysis for the City's revenues. We generally expect the actual expenditure levels to be around 50% of budget at this time of year. Some of the funds have expenditure activity through the second quarter that differs significantly from the 50% mark. The following funds have a significant expenditure variance above or below 50%: • Other Shared Revenue fund is at 74.1 % due to property acquisitions from grants. • Debt Service Fund expenditures are at 27.2%, because the general obligation bond principal payments are not due until June 1. • Wastewaterfund is at 79.5% due bond principal and interest payments paid in July. • Water fund is at 76.2% due to bond principal and interest payments paid in July. • Governmental Projects expenditures are at 15.9% and Enterprise Projects expenditures are at 22.5% because many of the capital projects are scheduled for construction this spring. • Risk Management fund is at 70.0% due to workers comp claims and internal charges. Overall, the combined total actual expenditures for all budgetary funds through December are $89,192,876 or 35.5% of budget. Overall, the City's expenditures through the second quarter have a few major anomalies; however, these can be explained and are not unusual. Conclusion Generally, there are no major concerns to report with the City's fund balances at December 31. One fund is presented (on page 3) with negative fund balance, the Community Development Block Grant fund at -$49,738. This negative fund balances should reverse following the receipt of grant proceeds. The other fund balances appear healthy. Additional information is available from the Finance Department upon request. City of Iowa City Fund Summary Fiscal Year 2018 through December 31, 2017 Internal Service Funds Beginning Ending Restricted, Unassigned 3,209,111 - Fund Year -to -Date Transfers Year -to -Date Transfers Fund Committed, Fund - 4,416,127 Balance Revenues In Expenditures Out Balance Assigned Balance Budgetary Funds 8400 Central Services 708,450 109,543 - 71,813 - 746,180 - 746,180 8500 Health Insurance Reserves General Fund 4,105,711 - 3,774,951 - 11,151,956 4,844,311 6,307,645 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 147,348 202,630 - 10" General Fund $ 40,724,250 $ 26,806,500 $ 4,903,500 $ 25,400,544 $ 2,028,799 $ 45,004,908 $ 14,901,557 $ 30,103,351 Special Revenue Funds $ 16,409,617 Total All Funds $ 242,558,405 $ 84,929,780 $13,592,152 $ 97,848,408 $13,592,152 $ 229,639,777 $ 78,037,880 $ 151,601,897 2100 Community Dev Block Granl (90,569) 199,758 - 158,927 - (49,738) - (49,738) 2110 HOME 113,005 383,060 - 394,366 3,048 98,651 - 98,651 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 5,714,241 3,897,569 227,944 2,726,095 1,349,269 5,764,390 - 5,764,390 2300 Other Shared Revenue 82,485 228,349 5 278,062 - 32,777 - 32,777 2350 Metro Planning Org of J.C. 256,738 125,277 138,102 288,562 - 231,555 - 231,555 2400 Employee Benefits 2,520,948 6,176,316 - 418,341 4,986,830 3,292,091 - 3,292,091 2500 Affordable Housing Fund 468,102 (593) - 325,000 - 142,509 - 142,509 2510 Peninsula Apartments 143,381 37,608 - 20,981 - 160,009 - 160,009 26" Tax Increment Financing 482,246 1,250,059 - - - 1,732,305 476,815 1,255,490 2820 SSMID-Downtown District - 181,558 - 88,682 - 92,876 - 92,876 Debt Service Fund 5••' Debt Service 7,232,185 6,802,262 256 3,873,973 - 10,160,730 1,331,128 8,829,602 Enterprise Funds 710' Parking 11,082,223 5,407,226 - 1,948,224 317,655 14,223,570 5,211,794 9,011,776 715' Mass Transit 6,427,042 1,385,311 1,691,138 3,082,516 - 6,420,975 1,275,049 5,145,927 720' Wastewater 25,193,871 5,836,390 2,071,944 12,613,352 3,320,690 17,168,164 6,853,851 10,314,314 730' Water 18,111,079 4,431,895 910,299 10,844,548 816,910 11,791,815 2,693,842 9,097,973 7400 Refuse Collection 1,351,518 1,490,069 - 1,490,365 (13,859) 1,365,080 - 1,365,080 750* Landfill 26,735,286 3,450,997 381,304 2,350,826 274,987 27,941,774 25,185,902 2,755,872 7600 Airport 308,219 156,691 54,844 200,977 - 318,776 100,000 218,776 7700 Storrs water 1,031,911 690,698 - 258,490 457,568 1,006,552 - 1,006,552 79" Housing Authority 6,756,668 4,825,975 3,048 5,189,644 23,390 6,372,658 3,105,509 3,267,150 Capital Project Funds Govemmental Projects 43,433,631 (62,022) 2,457,966 12,551,801 24,878 33,252,896 - 33,252,896 Enterprise Projects 13,294,586 446,599 751,803 4,688,598 1,988 9,802,402 - 9,802,402 Total Budgetary Funds $211,373,048 $ 74,147,552 $13,592,152 $ 89,192,876 $13,592,152 $ 196,327,725 $ 61,135,445 $135,192,280 Non -Budgetary Funds Capital Project Funds Internal Service Projects $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Internal Service Funds 810' Equipment 13,165,375 3,209,111 - 2,685,879 - 13,688,607 11,552,486 2,136,121 8200 Risk Management 3,803,525 1,642,809 - 1,030,207 - 4,416,127 - 4,416,127 830' Information Technology 2,539,463 1,512,424 - 919,162 - 3,132,724 505,638 2,627,087 8400 Central Services 708,450 109,543 - 71,813 - 746,180 - 746,180 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 10,821,196 4,105,711 - 3,774,951 - 11,151,956 4,844,311 6,307,645 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 147,348 202,630 - 173,521 - 176,457 - 176,457 Total Non -Budgetary Funds $ 31,185,356 $ 10,782,228 $ - $ 8,655,532 $ - $ 33,312,052 $ 16,902,435 $ 16,409,617 Total All Funds $ 242,558,405 $ 84,929,780 $13,592,152 $ 97,848,408 $13,592,152 $ 229,639,777 $ 78,037,880 $ 151,601,897 41 City of Iowa City Revenues by Fund Fiscal Year 2018 through December 31, 2017 Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues Capital Project Funds Internal Service Projects $ 174 $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Internal Service Funds 2017 2018 2018 2018 810' Equipment Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budgetary Fund Revenues 1,625,495 1,600,954 1,600,954 1,642,809 41,855 102.6% General Fund 2,147,457 2,270,295 2,270,295 1,512,424 (757,871) 66.6% 10" General Fund $ 51,151,026 $ 51,270,355 $ 51,938,735 $ 26,806,500 $ (25,132,235) 51.6% Special Revenue Funds 8,136,943 8,746,421 8,746,421 4,105,711 (4,640,710) 46.9% 2100 Community Dev Block Grant 1,020,981 693,031 879,069 199,758 (679,311) 22.7% 2110 HOME 305,087 486,444 1,134,122 383,060 (751,062) 33.8% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 8,803,148 8,393,630 8,393,630 3,897,569 (4,496,061) 46.4% 2300 Other Shared Revenue 577,060 - 348,153 228,349 (119,804) 65.6% 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Cc 295,966 306,820 306,820 125,277 (181,543) 40.8% 2400 Employee Benefits 11,145,984 11,496,472 11,496,472 6,176,316 (5,320,157) 53.7% 2500 Affordable Housing Fund 3,926 - - (593) (593) 0.0% 2510 Peninsula Apartments 77,516 74,155 74,155 37,608 (36,547) 50.7% 26" Tax Increment Financing 2,230,731 2,333,912 2,333,912 1,250,059 (1,083,853) 53.6% 2820 SSMID-Downtown District 318,343 355,350 355,350 181,558 (173,792) 51.1% Debt Service Fund 5'•' Debt Service 14,353,841 13,223,418 13,223,418 6,802,262 (6,421,156) 51.4% Enterprise Funds 710' Parking 5,527,930 5,922,530 5,922,530 5,407,226 (515,304) 91.3% 715' Mass Transit 4,812,638 4,193,204 7,848,459 1,385,311 (6,463,148) 17.7% 720* Wastewater 17,883,190 12,589,340 12,589,340 5,836,390 (6,752,950) 46.4% 730' Water 14,934,666 9,268,096 9,268,096 4,431,895 (4,836,201) 47.8% 7400 Refuse Collection 3,159,783 3,411,689 3,411,689 1,490,069 (1,921,620) 43.7% 750' Landfill 7,089,948 6,234,063 6,234,063 3,450,997 (2,783,066) 55.4% 7600 Airport 348,499 359,500 359,500 156,691 (202,809) 43.6% 7700 Storm Water 1,688,423 1,483,550 1,483,550 690,698 (792,852) 46.6% 79'• Housing Authority 9,103,051 8,769,397 8,769,397 4,825,975 (3,943,422) 55.0% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 34,506,605 16,997,084 17,931,571 (62,022) (17,993,593) -0.3% Enterprise Projects 4,492,040 3,529,110 4,395,643 446,599 (3,949,044) 10.2% Total Budgetary Revenues $ 193,830,381 $ 161,391,150 $ 168,697,674 $ 74,147,552 $ (94,550,122) 44.0% Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues Capital Project Funds Internal Service Projects $ 174 $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Internal Service Funds 810' Equipment 6,099,982 6,106,291 6,106,291 3,209,111 (2,897,180) 52.6% 8200 Risk Management 1,625,495 1,600,954 1,600,954 1,642,809 41,855 102.6% 830' Information Technology 2,147,457 2,270,295 2,270,295 1,512,424 (757,871) 66.6% 8400 Central Services 241,819 239,151 239,151 109,543 (129,608) 45.8% 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 8,136,943 8,746,421 8,746,421 4,105,711 (4,640,710) 46.9% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 384,243 396,674 396,674 202,630 (194,044) 51.1% Total Non -Budgetary Revenues $ 18,636,114 $ 19,359,786 $ 19,359,786 $ 10,782,228 $ (8,577,558) 55.7% Total Revenues - All Funds $ 212,466,494 $ 180,750,936 $ 188,057,460 $ 84,929,780 $ (103,127,680) 45.2% 4 City of Iowa City Revenues by Type Fiscal Year 2018 through December 31, 2017 Budgetary Fund Revenues Property Taxes Other City Taxes: TIF Revenues Gas/Electric Exclse Taxes Mobile Home Taxes Hotel/Motel Taxes Utility Franchise Tax Subtotal Licenses, Permits, & Fees: General Use Permits Food & Liquor Licenses Professional License Franchise Fees Construction Permits & Insp Fees Misc Lic & Permits Subtotal Intergovernmental: Fed Intergovemment Revenue Property Tax Credits Road Use Tax State 28E Agreements Operating Grants Disaster Assistance Other State Grants Local 28E Agreements Subtotal Charges For Fees And Services: Building & Development Police Services Animal Care Services Fire Services Transit Fees Culture & Recreation Mise Charges For Services Water Charges Wastewater Charges Refuse Charges Landfill Charges Storm water Charges Parking Charges Subtotal Miscellaneous: Code Enforcement Parking Fines Library Fines & Fees Contributions & Donations Printed Materials Animal Adoption Misc Merchandise Intra -City Charges Other Misc Revenue Special Assessments Subtotal 2017 2018 201E 2018 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent $ 55,357,358 $ 56,458,399 $ 56,458,399 $ 29,620,825 $ (26,837,574) 52.5% 2,226,302 2,333,912 2,333,912 1,247,813 (1,086,099) 53.5% 578,713 726,457 681,149 681,149 342,323 (338,826) 50.3% 155,520 65,153 65,480 65,480 38,199 (27,281) 58.3% 392,972 1,136,712 1,078,760 1,078,760 297,569 (781,191) 27.6% 22,758 939,387 895,000 895,000 281,241 (613,759) 31.4% (6,225) 5,094,011 5,054,301 5,054,301 2,207,145 (2,847,156) 43.7% 55.8% 104,296 82,510 82,510 6,219 (76,292) 7.5% 2,118,650 111,438 92,740 92,740 63,659 (29,081) 68.6% 1,000 12,015 18,710 18,710 4,325 (14,385) 23.1% 685,659 692,140 692,140 182,525 (509,615) 26.4% 2,578,024 1,639,240 1,639,240 1,020,104 (619,136) 62.2% 39,951 36,320 36,320 22,943 (13,377) 63.2% 3,531,383 2,561,660 2,561,660 1,299,774 (1,261,886) 50.7% 12,147,485 14,280,110 16,732,411 5,298,979 (11,433,432) 31.7% 1,590,863 1,603,881 1,603,881 781,311 (822,570) 48.7% 8,672,279 8,320,120 8,320,120 3,842,745 (4,477,375) 46.2% 1,813,044 1,687,575 1,687,575 1,946,439 258,864 115.3% 139,474 81,850 81,850 73,825 (8,025) 90.2% 217,718 - 34,815 110,085 75,270 316.2% 12,999,581 2,295,514 6,259,542 482,992 (5,776,550) 7.7% 1,418,467 1,005,860 1,005,860 688,416 (317,444) 68.4% 38,998,911 29,274,910 35,726,054 13,224,794 (22,501,260) 37.0% 969,936 445,620 445,620 280,875 (164,745) 63.0% 143,562 37,237 37,237 64,208 26,971 172.4% 11,545 10,400 10,400 5,485 (4,915) 52.7% 10,370 8,660 8,660 3,672 (4,989) 42.4% 1,260,923 1,299,190 1,299,190 534,771 (764,419) 41.2% 780,147 820,454 820,454 307,860 (512,594) 37.5% 72,138 68,628 68,628 33,308 (35,320) 48.5% 9,279,458 9,102,056 9,102,056 4,373,488 (4,728,568) 48.0% 12,276,259 12,214,720 12,214,720 5,696,652 (6,518,068) 46.6% 3,588,837 3,772,349 3,772,349 1,762,550 (2,009,800) 46.7% 6,273,574 5,686,860 5,686,860 3,089,615 (2,597,245) 54.3% 1,522,294 1,477,710 1,477,710 683,353 (794,357) 46.2% 5,910,725 6,319,394 6,319,394 3,139,140 (3,180,254) 49.7% 42,099,767 41,263,278 41,263,278 19,974,976 (21,288,302) 48.4% 238,295 253,180 253,180 105,077 (148,103) 41.5% 578,713 549,580 549,580 497,674 (51,906) 90.6% 154,425 155,520 155,520 70,496 (85,024) 45.3% 705,917 377,972 392,972 479,770 86,798 122.1% 43,411 48,400 48,400 22,758 (25,642) 47.0% 12,015 14,190 14,190 7,965 (6,225) 56.1% 55,052 54,930 54,930 30,664 (24,266) 55.8% 3,795,296 4,226,884 4,226,884 1,939,699 (2,287,185) 45.9% 2,118,650 779,349 956,349 280,223 (676,126) 29.3% 1,087 1,000 1,000 364 (636) 36.4% $ 7,702,861 $ 6,461,005 $ 6,653,005 $ 3,434,688 $ (3,218,317) 51.6% City of Iowa City Revenues by Type Fiscal Year 2018 through December 31, 2017 6 2017 2018 2018 2018 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Use Of Money And Property: Interest Revenues $ 1,551,921 $ 1,022,383 $ 1,022,763 $ 261,842 $ (760,921) 25.6% Rents 1,370,376 1,307,630 1,307,630 637,471 (670,159) 48.8% Royalties & Commissions 140,491 94,950 94,950 48,197 (46,753) 50.8% Subtotal 3,062,788 2,424,963 2,425,343 947,510 (1,477,833) 39.1% Other Financial Sources: Debt Sales 33,795,498 14,671,084 14,671,084 - (14,671,084) 0.0% Sale Of Assets 3,081,294 1,956,508 2,619,508 2,760,447 140,939 105.4% Loans 1,106,510 1,265,042 1,265,042 677,394 (587,648) 53.5% Subtotal 37,983,302 17,892,634 18,555,634 3,437,841 (15,117,793) 18.5% Total Budgetary Revenues $ 193,830,381 $ 161,391,150 $ 168,697,674 $ 74,147,552 (94,550,122) 44.0% Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues Capital Project Funds $ 174 $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Internal Service Funds 18,635,940 19,359,786 19,359,786 10,782,228 (8,577,558) 55.7% Total Non -Budgetary Revenues $ 18,636,114 $ 19,359,786 $ 19,359,786 $ 10,782,228 $ (8,577,558) 55.7% Total Revenues - All Funds $ 212,466,494 $ 180,750,936 $ 188,057,460 $ 84,929,780 $ (103,127,680) 45.2% 6 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund Fiscal Year 2018 through December 31, 2017 Enterprise Funds 720' Wastewater 2017 2018 2018 2018 3,254,151 79.5% 730' Water Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budgetary Fund Expenditures 3,053,376 3,427,206 3,427,206 1,490,365 1,936,841 43.5% General Fund 4,973,964 4,902,903 4,987,903 2,350,826 2,637,077 47.1% 10•' General Fund $ 51,413,370 $ 56,552,008 $ 58,391,677 $ 25,400,544 $ 32,991,133 43.5% Special Revenue Funds 747,069 518,983 518,983 258,490 260,493 49.8% 2100 Community Dev Block Grant 1,390,132 568,686 754,724 158,927 595,797 21.1% 2110 HOME 192,082 465,444 1,113,122 394,366 718,756 35.4% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 5,262,429 6,221,226 6,421,726 2,726,095 3,695,631 42.5% 2300 Other Shared Revenue 652,152 - 375,158 278,062 97,096 74.1% 2350 Metro Planning Ong of Johnson Co. 609,907 633,977 633,977 288,562 345,415 45.5% 2400 Employee Benefits 868,301 1,243,475 1,243,475 418,341 825,134 33.6% 2500 Affordable Housing Fund 500,000 650,000 650,000 325,000 325,000 50.0% 2510 Peninsula Apartments 59,023 53,557 53,557 20,981 32,576 39.2% 26" Tax Increment Financing - 332,365 332,365 - 332,365 0.0% 2820 SSMID-Downtown District 318,343 355,350 355,350 88,682 266,668 25.0% Debt Service Fund 5"' Debt Service 15,218,289 14,256,417 14,256,417 3,873,973 10,382,444 27.2% Enterprise Funds 720' Wastewater 21,260,750 10,601,444 15,867,503 12,613,352 3,254,151 79.5% 730' Water 12,372,374 8,465,881 14,240,160 10,844,548 3,395,612 76.2% 7400 Refuse Collection 3,053,376 3,427,206 3,427,206 1,490,365 1,936,841 43.5% 750* Landfill 4,973,964 4,902,903 4,987,903 2,350,826 2,637,077 47.1% 7600 Airport 665,802 369,187 369,187 200,977 168,210 54.4°/ 7700 Ste" water 747,069 518,983 518,983 258,490 260,493 49.8% 79" Housing Authority 8,651,207 8,201,363 8,201,363 5,189,644 3,011,719 63.3% Capital Project Funds $ 15,400,061 $ 17,235,579 $ 18,196,140 $ 8,655,532 $ 9,540,608 47.6% Governmental Projects 32,902,808 32,530,291 78,905,612 12,551,801 66,353,811 15.9% Enterprise Projects 3,657,836 8,825,015 20,830,218 4,688,598 16,141,620 22.5% Total Budgetary Expenditures $ 175,931,866 $ 173,318,414 $ 251,164,819 $ 89,192,876 $ 161,971,943 35.5% Non -Budgetary Funds Expenditures Capital Project Funds Internal Service Projects $ 61,633 $ - $ - $ - - 0.0% Internal Service Funds 810' Equipment 4,683,979 4,543,387 5,503,948 2,685,879 2,818,069 48.8% 8200 Risk Management 1,236,127 1,472,081 1,472,081 1,030,207 441,874 70.0% 830' Information Technology 1,624,715 2,217,207 2,217,207 919,162 1,298,045 41.5% 8400 Central Services 201,065 262,163 262,163 71,813 190,350 27.4% 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 7,218,542 8,341,355 8,341,355 3,774,951 4,566,404 45.3% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 374,002 399,386 399,386 173,521 225,865 43.4% Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures $ 15,400,061 $ 17,235,579 $ 18,196,140 $ 8,655,532 $ 9,540,608 47.6% Total Expenditures - All Funds $ 191,331,927 $ 190,553,993 $ 269,360,959 $ 97,848,408 $ 171,512,551 36.3% 7 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund by Department Fiscal Year 2018 through December 31, 2017 8 2017 2018 2018 2018 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budgetary Funds Expenditures General Fund 10" General Fund City Council $ 110,152 $ 108,590 $ 113,859 $ 65,200 $ 48,659 57.3% City Clerk 500,977 595,728 605,228 238,027 367,201 39.3% City Attorney 733,337 762,815 762,815 357,187 405,628 46.8% City Manager 2,148,884 4,087,474 4,234,997 1,482,700 2,752,297 35.0% Finance 3,655,228 4,349,981 4,615,557 2,298,025 2,317,532 49.8% Police 13,114,628 13,827,954 13,924,240 6,468,733 7,455,507 46.5% Fire 7,716,864 8,169,242 8,209,242 3,845,215 4,364,027 46.8% Parks & Recreation 7,812,840 8,139,582 8,230,051 3,771,096 4,458,955 45.8% Library 6,269,424 6,526,560 6,561,560 3,054,339 3,507,221 46.5% Senior Center 899,254 949,924 1,010,055 427,645 582,410 42.3% Neighborhood & Development Services 6,074,193 5,788,055 6,877,970 2,260,441 4,617,529 32.9% Public Works 1,757,925 2,384,366 2,384,366 905,161 1,479,205 38.0% Transportation & Resource Management 619,664 861,737 861,737 226,775 634,962 26.3% Total General Fund 51,413,370 56,552,008 58,391,677 25,400,544 32,991,133 43.5% Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant Neighborhood& Development Services 1,390,132 568.686 754,724 158,927 595,797 21.1% 2110 HOME Neighborhood& Development Services 192,082 465,444 1,113,122 394,366 718,756 35.4% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund Public Works 5,262,429 6,221,226 6,421,726 2,726,095 3,695,631 42.5% 2300 Other Shared Revenue Neighborhood& Development Services 652,152 - 375,158 278,062 97,096 74.1% 2350 Metro Planning Ong of Johnson Cc Neighborhood & Development Services 609,907 633,977 633,977 288,562 345,415 45.5% 2400 Employee Benefits Finance 868,301 1,243,475 1,243,475 418,341 825,134 33.6% 2500 Affordable Housing Fund Neighborhood & Development Services 500,000 650,000 650,000 325,000 325,000 50.0% 2510 Peninsula Apartments Neighborhood & Development Services 59,023 53,557 53,557 20,981 32,576 39.2% 26" Tax Increment Financing Finance - 332,365 332,365 - 332,365 0.0% 2820 SSMID-Dovmtown District Finance 318,343 355,350 355,350 88,682 266,668 25.0% Total Special Revenue Funds 9,852,369 10,524,080 11,933,454 4,699,016 7,234,438 39.4% Debt Service Fund 5"' Debt Service Finance 15,218,289 14,256,417 14,256,417 3,873,973 10,382,444 27.2% Total Debt Service Fund 15,218,289 14,256,417 14,256,417 3,873,973 10,382,444 27.2% 8 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund by Department Fiscal Year 2018 through December 31, 2017 9 2017 2018 2018 2018 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Enterprise Funds 710' Parking Transportation& Resource Management $ 4,235,036 $ 6,941,622 $ 6,941,622 $ 1,948,224 $ 4,993,398 28.1% 715` Mass Transit Transportation & Resource Management 6,927,616 7,202,014 12,293,514 3,082,516 9,210,998 25.1% 720' Wastewater Public Works 21,260,750 10,601,444 15,867,503 12,613,352 3,254,151 79.5% 730' Water Public Works 12,372,374 8,465,881 14,240,160 10,844,548 3,395,612 76.2% 7400 Refuse Collection Transportation & Resource Management 3,053,376 3,427,206 3,427,206 1,490,365 1,936,841 43.5% 750' Landfill Transportation& Resource Management 4,973,964 4,902,903 4,987,903 2,350,826 2,637,077 47.1% 7600 Airport Airport Operations 665,802 369,187 369,187 200,977 168,210 54.4% 7700 Storm water Public Works 747,069 518,983 518,983 258,490 260,493 49.8% 79" Housing Authority Neighborhood& Development Services 8,651,207 8,201,363 8,201,363 5,189,644 3,011,719 63.3% Total Enterprise Funds 62,887,194 50,630,603 66,847,441 37,978,943 28,868,498 56.8% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 32,902,808 32,530,291 78,905,612 12,551,801 66,353,811 15.9% Enterprise Projects 3,657,836 8,825,015 20,830,218 4,688,598 16,141,620 22.5% Total Capital Project Funds 36,560,644 41,355,306 99,735,830 17,240,400 82,495,430 17.3% Total Budgetary Expenditures $ 175,931,866 $ 173,318,414 $ 251,164,819 $ 89,192,876 $ 161,971,943 35.5% Non -Budgetary Funds Expenditures Capital Project Funds Internal Service Projects $ 61,633 $ - $ - $ - $ 0.0% Total Capital Project Funds 61,633 - - - - 0.0% Internal Service Funds 810' Equipment Public Works 4,683,979 4,543,387 5,503,948 2,685,879 2,818,069 48.8% 8200 Risk Management Finance 1,236,127 1,472,081 1,472,081 1,030,207 441,874 70.0% 830' Information Technology Finance 1,624,715 2,217,207 2,217,207 919,162 1,298,045 41.5% 8400 Central Services Finance 201,065 262,163 262,163 71,813 190,350 27.4% 8500 Health Insurance Reserves Finance 7,218,542 8,341,355 8,341,355 3,774,951 4,566,404 45.3% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves Finance 374,002 399,386 399,386 173,521 225,865 43.4% Total Internal Service Funds 15,338,429 17,235,579 18,196,140 8,655,532 9,540,608 47.6% Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures $ 15,400,061 $ 17,235,579 $ 18,196,140 $ 8,655,532 $ 9,540,608 47.6% Total Expenditures - All Funds $ 191,331,927 $ 190,553,993 $ 269,360,959 $ 97,848,408 $ 171,512,551 36.3% 9 dun vu:neisuu, ren gun January 9, 2018 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council 01- 8=18- 1 r 1 IP9 x CITY OF IOWA CITY a 10 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1326 13191 356-5000 13191356-5009 FAX www.IC;ov.org RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Electronics Technician — Traffic Engineering 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 Electronics Technician — Traffic Engineering. Kevin Keating IOWA CITY CI IL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra . Dickerson, Chair N O_ eG h L x 1 T11 C -)—< rr I7� < S M cO r 01-188 = 1 IP10 �m1ir. CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319)356-5009 FAX www.1cgov.org January 12, 2018 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Worker II - Signs Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Maintenance Worker II — Signs. Brandon Speers IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION LyraVV. Dickerson, Chair N 0 o �n D� m 0 z �C-) C7, r � M M� �� eu � r Cj DRAFT 11311 COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — January 09, 2018 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Townsend called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Monique Green, David Selmer, Orville Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Don King STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Pat Ford, Staff Chris Olney STAFF ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Iowa City Police Chief Matherly RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Green, seconded by Selmer, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 12/07/17 • ICPD General Orders 05-01 (Persons with Mental Illness) • ICPD General Orders 99-08 (Body Camera and In Car Recorders) Motion carried, 3/0, King Absent. NEW BUSINESS Community Forum Discussion — Olney reminded the Board of the annual community forum. In previous years it was held in April and there was usually a discussion topic or presentation. Green suggested to have a Police Department Representative be involved in the forum. Possibly to have a presentation or introduction of the Community Relations/Downtown Liaison Officer. At past forums community members had questions that were more police related policies/procedures and the board was not able to respond. Chief Matherly offered to have the Police Department give a presentation and be available for questions. The Board agreed to hold the forum at the public library on Monday April 23, 6:00 P.M. The specific forum topic and agenda would be discussed at the next regular meeting. OLD BUSINESS Proposed Ordinance Change Discussion - The Board discussed conducting future meetings with the Police Chief to better open communications channels regarding concerns or issues. It would also be beneficial to the Board to understand the Police Training Policy and procedures. Police Chief stated he is willing to provide training information and to be available for future meetings. Selmer agreed to draft points of concerns and suggestions for the next meeting RJ00 January 9, 2018 Page 2 PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION Legal Counsel Ford asked Police Chief Matherly if it would be possible to see a red line version of the changes that are made to the revised General Orders. Chief Matherly will send a copy showing changes in the future. City Clerk Fruehling will be the staff representative at the next meeting as Olney will be absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subiect to change) • February 13, 2018, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • March 13, 2018, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • April 10, 2018, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • April 23, 2018, 6:00 PM, IC Library Meeting Rm A (Community Forum) • May 8, 2018, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Selmer, seconded by Green. Motion carried, 3/0, King Absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 P.M. COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2017-2018 (Meeting Date) KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member TERM 1/10 2/14 3/14 4/12 5/9 7/11 7/31 8/8 8/29 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/7 1/9/18 NAME EXP. Joseph 7/1/17 X X X X O/ --- --- --- --- -- -- -- -- --- Treloar E Mawhir 7/1/21 X X 0/ X 0/ X X X X X X X O/E --- Salih E E Donald 7/1/19 0/E 0/E X X X X X X X X X X X O King Monique 7/1/20 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X Green Orville 7/1/20 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Townsend David 9/1/21 — — — — — X O/E X X O X O/E X Selmer KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member DT --f 8-f V- IP12 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 4, 2018 — 7:00 PM —FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Mark Signs MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald STAFF PRESENT: Sylvia Bochner, Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, OTHERS PRESENT: Curt Moore, Mike Welch, Siobhan Harman, Megan Carr RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of 1010 1 st Avenue from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) to Community Commercial (CC -2), and 1022 1 st Avenue from (RS -5) to Commercial Office (CO -1) and a portion of 1025 Wade Street from (CO -1) to (CC -2). By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of ANN17-00001 and REZ17-00020, annexation of approximately 7.90 acres and a rezoning from County Commercial (C) and County Multifamily Residential (RMF) to Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) for approximately 5.27 acres and Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) for approximately 2.76 acres located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE. CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEM (REZ17-00017): Discussion of an application submitted by University Lake Partners II, LLC, for a rezoning of approximately 53.29 acres from High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) zone to Planned Development Overlay/High Density Single Family Residential (OPD/RS-12) for approximately 50.11 acres and Commercial Office (CO -1) zone for approximately 3.18 acres, located south of 1-80 west of Prairie Du Chien Road. Miklo noted this item was deferred at the last meeting due to a number of deficiencies in the in application, new material was received today and Miklo shared that with the Commission. One was a revised plan that now shows the townhouse units as three bedrooms rather than one and two bedroom units, there has also been a slight reconfiguration of some of the townhouses. Additionally a new townhouse building design was submitted, but Miklo is unclear if that is an alternative or if it is in addition to the other elevations already submitted. He said that with other Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2018 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 10 recent projects there has been a concern about the same townhouse being repeated on every lot, resulting in a monotonous design. Miklo noted that there are still a few items that have not been clarified completely on the revised plan, the construction limit lines do appear on some of the lots but not all of them and that is necessary to establish where the grading will end to make sure the steep slopes and wetlands are not encroached upon. Miklo stated they did receive a cross-section for the private street but engineering and fire department staff have not had time to review that. He said the City had not yet received acceptance of the wetlands delineation from the Army Corp of Engineers. Therefore if the Commission does decide to recommend this item to Council it could be subject to the Corp signoff before the Council reviews the plan. The issue being if the Corp does not agree with this delineation there may be some changes to the overall plan and it would have to come back to Planning & Zoning. Miklo stated that due to some of these items not being resolved Staff is recommending deferral until the January 18 meeting. Hensch asked if the issue of varying facades on the townhouses could also be an issue asked to be resolved before approval. Freerks agreed that plus many other items need to be resolved and agrees with a deferral. Freerks noted that the original townhouse design was much better than the new proposal and asked that the applicant reconsider that design. Freerks opened the public hearing. Curt Moore (3169 Dubuque Street) asked that the City move forward with this application as fast as possible as the street is needed. Mike Welch (HBK Engineering) spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the wetland delineation was conducted by Earthview Environmental on site and they are waiting on the Corp concurrence. They are confident with the delineation that Earthview did, past experiences show the Corp concurs with Earthview's delineations. With regards to the building elevations and facades it is the applicants intentions to have a varying unit type throughout and not have them all look the same. Welch stated the construction limit lines are on all the drawings, they are just hard to see so their staff is working to update the drawings so that can be seen easier. Hensch asked about the 33 screening notated on Lot 1, but a landscaping plan is not included. Welch stated that if the Commission would like to see a detailed landscaping plan they will provide one. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to defer REZ17-00017 until the January 18, 2018 meeting to clarify the issues raised in the staff report as well as a landscaping plan and illustrations of varying facades on the townhomes. Parsons seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2018 —Formal Meeting Page 3 of 10 REZONING ITEM (REZ17-00019): Discussion of an application submitted by Kum & Go, LC, for a rezoning of 1010 1st Avenue from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) to Community Commercial (CC -2), and1022 1st Avenue from (RS -5) to Commercial Office (CO -1) and a portion of 1025 Wade Street from (CO -1) to (CC -2). Bochner began the staff report by showing the location of the property and noted that staff received updated plans after the packet went out to the Commission so there are some changes and an updated site plan and landscaping plan have been given to the Commission. Additionally there was a Good Neighbor meeting held on January 3 and a summary of that meeting was distributed to the Commission. The application is to rezone these properties as part of a larger redevelopment of the site. Currently at 2303 Muscatine Avenue there is a Kum & Go and right next to it at 2315 Muscatine Avenue there is another gas station. Kum & Go is in the process of purchasing that gas station and would like to consolidate the sites and redevelop a new Kum & Go Market. To accomplish this they would use the area at 1010 151 Avenue for parking as well as the 1025 Wade Street area. That area is currently the parking for Iowa City Hospice and to obtain 1025 Wade Street for parking for Kum & Go they will be trading it for the area at 1022 1st Avenue. This area is located in the Towncrest Commercial Area which is part of an Urban Renewal Area and a Design Review District. Because this area is in a Design Review overlay zone the standards for redevelopment are different than they would typically be in a Community Commercial (CC -2) zone, most importantly it means the quick vehicle servicing use requires a special exemption from the Board of Adjustment so the applicant will have to go through that process if this rezoning is granted in order to redevelop the site. When quick vehicle services uses are permitted in this design review zone they must be developed according to the site development standards of the Central Business Support Zone (CB -5) which means different standards to account for walkability and better design. One of the notable differences is that the facades have to be at least 50% glass. Bochner noted that the site plans and renderings currently available don't meet all of the standards for this district but the design review process and special exception process will make sure all those standards are met before redevelopment. Bochner showed the renderings of the redevelopment that have been submitted and how the building, gas pumps and parking would be laid out. She added that this redevelopment will contribute to several goals from the Comprehensive Plan. The Southeast District Plan sees this area as becoming a more walkable, mixed-use center. This development contributes to that goal by adding walkability, they added a landscape buffer between 1st Avenue and the sidewalk (currently the sidewalk adjacent to the street). This redevelopment will also reduce the number of curb cuts, there are currently two curb cuts on Muscatine Avenue for the gas stations and that would be reduced to one, it also reduces curb cuts along 1st Avenue. In terms of compatibility with the neighborhood, the type of uses are not changing here, currently there are two gas stations which will be consolidated into one and the use for the Iowa City Hospice will remain the same. In terms of compatibility with residential areas of the neighborhood the applicant has shown in their landscaping plan they will put a S3 buffer between the residential property to the south and also along the west side because there is residential properties across the street, S2 buffers will be everywhere else on the site. Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2018—Formal Meeting Page 4 of 10 Bochner noted that staff received updates to the address all the deficiencies that were discussed in the staff report, therefore staff is recommending approval of REZ17-00019 subject to general conformance to the site plan. Hensch asked to be shown on the map exactly where the curb cuts will be on Muscatine Avenue and 15' Avenue. Freerks asked if the access point to the Kum & Go lines up to alley or driveway of the houses. Miklo replied that it is the alley and the property will be screened with landscaping from the houses. Freerks noted her concern of headlights leading into house windows. Hensch asked about the lightening for the entrance and parking areas. Miklo stated that downcast lighting is required city-wide. Where a commercial development is within so many feet of a residential area there is also a limit of the height of the light poles, 25 feet, and there are standards where light cannot trespass across the property line. This development will have to comply with those requirements at the time of site plan approval. Miklo noted that one of the complaints they often hear with gas stations is the canopy lighting, one benefit of this design is the canopy will be as far from the residential as possible and will be oriented more toward the commercial part of Towncrest. Freerks asked about the parking for Hospice, the current parking has better access to the front door whereas the new parking will be behind the building, is there back door access into the Hospice building. Miklo and Bochner both stated they are not familiar with the Hospice building. Signs asked what the plant materials are for what appears to be a retaining wall along the southern border of the Kum & Go property. Bochner said this is noted on the landscaping plan, typically a five-foot landscaping buffer is required between different parking areas. Freerks asked about the curb cut width. Miklo noted this development will require some variation form the City Standards and will need to be approved by the City Engineer and will be done during the special exception process. The standard is on an arterial street intersection the curb cut has to be at least 150 feet from that intersection and has to also be 50 feet from another street and in this area cannot meet both those requirements. In this situation the new curb cut will still be more preferable than the current two curb cuts. Freerks noted that in the revitalization plan for this area it discusses the area being pedestrian friendly the Kum & Go design is to have a whole wall of glass that has no entrance for pedestrians (as seen at the Benton Street Kum & Go) and perhaps there could be an entrance on that wall. Miklo noted that the design plan has not yet been reviewed against the Towncrest Design Review Standards so there may be design changes once that is completed. Freerks opened the public hearing. Siobhan Harman (Kum & Go) noted that with regards to the buffer between the residential and the parking lot for Hospice, it will be an eight foot fence with landscaping. The parking will face south but the buffer will keep lights away from the houses. With the area between Kum & Go and Hospice there is a significant grade change and there will be landscaping and she shared an elevation drawing with the Commission. Harman also stated they will lower the canopy Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2018 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 10 height and are looking at other areas in town where HyVee and Casey's have done so successfully and will match those heights. It appears it will be about two feet lower than their standard canopy. Hensch asked if the objective is to have the canopy the same height as the building structure so there isn't light going over the building into the residential area. Harman said it may not be the same height as the store, but it will be lowered a bit so there won't be light spillage. The good thing about this plan is the back of the building faces the residential and the auto usage areas face into the commercial area. Harman also noted they use LED lighting both in the store and outside the store for energy efficiency, and the foot candles are down to zero at the lot line. Parsons asked if it is assumed the overall lighting will be less with this new development than what the two gas stations are emitting right now. Harman cannot comment on that, but noted they did take the square footage of all the buildings that are out there and currently between the BP and Kum & Go there are 5830 square feet and the new Kum & Go building will be just under 5900 so it is a minimal change there. Harman added they will be adding additional green space with the removal of the two houses. Hensch stated that with regards to greenspace there has been some issues in the past with developments following up on landscaping and stated that his hope is this development will not follow suit. The Kum & Go on Benton Street looked as if the landscaping was struggling for a while but seemed to improve towards the end of summer and fall. Dyer added that the landscaping at the Benton Street location is very minimal. Harman noted that with the exterior of their building they understand if it doesn't look good on the outside what will make someone want to come inside, so they take pride in the exterior of their properties. They build all their stores to LEED specifications and one of the specifications is to use native plantings which they do at all their locations. The one place they break the LEED standard is where they install irrigation because it is very difficult in Iowa to get grass and landscaping materials to grow without the water. They will replace any dead items or grass as needed as well. Hensch noted this development is an improvement over what is currently at the location but just wanted to reinforce the desire to see the correct landscaping. Freerks asked Harman to talk a bit about the building, noting it has to meet the standards which are a little higher in this area, and if there is any opportunity to bring people in off 15t Avenue. Harman noted it is very difficult because that one wall is completely "back of house" which is restrooms and kitchen area and those have to be enclosed and not seen by the public. There will be a side door on the Muscatine Avenue side. They do have to be careful regarding entrances however due to theft and that is why they only do two entrances on a building. Dyer asked if the 15' Avenue side of the building would be similar to Benton Street where there is a wall of glass that shows a hallway and a mural. Harman confirmed that was correct, and noted that area is not meant for storage. Signs noted that is what has happened at the Benton Street location, that hallway is full of storage items, including what appears to be CO2 tanks. He added that he knows the design standards require glass but perhaps the mural could be on the glass and cover up that back space. Freerks stated that would be against the sign standards. Miklo suggested another solution of using frosted glass towards the bottom which would hide storage. Harman noted she would address the storage issues at the Benton Street location with that store manager. Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2018 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 10 Signs noted his concern with the southern border of the Kum & Go parking lot with the extensive retaining wall and feels it may be an ominous wall. Harman said the wall will be gradual so it will not look like a large wall from all angles and there will be plantings and landscaping on it as well. Freerks asked if Harman knew if there was a Hospice door to the west and Harman acknowledged there was and Hospice has stated their needs are met. Miklo suggested adding some trees to help shield the canopy glow from the houses to the south. Harman said that should be discussed with Hospice because when they have used over story trees over parking there are complaints from customers that those trees can weep down onto the cars. She feels there can be some solutions. Miklo agreed but noted it would depend on the species of tree, and if the trees are on the driveway side it shouldn't affect the parking. Freerks agreed the addition of trees should be stressed. Harman addressed this area being pedestrian friendly and as part of their LEED criteria they are required to install a bike rack. Typically they install one bike rack, the City has asked them to install a second bike rack which they have agreed to do. They will also have plaques around the building and on the canopy explaining what the LEED requirements are and how Kum & Go met them. Curt Moore (3169 Dubuque Street) noted that he feels this will be a definite improvement to Iowa City and that area. He agrees with looking for options on the glass wall that will face V Avenue as he drives by Benton Street all the time and sees the storage. Mike Welch (HBK Engineering) remarked about the curb cuts and locations and noted that Kum & Go puts a wider radius on their curb cuts because of the fuel trucks. Freerks closed the public hearing. Signs moved to approve the rezoning of 1010 1st Avenue from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) to Community Commercial (CC -2), and 1022 1st Avenue from (RS -5) to Commercial Office (CO -1) and a portion of 1025 Wade Street from (CO -1) to (CC - 2). Parsons seconded the motion. Hensch asked about the list of discrepancies listed in the staff report. Miklo said those have all been resolved or will be with the special exception. Hensch asked if they need to add an amendment to the motion regarding the addition of trees and shrubbery along the south border. Miklo said it can be added as a conditional zoning agreement. Hensch moved to amend the motion to include the requirement of additional trees and shrubbery along the southern border particularly along the area where the Hospice parking lot will be. Dyer seconded the amendment. Signs noted that this development is a significant improvement in the space, but wanted to reemphasize the need for landscaping needs to be completed as to the intention of the proposal. Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2018 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 10 Hensch stated his appreciation with Kum & Go working with Hospice and that this design actually improves the parking situation for Hospice. Freerks agreed noting the details that have gone into this proposal are thoughtful. Signs stated he was concerned at first about the parking lot for Hospice jetting over to the residential part of 1" Avenue but feels the applicant did a nice job trying to screen that as nice as they can. Dyer added that most of the parking in that area will happen during the day so headlights shouldn't be an issue. Parsons stated he likes the layout and thinks it will be an efficient use of space, much better than what is there now. A vote was taken and the motion with amendment carried 5-0. ANNEXATION & REZONING ITEM (ANN17-00001/REZ17-00020): Discussion of an application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC, for annexation and a rezoning of approximately 7.9 acres from County Commercial (C) and County Multifamily Residential (RMF) to Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) for approximately 5.27 acres and Interim Development Single Family for approximately 2.76 acres located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE. Miklo noted that the property is on the south side of Herbert Hoover Highway, just east of the Iowa City Care Center and Old Towne commercial area, and west of the latest addition of Churchill Meadows. Miklo showed aerials of the current zoning and the proposed zoning. The Comprehensive Plan for the area is the Northeast District Plan, the Plan shows the Care Center and shows this area as green space around the Care Center, but that is not going to happen. The Plan does show single family as it moves to the east. The staff report shares the details about the annexation policy, this application meets the policy as it is clearly in the Iowa City growth area, it is an area they would rather see develop in the City and not the County. Miklo noted there are some infrastructure needs that haven't been resolved such as how sewer and water will be provided but the interim zoning address that until those issues are resolved. Staff recommends approval of ANN17-00001 and REZ17-00020, annexation of approximately 7.90 acres and a rezoning from County Commercial (C) and County Multifamily Residential (RMF) to Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) for approximately 5.27 acres and Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) for approximately 2.76 acres located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE. Freerks asked if in the ID -RS area how many houses could go in an area like that. Miklo replied that in the RS -5 zone they typically see about three units per acre, if it is a planned development it might be up to five houses per acre, so there could be a total of five to ten houses here. Parsons asked about utilities and the sidewalk along Herbert Hoover Highway extending down to Churchill Estates. Miklo said that sidewalk is now in place. Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2018 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 10 Signs asked if the Commission had seen the adjacent property to the east in an application recently. Miklo said with that location the Commission saw the application because it was a County subdivision and the City allowed it to be split into one additional lot and an outlot and any development other than that would require annexation. Miklo pointed out two other properties in the area that are still County properties. Parsons asked about the green space to the south and if it would remain green space. Miklo said while the current owner has the property it will be green space but any future owner could develop that space. Freerks opened the public hearing. Megan Carr (Sand Companies/IC Housing Group) said they do have under contract the 5.72 acres and would like to apply for annexation and then eventual rezoning to develop two multi- family developments at that location. Each building would be about 30-40 units. Hensch asked what the timeline for that project. Carr replied start of construction would be in 9- 10 months noting they recognize there are water, sewer and traffic items they need to address which they are not prepared to proceed with at this time, and that is why they are applying for interim development at this time. Freerks commented that 30-40 units per building seems quite large. Miklo noted the City has approved some 36 unit buildings recently. Carr noted they are currently developing a building in Coralville that is 56 units where the old Lantern Park Nursing Home was. Carr added the building would be no taller than three stories. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to recommend approval of ANN17-00001 and REZ17-00020, annexation of approximately 7.90 acres and a rezoning from County Commercial (C) and County Multifamily Residential (RMF) to Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) for approximately 5.27 acres and Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) for approximately 2.76 acres located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE. Parsons seconded the motion. Freerks noted it meets all criteria of annexation and development. Parsons asked if there has been any interest in developing the northern side of Herbert Hoover Highway. Miklo replied there has not. Parsons noted seeing this portion of the Highway becoming very busy in the future. Signs noted the north side is owned by one individual. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 21, 2017 Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of December 21, 2017. Hensch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2018—Formal Meeting Page 9 of 10 PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Freerks noted that she was at the new UIHC clinic on North Dodge Street recently and it made her think that when that project was approved it seemed the visual they saw for landscaping was different than what is now there. Miklo said staff is researching those files and will bring them to the Commission at a future meeting. Signs added that almost all of the projects they see the landscaping is always so minimal to begin with, and then when plantings die they are not replaced. Miklo noted it is required that plantings be replaced, however it is a matter of inspection and the City does not have the staff to go out and inspect areas. They only way staff becomes aware of issues is when someone complains, and then there will be enforcement. Signs asked that for trees and vegetation for landscaping, does the City have a list of ones for developers to select from. Miklo said there is a list in the Zoning Code, but that is over 10 years old now and may be something that will need reviewed when there is time. ADJOURNMENT: Parsons moved to adjourn. Signs seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 5-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2017-2018 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 5/4 5/18 611 (W -S) 617 6115 7/6 7/20 8/3 8117 9/7 9/21 10/5 10/19 11/2 12/7 12!21 114 DYER, CAROLYN X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X FREERKS, ANN X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X O/E O/E PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member