The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-10-18 Info PacketCity Council Information Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org October 18, 2018 IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule Miscellaneous IP2 Email from Mayor including Invitation: Friends of Iowa Civil Rights: - October 27 IP3 Memorandum from Budget and Compliance Officer: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending September 30, 2018 Draft Minutes IP4 Community Police Review Board: October 9 IP5 Housing and Community Development Commission: September 20 IP6 Planning and Zoning Commission: September 20 I127 Senior Center Commission: August 16 10 18-18 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule I1 1 ` ^ �ir,t Subject to change CI F IOWA CITY October 18, 2018 Date Time Meeting Location Tuesday, October 23, 2018 9:00 AM Special Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, November 6, 2018 4:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, November 20, 2018 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2018 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 18, 2018 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Saturday, January 5, 2019 8:00 AM Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 8, 2019 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, January 22, 2019 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting - TUTr-w- IP2 Kellie Fruehling From: Jim Throgmorton Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 10:03 AM To: Kellie Fruehling Subject: FW: Friends of Iowa Civil Rights Hi Kellie. Would you please share this email and attachment with other council members. Mayor Jim Throgmorton Iowa City City Council, At -Large From: Charles Pearson [iowacivilrightstrail@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2oi8 7:i9 AM To: 3ships@antiochbc.org; A. Denita Gadson; abraham.funchess@waterloo-ia.org; ahennig@cvcatholic.org; Allen Robinson; Allen Speller; allen_and _angie@soul2creative.com; Allison Peach; Amy Hunzelman; amy@istpresby.org; angela.ott@hawkeyecollege.edu; Anne Langebartels; annette@travelwaterloo.com; arndorferp@waterlooschools.org; arosas78@yahoo.com; ashley.gracia@hawkeyecollege.edu; Avery Gregurich; avrilandhalchase@mchsi.com; baldeu@uni.edu; Becky McElroy; Begley, Larissa R [HIST]; bennettj@waterlooschools.org; Beth Keeney; bjspeicher@gmafl.com; bob manning; bolden@waterlooschools.org; bradley.dyke@hawkeyecollege.edu; Brenton Shavers; Bruce Jacobs; Bryan Jurrens; Calvary Ties; candace.havely@hawkeyecollege.edu; Carol Luce; carol.carey@uni.edu; carterp@waterlooschhools.org; catharine.freeman@hawkeyecollege.edu; catreva.manning@gmdistrict.org; cdarrah@cedarvalleyalliance.com; Cedar Falls Iowa; channiec2ot8@gmail.com; Chatara Mabry; Cheri Roberts; Christopher Cox; cleseman@inrcog.org; clifford.coney@uni.edu; cmabry@uni.edu; cmiller@silosandsmokestacks.org; ComfortAkwaji; coughlinm@waterlooschools.org; cpontzius@jaeasterniowa.org; cribbst@waterlo0.k12.ia.us; estreed@silosandsmokestacks.org; cvairr@gmail.com; Dale Cyphert; Dan Cohen; daniel.trelka@waterlloo-ia.org; davenaglelaw@aol.com; David Deeds; DBQ208@dbqarch.org; DBQ209@dbqarch.org; dbg2ogap@dbqarch.org; dbg2ogd2@dbqarch.org; DBQ209s3@dbqarch.org; DBQ2ogsec@dbqarch.org; DBQ2ogsecd@dbqarch.org; DBQ210@dbqarch.org; DBQ21oS2@dbqarch.org; dbg2tos3@dbqarch.org; DBQ2toS@dbqarch.org; DBQ21osec@dbqarch.org; DBQCAO@dbqarch.org; DBQCHMW@dbqarch.org; DBQE49@dbqarch.org; DBQE50@dbqarch.org; DBQE51@dbqarch.org; DBQwcaf@dbqarch.org; dbgwcff4@dbqarch.org; dbgwcfs@dbqarch.org; dbgwcsec@dbqarch.org; dbgwcya@dbqarch.org; dbgwcym@dbqarch.org; debberry@kbbg.org; decarios.anderson@hawkeyecollege.edu; dhatton@cvcatholic.org; dhenderson@broadlawns.org; director@iowaeda.com; director@mainstreetwaterloo.org; Donna McNulty; Dotti Thompson; DREAM Iowa; dsoash@ci.waverly.ia.us; dunnj2@waterlooschools.org; dwetzel@graypape.com; Elise Dubord; ELIZABETH ANDREWS; ema@emacenter.org; Emily Shields; emily.harsh@uni.edu; ethelm50@yahoo.com; eyeodineinc@gmail.com; felicia.smith@waterloo-ia.org; Felicia_Carter@pathwaysb.org; fingerr@waterloo.k12.ia.us; flynn@waterlooschools.org; francescavaldivia@hotmail.com; frost]@waterlooschools.org; GLENDA@fccouncil.net; Gloria Campbell; gncfccb@alpinecom.net; gshirley@waterloopubliclibrary.org; Gwen Patton; halchasebeyondrace@gmail.com; hartd@waterlooschools.org; Heidi Fuchtman; hello@dejearforiowa.com; hladt@wrbe.net; hoover@dmschools.org; Howell, Vanessa; hruser2@waterloo-ia.org; ideacon59@mchsi.com; imohr@ywcabhc.org; info@iowacatholicconference.org; info@iowadma.com; Info@iowagrouptravel.com; info@iowatourism.com; info@travelwaterloo.com; info@wcsfoundation.org; info@wloocommunityfoundation.org; information@kbbg.org; ingrid revolorio; iowalaborhistory@gmail.com; irbegley@iastate.edu; ivette.muhammad@cvonline.us; jackie@istpresby.org; Jacob Johnson; James Walsh; Jamie Woods; jamisia.young@hawkeyecollege.edu; Jan Dellinger; Jane Shea; jberry@tccfd.org; jbriscoe@ywcabhc.org; JDelorbe@cvcatholic.org; jdmarvtiz@mchsi.com; jeffh@waterlooelks.com; jennifer.beck@hawkeyecollege.edu; jerome.amos@waterloo-ia.org; jhenderson@jessecrosby.org; Jill Nicholson; Jim Throgmorton; jmckerman@kwwl.com; jmeyers@cfu.net; Joan Bessman Taylor; Joe Greemore; 1 JOHN DORNOFF; John McKerley; john-doershuk@uiowa.edu; Jones, Ellen L (LAW); joshua.waddle@hawkeyecollege.edu; Joy Lynn; Joyce Levingston; jpatterson@naacpnet.org; jskirby@iastate.edu; justin@hailmaryproject.org; kam4950@msn.com; katie.orlando@iowabigs.org; Katrina Hemann; kbaker@communitybt.com; kdill@co.black-hawk.ia.us; kendraine@skogman.com; Kevin B.F. Burt; keyah.levy@uni.edu; Kim Cheeks; Kim Manning; kimberly.baker@uni.edu; knight@waterlooschools.org; krys.rankin@dmschools.org; krystal.madlock@wartburg.edu; lawerence.daniel@iowacourts.gov; Leah Rogers; lincoln@dmschools.org; Linda Armstrong; lindamanj@waterlooschools.org; lindsay.buehler@hawkeyecollege.edu; Lisa Munoz; liz.gilman@iowa.gov; lmohr@ywcabhc.org; lmoss@kwwl.com; Lode, Shawna [IEDA]; lorraine@lockefuneralhome.com; Lorrice Thomas; lyleschmitt@mchsi.com; lynnetta.brown@yahoo.com; Mackenzie Cooper; madalene.nelson@hawkeyecollege.edu; mallory@embarciowa.org; Marcea Seible; Marcea Seible; mardyholst@architects.com; margaret.klein@waterloo-ia.org; margaret.klien@waterloo-ia.org; marissa.thornton@hawkeyecollege.edu; Marketing@mainstreetwaterloo.org; Marty Metcalf; Mary Jo Pint; marybeth.stalp@uni.edu; Matthew Nuese; mayor@waterloo-ia.org; McKerley, John W; mcnultyc@waterlooschools.org; mgonzales@ramadawaterloo.com; Michael DeShon; Michael Maas; michelle.temeyer@wloocommunityfoundation.org; Mike Chapman; millern@waterlooschools.org; milly.ortiz@dot.iowa.gov; mjohnson@myhopecity.net; monica.stone@iowa.gov; Morgan Alexandra Wortham; MPaudel@dmgov.org; mwhite@cfu.net; n.aldrich7@gmail.com; Nancy McCarville; natalie_austin@use.salvationarmy.org; newsroom@kcrg.com; nicholas.erickson@gmdistrict.org; Nilvia Brownson; noel.anderson@waterloo.ia.org; norman.ussery@wcpbhct.org; norrimaa@uni.edu; northendupdate@gmail.com; Norton, Patricia; nr11043@aol.com; office@s-c-law.com; padgetm@waterlooschools.org; Pastor Mary Robinson; pastormarshaun@gmail.com; pat.morrissey@waterloo-ia.org; pat@istpresby.org; Patience Grant; patiencegrant432@gmail.com; Paula Hippe Hamand; paula.mohr@iowa.gov; Payne AME; paytonj@waterlooschools.org; Plaid Peacock; Randall Gann; rbooker@qctimes.com; Rebecca Renze; rhonda.mcrina@hawkeyecollege.edu; ridgewaym@waterlooschools.org; Rodd -; roosevelt@dmschools.org; rosariogonzalexmg@gmail.com; rosariogonzolez.mg@gmail.com; rphfllips@inrcog.org; ruben.carrion@hawkeyecollege.edu; rudyjones@waterloo-ia.org; Ryan Saddler; san.wong@iowa.gov; shaffer.ridgeway@ia.usda.gov; Shanisha N. Jones; shannon.griffinlmt@gmail.com; sharon.juon@waterloo-ia.org; sharon.silvai@gmail.com; Sharrie Wright; shelly.burch@waterloo-ia.org; Sherer, Jennifer K; shirley VanArsdale; shndgg@icloud.com; Shuaib Meacham; skraus@feedingamerica.org; smithb@waterloo.ki2.ia.us; snielsen@waterloopubliclibrary.org; Sondra Cabell; SSchaefer@cvcatholic.org; sshavers@operationthreshold.org; Stefanie Wager; Stephen Church; stephen.church@hawkeyecollege.edu; steve.king@iowa.gov; steve.schmitt@waterloo-ia.org; sue.moody@waterloo-ia.org; superintendent@dmschools.org; Susan Janzen; Susan Swartzendruber; susan.seedorff-kenin@hawkeyecollege.edu; suzy.schares@waterloo-ia.org; swise@premierstaffing.com; syoung@warrentransport.com; tavis@travelwaterloo.com; theiamprogram@gmail.com; thomas butler; thomas.nelson@wcfcourier.com; thomast@waterlooschools.org; tieone@iowalabor.com; tim.andera@waterloo-ia.org; tnteare2202@msn.com; tom.kessler@cfu.net; tourism@iowaeda.com; tpoe@crystaldist.com; Tricia Stouder; tricityclothing@gmail.com; Trisha Ganfield; turnerc@waterlooschools.org; tvessel@kwwl.com; twickersham@cfneia.org; umaru balde; umaru.bald@hawkeyecollege.edu; vanmeter@dmschools.org; Vicki Cutsforth; Virginia Soelberg; Walter Lain; waterloofbc@yahoo.com; waterloonaacp@gmail.com; waterloowritingproject@gmail.com; wayne.castle@waterloo-ia.org; WENDY BOWMAN; williamS2@waterlooschools.org; youngjamisia42 Subject: Friends of Iowa Civil Rights GM Everyone, I attached a flyer inviting the community to learn and potentially be a part of are our new Friends of Iowa Civil Rights Group. Feel free to share! CP [https://drive-thirdparty.googleusercontent.com/16/type/application/pdf] Friends Flyer Oct. a 4117Li� — i FRIENDS OF IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS ARE YOU INTERESTED IN CIVIL RIGHTS AND LOCAL HISTORY? Join Charles Pearson and Hawkeye Community College Faculty --Dr. Marcea Seible, Lisa Munoz, and Chatara Mabry --as we launch a new group to explore ways to engage the community's participation in the development of Iowa's Civil Rights Trail. IOWA 8116Hi8 r IP3 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 15, 2018 To: City Manager, City Council From: Jacklyn Fleagle, Budget & Compliance Officer Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending September 30, 2018 Introduction Attached to this memorandum are the City's quarterly financial reports as of September 30, 2018. The quarterly financial report includes combined summaries of all fund balances, revenues, and expenditures for fiscal year 2019 through the end of the first quarter, which is 25% 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 25% of budget since we have completed one-fourth of the fiscal year; however, due to accruals back to the previous year, many of these percentages are below 25%. For the property tax supported funds, such as the General fund, Debt Service fund, and the Employee Benefits fund, their actual revenues are at 12.8%, 6.4%, and 7.0%, respectively. These funds have received a lower percentage of their revenue, because the City's property tax receipts are due twice during the year, October and April, and the City will receive the majority of its property tax revenue at that time. This is not the same for the City's enterprise funds. The City's enterprise funds are primarily supported by service charges which cause their actual revenues to be closer to the 25% mark. For instance, on page 4, the Water fund is at 20.8%, the Wastewater fund is at 19.3%, and the Landfill is at 22.5%. These funds' revenues may still be under the 25% benchmark due to the accrual of revenues back to last fiscal year. Other funds with budget anomalies worth noting: the CDBG fund has actual revenues at 12.8% due to the timing of receipt of federal monies; and the Risk Management fund has actual revenues at 96.4% due to the timing of the entries made for loss reserve payments to intra -city charges. In addition, on page 5, Construction Permits & Inspection Fees revenue and Building & Development revenues are at 56.7% and 59.7% due to the large amount of building projects in the City. Interest Revenue is at -45.8% due to the interest receivable accrual back to the prior fiscal year. Additionally, the Governmental Projects fund (page 4) has revenues at 0.0% due to the interest receivable accrual as well as the timing of the Bond Issuance that does not take place until the Spring. The combined total actual revenues for all budgetary funds through September are $23,443,637 or 13.6% 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 2019 through September is similar to the analysis for the City's revenues. We generally expect the actual expenditure levels to be around 25% of budget at this time of year. Some of the funds have expenditure activity through the first quarter significantly above the 25% mark. The following funds have a significant expenditure variance above 25%: • Affordable Housing fund is at 50.0% due to payments made to the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County. • Wastewater fund is at 60.1% due bond principal and interest payments paid in July. • Water fund is at 37.7% due to bond principal and interest payments paid in July. • Governmental Projects expenditures are at 12.0% and Enterprise Projects expenditures are at 7.9% because many of the capital projects are scheduled for construction next Spring. • Risk Management fund is at 34.5% due to workers comp claims and internal charges. Overall, the combined total actual expenditures for all budgetary funds through September are $50,529,429 or 21.5% of budget. Overall, the City's expenditures through the first 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 September 30. One fund is presented (on page 3) with negative fund balance, the Community Development Block Grant fund at -$32,547. 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 2019 through September 30, 2018 Non -Budgetary Funds Internal Service Funds Beginning Ending Restricted, Unassigned $ 1,625,093 $ - $ Fund Year -to -Date Transfers Year -to -Date Transfers Fund Committed, Fund - 4,605,935 Balance Revenues In Expenditures Out Balance Assigned Balance Budgetary Funds 8400 Central Services 725,692 57,828 - 10,048 - 773,472 - 773,472 8500 Health Insurance Reserves General Fund 2,123,256 - 1,929,862 - 11,568,138 7,589,740 3,978,398 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 190,915 101,609 - 10" General Fund $ 36,401,765 $ 7,089,563 $ 2,673,233 $ 14,336,572 $ 1,118,613 $ 30,709,377 $ 6,804,377 $ 23,905,000 Special Revenue Funds $ 13,115,032 Total All Funds $ 227,271,667 $ 29,248,056 $ 6,692,714 $ 54,721,264 $ 6,692,714 $201,798,460 $ 70,834,385 $ 130,964,074 2100 Community Dev Block Grant (25,935) 155,803 - 162,415 - (32,547) - (32,547) 2110 HOME 191,819 231,988 - 255,373 20,326 148,108 - 148,108 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 3,893,384 2,069,671 112,887 1,544,467 718,835 3,812,639 - 3,812,639 2300 Other Shared Revenue 3,968 1,177 - 1,897 - 3,247 - 3,247 2350 Metro Planning Ong of J.C. 262,063 40,439 83,257 131,006 - 254,754 - 254,754 2400 Employee Benefits 2,847,078 900,908 - 475,893 2,736,061 536,032 - 536,032 2500 Affordable Housing Fund 1,208,851 (2,806) - 500,000 - 706,045 - 706,045 2510 Peninsula Apartments 166,019 16,210 - 12,451 - 169,778 - 169,778 26" Tax Increment Financing 1,525,592 158,400 47,782 - - 1,731,775 574,270 1,157,505 2820 SSMID-Downtown District - 13,085 - - - 13,085 - 13,085 Debt Service Fund 5" Debt Service 8,135,315 804,055 - 3,865,142 - 5,074,228 1,521,512 3,552,716 Enterprise Funds 710' Parking 12,222,373 1,602,571 275,205 910,168 410,822 12,779,159 5,775,205 7,003,954 715• Mass Transit 6,159,101 832,144 894,533 1,495,141 - 6,390,637 741,842 5,648,795 720' Wastewater 20,759,108 2,441,239 732,559 7,980,345 1,215,842 14,736,719 4,257,693 10,479,026 730' Water 11,938,239 2,048,369 456,388 3,165,384 381,229 10,896,383 2,395,446 8,500,937 7400 Refuse Collection 1,281,369 696,298 538 838,979 - 1,139,227 - 1,139,227 750• Landfill 26,940,545 1,557,197 60,617 1,145,682 - 27,412,677 24,761,419 2,651,258 7600 Airport 216,770 91,376 25,000 115,549 - 217,597 100,000 117,597 7700 Storm Water 795,950 288,743 101 108,827 79,000 896,967 - 896,967 79" Housing Authority 7,017,559 2,346,873 20,326 3,129,792 11,987 6,242,978 3,146,548 3,095,431 Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 43,106,598 (5,295) 1,040,821 8,957,369 - 35,184,755 - 35,184,755 Enterprise Projects 9,965,616 65,629 269,467 1,396,980 - 8,903,732 - 8,903,732 Total Budgetary Funds $ 195,013,146 $ 23,443,637 $ 6,692,714_ $ 50,529,429 $ 6,692,714 $167,927,354 $ 50,078,312 $ 117,849,043 Non -Budgetary Funds Internal Service Funds 810• Equipment $ 13,604,405 $ 1,625,093 $ - $ 1,126,959 $ - $ 14,102,540 $ 12,877,782 $ 1,224,758 8200 Risk Management 3,563,234 1,539,666 - 496,965 - 4,605,935 - 4,605,935 830' Information Technology 2,799,530 356,967 - 539,361 - 2,617,136 288,552 2,328,584 8400 Central Services 725,692 57,828 - 10,048 - 773,472 - 773,472 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 11,374,744 2,123,256 - 1,929,862 - 11,568,138 7,589,740 3,978,398 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 190,915 101,609 - 88,640 - 203,885 - 203,885 Total Non -Budgetary Funds $ 32,258,521 $ 5,804,419 $ - $ 4,191,835 $ - $ 33,871,105 $ 20,756,073 $ 13,115,032 Total All Funds $ 227,271,667 $ 29,248,056 $ 6,692,714 $ 54,721,264 $ 6,692,714 $201,798,460 $ 70,834,385 $ 130,964,074 3 City of Iowa City Revenues by Fund Fiscal Year 2019 through September 30, 2018 4 2018 2019 2019 2019 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budgetary Fund Revenues General Fund 10" General Fund $ 51,880,377 $ 53,148,922 $ 55,320,453 $ 7,089,563 $ (48,230,890) 12.8% Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant 658,178 906,507 1,218,413 155,803 (1,062,610) 12.8% 2110 HOME 666,926 534,166 1,012,382 231,988 (780,394) 22.9% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 8,539,943 8,744,810 8,744,810 2,069,671 (6,675,139) 23.7% 2300 Other Shared Revenue 270,089 - 48,260 1,177 (47,083) 2.4% 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co 320,459 365,748 365,748 40,439 (325,309) 11.1% 2400 Employee Benefits 11,668,231 12,908,880 12,908,880 900,908 (12,007,972) 7.0% 2500 Affordable Housing Fund 415,749 - - (2,806) (2,806) 0.0% 2510 Peninsula Apartments 73,278 77,510 77,510 16,210 (61,300) 20.9% 26" Tax Increment Financing 2,473,728 2,631,772 2,631,772 158,400 (2,473,372) 6.0% 2820 SSMID-Downtown District 354,385 400,124 400,124 13,085 (387,039) 3.3% Debt Service Fund 5" Debt Service 13,288,394 12,611,282 12,611,282 804,055 (11,807,227) 6.4% Enterprise Funds 710' Parking 8,486,558 6,003,966 6,003,966 1,602,571 (4,401,395) 26.7% 715' Mass Transit 8,276,309 4,524,070 4,524,070 832,144 (3,691,926) 18.4% 720' Wastewater 13,115,285 12,636,588 12,636,588 2,441,239 (10,195,349) 19.3% 730' Water 9,827,060 9,856,522 9,856,522 2,048,369 (7,808,153) 20.8% 7400 Refuse Collection 3,521,446 3,490,210 3,490,210 696,298 (2,793,912) 20.0% 750' Landfill 7,028,785 6,929,796 6,929,796 1,557,197 (5,372,599) 22.5% 7600 Airport 385,582 361,500 361,500 91,376 (270,124) 25.3% 7700 Storm Water 1,589,311 1,529,350 1,529,350 288,743 (1,240,607) 18.9% 79" Housing Authority 9,620,510 8,921,473 8,921,473 2,346,873 (6,574,600) 26.3% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 12,981,814 14,023,000 19,339,380 (5,295) (19,344,675) 0.0% Enterprise Projects 1,919,909 3,056,708 3,701,492 65,629 (3,635,863) 1.8% Total Budgetary Revenues $ 167,362,305 $ 163,662,904 $172,633,981 $ 23,443,637 $(149,190.344) 13.6% Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues Internal Service Funds 810` Equipment $ 6,910,467 $ 6,559,773 $ 6,559,773 $ 1,625,093 $ (4,934,680) 24.8% 8200 Risk Management 1,707,274 1,596,490 1,596,490 1,539,666 (56,824) 96.4% 830' Information Technology 2,294,690 2,348,876 2,348,876 356,967 (1,991,909) 15.2% 8400 Central Services 228,890 213,912 213,912 57,828 (156,084) 27.0% 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 8,401,738 8,700,966 8,700,966 2,123,256 (6,577,710) 24.4% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 407,695 424,330 424,330 101,609 (322,721) 23.9% Total Non -Budgetary Revenues $ 19,950,754 $ 19,844,347 $ 19,844,347 $ 5,804,419 $ (14,039,928) 29.2% Total Revenues - All Funds $ 187,313,059 $ 183,507,251 $192,478,328 $ 29,248,056 $(163,230,272) 15.2% 4 City of Iowa City Revenues by Type Fiscal Year 2019 through September 30, 2018 Budgetary Fund Revenues Property Taxes Other City Taxes: TIF Revenues Gas/Electric Excise 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 2018 2019 2019 2019 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent $ 56,525,799 $ 59,173,825 $ 59,173,825 $ 4,386,015 $ (54,787,810) 7.4% 2,459,216 2,621,772 2,621,772 158,832 (2,462,940) 6.1% 684,299 676,411 676,411 - (676,411) 0.0% 61,182 65,150 65,150 4,326 (60,824) 6.6% 1,045,696 1,251,720 1,251,720 - (1,251,720) 0.0% 976,060 939,400 939,400 2,154 (937,246) 0.2% 5,226,452 5,554,453 5,554,453 165,313 (5,389,140) 3.0% 71,654 100,920 100,920 14,202 (86,719) 14.1% 110,377 111,440 111,440 40,058 (71,382) 35.9% 7,605 12,020 12,020 1,510 (10,510) 12.6% 662,448 512,750 512,750 6,901 (505,849) 1.3% 1,850,539 1,777,650 1,777,650 1,007,219 (770,431) 56.7% 40,881 38,680 38,680 18,388 (20,292) 47.5% 2,743,504 2,553,460 2,553,460 1,088,278 (1,465,182) 42.6% Intergovernmental: Fed Intergovemmenl Revenue 13,152,242 11,664,896 15,128,902 1,395,911 (13,732,991) 9.2% Property Tax Credits 1,554,683 1,727,320 1,727,320 - (1,727,320) 0.0% Road Use Tax 8,426,502 8,672,280 8,672,280 2,010,639 (6,661,641) 23.2% State 28E Agreements 2,003,939 1,724,430 1,724,430 - (1,724,430) 0.0% Operating Grants 73,825 82,690 82,690 - (82,690) 0.0% Disaster Assistance 110,085 - - - - 0.0% Other State Grants 5,483,837 3,094,020 5,160,636 1,425,016 (3,735,620) 27.6% Local 28E Agreements 1,151,557 5,182,453 5,182,453 475,639 (4,706,814) 9.2% Subtotal 31,956,672 32,148,089 37,678,711 5,307,205 (32,371,506) 14.1% Charges For Fees And Services: Building & Development 908,376 411,120 411,120 245,418 (165,702) 59.7% Police Services 127,496 56,530 56,530 31,310 (25,220) 55.4% Animal Care Services 10,775 11,540 11,540 2,660 (8,880) 23.1% Fire Services 7,632 10,370 10,370 900 (9,470) 8.7% Transit Fees 1,226,643 1,261,820 1,261,820 217,273 (1,044,547) 17.2% Culture & Recreation 774,778 790,848 790,848 182,073 (608,775) 23.0% Misc Charges For Services 69,449 79,217 79,217 19,811 (59,406) 25.0% Water Charges 9,475,186 9,743,172 9,743,172 2,088,154 (7,655,018) 21.4% Wastewater Charges 12,621,036 12,276,650 12,276,650 2,473,042 (9,803.608) 20.1% Refuse Charges 4,010,218 3,909,630 3,909,630 813,665 (3,095,965) 20.8% Landfill Charges 5,933,293 6,168,980 6,168,980 1,438,521 (4,730,459) 23.3% Stomt Water Charges 1,551,384 1,522,290 1,522,290 295,790 (1,226,500) 19.4% Parking Charges 6,331,040 6,477,470 6,477,470 2,016,854 (4,460,616) 31.1% Subtotal 43,047,304 42,719,637 42,719,637 9,825,471 (32,894,166) 23.0% Miscellaneous: Code Enforcement 232,315 222,633 222,633 33,613 (189,020) 15.1% Parking Fines 475,356 578,720 578,720 116,376 (462,344) 20.1% Library Fines & Fees 143,285 154,420 154,420 33,343 (121,077) 21.6% Contributions & Donations 890,423 369,620 768,950 39,738 (729,212) 5.2% Printed Materials 42,374 41,900 41,900 13,270 (28,630) 31.7% Animal Adoption 12,955 12,020 12,020 7,575 (4,445) 63.0% Misc Merchandise 55,901 54,770 54,770 26,871 (27,899) 49.1% Intra -City Charges 3,962,198 4,277,635 4,277,635 1,075,720 (3,201,915) 25.1% Other Misc Revenue 908,993 933,261 1,195,261 147,545 (1,047,716) 12.3% Special Assessments 808 1,090 1,090 - (1,090) 0.0% Subtotal $ 6,724,608 $ 6,646,069 $ 7,307,399 $ 1,494,052 $ (5,813,347) 20.4% City of Iowa City Revenues by Type Fiscal Year 2019 through September 30, 2018 Use Of Money And Property: Interest Revenues Rents Royalties & Commissions Subtotal Other Financial Sources: Debt Sales Sale Of Assets Loans Subtotal Total Budgetary Revenues Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues Internal Service Funds 2018 2019 2019 2019 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent $ 2,879,005 $ 1,071,871 $ 1,071,872 $ (490,767) $ (1,562,639) -45.8% 1,385,468 1,367,800 1,367,800 370,319 (997,481) 27.1% 108,843 136,080 136,080 29,175 (106,905) 21.4% 4,373,315 2,575,751 2,575,752 (91,272) (2,667,024) -3.5% 12,174,462 10,623,000 10,623,000 - (10,623,000) 0.0% 3,633,506 703,393 3,107,518 787,926 (2,319,592) 25.4% 956,682 965,226 1,340,226 480,651 (859,575) 35.9% 16,764,651 12,291,619 15,070,744 1,268,577 (13,802,167) 8.4% $ 167,362,305 $ 163,662,903 $ 172,633,981 $ 23,443,637 (149,190,344) 13.6% $ 19,950,754 $ 19,844,347 $ 19,844,347 $ 5,804,419 $ (14,039,928) 29.2% Total Non -Budgetary Revenues $ 19,950,754 $ 19,844,347 $ 19,844,347 $ 5,804,419 $ (14,039,928) Total Revenues - All Funds $ 187,313,059 $ 183,507,250 $192,478,328 $ 29,248,057 $(163,230,272) 6 29.2% 15.2% City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund Fiscal Year 2019 through September 30, 2018 7 2018 2019 2019 2019 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budgetary Fund Expenditures General Fund 10" General Fund $ 52,714,597 $ 58,159,421 $ 60,911,822 $ 14,336,572 $ 46,575,250 23.5% Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant 592,163 596,507 908,413 162,415 745,998 17.9% 2110 HOME 558,825 546,166 1,024,382 255,373 769,009 24.9% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 6,059,424 6,165,809 6,432,985 1,544,467 4,888,518 24.0% 2300 Other Shared Revenue 333,421 - 48,260 1,897 46,363 3.9% 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co. 591,338 708,554 708,554 131,006 577,548 18.5% 2400 Employee Benefits 967,457 1,283,417 1,283,417 475,893 807,524 37.1% 2500 Affordable Housing Fund 325,000 750,000 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 50.0% 2510 Peninsula Apartments 50,641 59,878 59,878 12,451 47,427 20.8% 26'• Tax Increment Financing 392,130 505,193 505,193 - 505,193 0.0% 2820 SSMID-Downtown District 354,385 400,124 400,124 - 400,124 0.0% Debt Service Fund 5" Debt Service 13,469,600 13,722,450 13,722,450 3,865,142 9,857,308 28.2% Enterprise Funds 720' Wastewater 15,738,755 13,284,732 13,284,732 7,980,345 5,304,387 60.1% 730' Water 14,382,141 8,388,774 8,393,774 3,165,384 5,228,390 37.7% 7400 Refuse Collection 3,106,776 3,433,507 3,491,007 838,979 2,652,028 24.0% 750* Landfill 4,940,648 5,035,196 5,035,196 1,145,682 3,889,514 22.8% 7600 Airport 468,122 357,309 357,309 115,549 241,760 32.3% 7700 Stonn Water 497,954 537,865 537,865 108,827 429,038 20.2% 79" Housing Authority 9,342,128 10,952,156 10,952,156 3,129,792 7,822,364 28.6% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 32,499,396 23,580,970 74,415,110 8,957,369 65,457,741 12.0% Enterprise Projects 9,353,681 5,040,308 17,660,204 1,396,980 16,263,224 7.9% Total Budgetary Expenditures $ 185,175,387 $ 167,570,307 $235,213,971 $ 50,529,429 $184,684,542 21.5% Non -Budgetary Funds Expenditures Internal Service Funds 810' Equipment $ 5,041,436 $ 4,468,094 $ 4,764,743 $ 1,126,959 $ 3,637,784 23.7% 8200 Risk Management 1,947,564 1,440,328 1,440,328 496,965 943,363 34.5% 830' Information Technology 2,034,623 2,160,935 2,160,935 539,361 1,621,574 25.0% 8400 Central Services 188,468 193,387 193,387 10,048 183,339 5.2% 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 7,848,190 8,381,923 8,381,923 1,929,862 6,452,061 23.0% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 364,128 409,442 409,442 88,640 320,802 21.6% Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures $ 17,424,410 $ 17,054,109 $ 17,350,758 $ 4,191,835 $ 13,158,923 24.2% Total Expenditures - All Funds $ 202,599,797 $ 184,624,416 $252,564,729 $ 54.721,264 $197,843,465 21.7% 7 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund by Department Fiscal Year 2019 through September 30, 2018 8 2018 2019 2019 2019 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budgetary Funds Expenditures General Fund 10" General Fund City Council $ 109,461 $ 120,391 $ 120,391 $ 36,264 $ 84,127 30.1% City Clerk 491,517 533,577 533,577 145,507 388,070 27.3% City Attorney 765,417 780,796 780,796 178,150 602,646 22.8% City Manager 3,056,803 4,248,266 4,378,266 914,746 3,463,520 20.9% Finance 3,805,542 4,345,045 4,848,045 1,720,555 3,127,490 35.5% Police 13,809,546 14,419,896 14,763,762 3,295,800 11,467,962 22.3% Fire 8,030,716 8,262,751 8,278,847 1,940,814 6,338,033 23.4% Parks & Recreation 7,993,287 8,826,119 8,841,119 1,963,600 6,877,519 22.2% Library 6,400,495 6,671,933 6,671,933 1,501,056 5,170,877 22.5% Senior Center 888,544 974,355 986,855 166,476 820,379 16.9% Neighborhood & Development Services 4,965,448 5,824,548 7,556,487 1,838,461 5,718,026 24.3% Public Works 1,909,621 2,554,182 2,554,182 500,313 2,053,869 19.6% Transportation & Resource Management 488,203 597,562 597,562 134,829 462,733 22.6% Total General Fund 52,714,597 58,159,421 60,911,822 14,336,572 46,575,250 23.5% Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant Neighborhood & Development Services 592,163 596,507 908,413 162,415 745,998 17.9% 2110 HOME Neighborhood & Development Services 558,825 546,166 1,024,382 255,373 769,009 24.9% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund Public Works 6,059,424 6,165,809 6,432,985 1,544,467 4,888,518 24.0% 2300 Other Shared Revenue Neighborhood & Development Services 333,421 - 48,260 1,897 46,363 3.9% 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co Neighborhood & Development Services 591,338 708,554 708,554 131,006 577,548 18.5% 2400 Employee Benefits Finance 967,457 1,283,417 1,283,417 475,893 807,524 37.1% 2500 Affordable Housing Fund Neighborhood & Development Services 325,000 750,000 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 50.0% 2510 Peninsula Apartments Neighborhood & Development Services 50,641 59,878 59,878 12,451 47,427 20.8% 26" Tax Increment Financing Finance 392,130 505,193 505,193 - 505,193 0.0% 2820 SSMID-Dov ntovm District Finance 354,385 400,124 400,124 400,124 0.0% Total Special Revenue Funds 10,224,785 11,015,648 12,371,206 3,083,502 9,287,704 24.9% Debt Service Fund 6"' Debt Service Finance 13,469,600 13,722,450 13,722,450 3,865,142 9,857,308 28.2% Total Debt Service Fund 13,469,600 13,722,450 13,722,450 3,865,142 9,857,308 28.2% 8 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund by Department Fiscal Year 2019 through September 30, 2018 9 2018 2019 2019 2019 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Enterprise Funds 710' Parking Transportation & Resource Management $ 6,516,098 $ 6,612,092 $ 6,631,261 $ 910,168 $ 5,721,093 13.7% 715' Mass Transit Transportation & Resource Management 11,920,706 7,449,879 7,449,879 1,495,141 5,954,738 20.1% 720• Wastewater Public Works 15,738,755 13,284,732 13,284,732 7,980,345 5,304,387 60.1% 730• Water Public Works 14,382,141 8,388,774 8,393,774 3,165,384 5,228,390 37.7% 7400 Refuse Collection Transportation& Resource Management 3,106,776 3,433,507 3,491,007 838,979 2,652,028 24.0% 750` Landfill Transportation& Resource Management 4,940,648 5,035,196 5,035,196 1,145,682 3,889,514 22.8% 7600 Airport Airport Operations 468,122 357,309 357,309 115,549 241,760 32.3% 7700 Stonn Water Public Works 497,954 537,865 537,865 108,827 429,038 20.2% 79" Housing Authority Neighborhood& Development Services 9,342,128 10,952,156 10,952,156 3,129,792 7,822,364 28.6% Total Enterprise Funds 66.913,328 56,051,510 56,133,179 18,889,865 37,243,314 33.7% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 32,499,396 23,580,970 74,415,110 8,957,369 65,457,741 12.0% Enterprise Projects 9,353,681 5,040,308 17,660,204 1,396,980 16,263,224 7.9% Total Capital Project Funds 41,853,076 28,621,278 92,075,314 10,354,349 81,720,965 11.2% Total Budgetary Expenditures $ 185,175,387 $ 167,570,307 $235,213,971 $ 50,529,429 $184,684,542 -21.6% Non-Budnetary Funds Expenditures Internal Service Funds 810' Equipment Public Works $ 5,041,436 $ 4,468,094 $ 4,764,743 $ 1,126,959 $ 3,637,784 23.7% 8200 Risk Management Finance 1,947,564 1,440,328 1,440,328 496,965 943,363 34.5% 830' Information Technology Finance 2,034,623 2,160,935 2,160,935 539,361 1,621,574 25.0% 8400 Central Services Finance 188,468 193,387 193,387 10,048 183,339 5.2% 8500 Health Insurance Reserves Finance 7,848,190 8,381,923 8,381,923 1,929,862 6,452,061 23.0% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves Finance 364,128 409,442 409,442 88,640 320,802 21.6% Total Internal Service Funds 17,424,410 17,054,109 17,350,758 4,191,835 13,158,923 24.2% Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures $ 17,424,410 $ 17,054,109 $ 17,350,758 $ 4,191,835 $ 13,158,923 24.2% Total Expenditures -All Funds $ 202,599,797 $ 184,624,416 $252,564,729 $ 54,721,264 $197,843,465 21.7% 9 -76-frfs- DRAFT 1P4 COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — October 9, 2018 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Townsend called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Monique Galpin, Latisha McDaniel MEMBERS ABSENT: Don King, David Semler STAFF PRESENT: Staff Chris Olney, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Iowa City Police Lt. Scott Gaarde RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER Townsend introduced new member Latish McDaniel who was appointed by the City Council at the September 181 meeting to fill the unexpired vacancy. REPORT FROM NOMINATION COMMITTEE Selmer and Galpin were appointed to the nominating committee at the September 11' meeting. Galpin reported that the committee met and the recommendation was for King as Chair and Galpin as Vice - Chair. The Board agreed to defer elections until the next meeting when all members would be present. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Galpin, seconded by McDaniel, to adopt the consent calendar as amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 09/11/18 • ICPD General Orders 99-03 (Prisoner Transport) • ICPD General Orders 17-03 (Firearms) Motion carried, 3/0, King and Selmer absent. Legal Counsel Ford reminded the Board that he does not review ICPD General Orders. He asked if the Board would like him to in the future, the Board agreed to defer his question to the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS None. OLD BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. CPRB October 9, 2018 Page 2 TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • November 13, 2018, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm. • December 11, 2018, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • January 8, 2019, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • February 12, 2019, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Galpin, seconded by McDaniel. Motion carried, 3/0, King and Selmer absent. Meeting adjourned at 5:37 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 10/10 11/14 1217 1/9/18 2/13/18 3/19/18 4/17/18 4/23/18 5/8/18 6/12/18 7/23118 8/21/18 9/11118 10/9/18 NAME EXP. Donald 7/1/19 X X X O X X X X X X X X X O King Monique 7/1/20 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Galpin Orville 7/1/20 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Townsend Latisha 7/1/21 ----- ----- ---- ----- ------ — ---- ------ — — ------ — — X McDaniel Royceann 7/1/21 -- ---- -- --- X O/E X O/E X O/E --- -- -- — Porter David 7/1/21 X O/E X X X X X X X X X O X O Selmer KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member r ^�.-4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 15, 2018 To: Mayor and City Council From: Kirk Lehmann, Community Development Planner Re: Recommendations from Housing and Community Development Commission -TU-79--f U- IP5 At their October 11th meeting, the Housing and Community Development Commission approved the September 20, 2018 meeting with the following recommendation to the City Council: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends amendments to the Iowa City Housing Authority's Housing Choice Voucher Program Administrative Plan. Additional action (check one) No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction _x_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action - Done MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION September 20, 2018 — 6:30 PM SENIOR CENTER, ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Mitch Brouse, Charlie Eastham, Christine Harms, John McKinstry, Maria Padron and Paula Vaughan MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Lamkins, Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly, Steve Rackis OTHERS PRESENT: Sara Barron RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends amendments to the Iowa City Housing Authority's Housing Choice Voucher Program Administrative Plan. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Vaughn called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 20, 2018 MINUTES: Eastham moved to approve the minutes of July 20, 2018. Harms seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. SARA BARRON TO PRESENT ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COALITION: Sara Barron (Executive Director, Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) was asked to present about the Affordable Housing Coalition and what services it might be able to provide the Commission. She first thought she would talk about the racial equity question but saw on today's agenda that HCDC will discuss what an outstanding example of a racial equity assessment can look like for a proposed policy. Instead, Barron said she would discuss what the Coalition is, their mission, and services. She will answer why the Affordable Housing Coalition exists though there are so many housing groups in the area, and specifically how the Coalition benefits groups like HCDC and the City. The Affordable Housing Coalition is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit focused on advocacy, education, partnership and policy development. The mission of the Coalition is to provide or create affordable housing opportunities for people in Johnson County, particularly those who are at 80% of the median income or below. Barron noted it can be confusing because there are many housing organizations, but the Coalition does not provide housing and rather focuses on community education, community advocacy, and partnership development. For example, the Coalition produced a video that features residents and other members of the community about the value of affordable housing and the impact it has on individual households and the community. Housing and Community Development Commission September 20, 2018 Page 2 of 11 That video is an example of how any one housing provider might not have the time or resources to create it, but as a coalition they put their resources together to create larger scale community advocacy resources. Barron also noted she attends Planning & Zoning and HCDC meetings both in Iowa City and Coralville because few housing providers and residents can attend all these meetings, so she works as an advocate to gather and share information and to see the big picture of housing throughout Johnson County. They look for not only gaps in housing, but gaps in knowledge, and making sure that knowledge gets disseminated to the broader community. Barron shared the example of a recent League of Women Voters forum where City Council candidates were asked a question about affordable housing options and what the City could do to help stimulate more housing opportunities for people at or below 30% of the area median income; several candidates didn't know discriminating against people who have a Housing Choice Voucher is not allowed in Iowa City because they did not know that Council made it a protected class. That is why the Coalition wants to make sure that information is available to people in addition to changing attitudes about affordable housing. Attitudes have already changed, people talk about affordable housing and are generally supportive of it which wasn't the case 10 years ago. The next step is to take that support of affordable housing and translate that into support for people living in affordable housing throughout the community. There are always people who say they support affordable housing, but then don't want it down the street from them, so the Coalition is educating the community on why and how affordable housing can be safe and appropriate throughout the community and how it benefits everyone. Barron stated the Coalition has an advocacy and policy development piece, but it is looking with a broader view, noting there are many groups in the area that have a tremendous knowledge of housing issues (City Staff, City Councilors, Housing Trust Fund, Shelter House, The Housing Fellowship, etc.). The Coalition is not going to be impacted if a specific funding decision is being made, or if a specific policy is made that privileges one type of housing over another, so they can look at the general impact and not be too tied to the outcome. Their goal is to bring all the stakeholders of the community together and join forces to move forward together. Barron next discussed how the Coalition might be helpful to HCDC. First the Coalition pays attention to what is happening throughout Johnson County, and if one municipal makes a housing decision, it can look at impacts on neighboring communities. If Iowa City has lots of restrictions for example, the Coalition can explore if people will just go to another city. Therefore the Coalition is working in neighboring communities to make the same types of advancements Iowa City is doing in an effort to make all communities favorable for residents who need affordable housing. Currently Barron is putting together a survey for business owners to see what employer's needs and thoughts are regarding housing options, and the impact for them to attract and retain workers. Coralville for example has built a significant amount of their economy around the service industry which are low wage jobs, so are their housing options for those workers. Barron noted it is important to remember there are many ways affordable housing affects people as well as businesses and employers. The Coalition can also assist the Commission promote news about new housing policies and options the City is doing. The Coalition is a membership organization, everyone is welcome to join, either as an individual or as an organization, and they represent around 100 different organizations and individuals throughout the community ranging from banks to cities to faith organizations to service clubs, etc. Barron noted one of her goals is this year to work more on the connection to the residents themselves. Eastham stated a measure of success on providing affordable housing is the number of families who are not housing cost burdened (that is, who spend less than 30% of their income on housing expenses), and a way to reduce cost burden without creating new or replacing homes is providing other assistance. Eastham asked what the Coalition thinks. Barron stated two things impact whether someone can afford their housing: the cost of the housing and household income. Therefore, the Coalition is paying attention to discussions about minimum wage because one way to make sure people can afford their housing is to raise wages as well as creating more rental assistance. Barron noted the Coalition represents a diverse number of members, so it can be difficult to come to consensus about what the favorite strategies should be. But what they can do is provide information about lots of different strategies, noting things that have been successful in other places, talk about the implementation of ideas, share information and provide support to those doing the affordable housing work in the communities. The Coalition is open to proposals that would provide additional rental assistance, but it has not yet signed off on a specific proposal they would stand behind 100%. Housing and Community Development Commission September 20, 2018 Page 3 of 11 Barron did want to say one thing about racial equity and how people's access to affordable housing looks very different depending on who they are in the community and the search for affordable housing for a single mom with three kids is very different than the search for a person with a disability, someone without documentation, someone that comes from a family who has never been a homeowner, all people who may need affordable housing but coming from different circumstances. This can create potential threats to one's ability to achieve affordable housing. Barron noted that homeownership for black families is now as low as it was when the Fair Housing Act was created 50 years ago, there has been no progress made in eliminating the gap of white homeownership and black homeownership in the United States. Barron thanks HCDC and shared brochures and membership applications with HCDC as well as a letter that describes some of the things the Coalition accomplished in the last year. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY'S HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN: Rackis stated the City is proposing these changes because when the Local Homeless Coordinating Board first started strategic planning a couple years ago, one item that came out was how to address a Housing First project. The original name of the project was FUSE for Frequent Users, serving the chronically homeless. These are homeless people with diagnosed disabilities, the hardest of hardest to serve in the population. Rackis was on the FUSE steering committee and when the idea of providing vouchers was raised, he suggested implementing a secondary preference for targeted admission because it would administratively be the easiest way. However, National Housing Trust Fund regulations account for projects that have tenant based vouchers, like the City's Housing Choice Voucher, and project based vouchers, like Ecumenical Towers, Capital House and Pheasant Ridge. Once the legislation was finalized, a project with project based vouchers could charge rents up to the HUD published fair market rents, but if they were tenant based vouchers, they had to use rents established under the National Housing Trust Fund legislation. Cross Park Place will have 24 units one -bedroom units; the 2019 fair market rent for a one -bedroom unit is $684, but under the National Housing Trust Fund rules, if a project has tenant based vouchers the maximum rent they can charge is $380. The City already committed to tenant based vouchers with what they are calling a secondary preference as all these individuals would be disabled which is part of the primary preference category. The City tried to make that work with the Iowa Finance Authority but it did not. Therefore Rackis is before HCDC to modify the City's Administrative Plan to allow the Iowa City Housing Authority to project base a portion of the tenant based vouchers. This will not create additional vouchers (they have 1,215 Housing Choice Vouchers) but will rather allow project based vouchers at Cross Park Place which permits higher rents and therefore higher subsidy from the Housing Authority, ensuring better cash flow for that project. The project needs to maintain a healthy income flow as it will be used to pay for the services that will be available to residents housed in Cross Park Place. Rackis noted that services will not be mandatory for the residents, but will still be needed. This modification is the City reacting to the realities of the National Housing Trust Fund legislation and finding a solution that allows better cash flow for the project. This project meets many of HUD's priorities in how it funds Continuum of Care initiatives, which is now focused on homeless prevention, rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing rather than shelter and transitional housing. Rackis said this amendment allows the City to do the project based vouchers and to provide a vehicle that can quickly provide support to homeless and disabled persons found eligible by the Continuum of Care coordinated entry, the hardest to serve population. Rackis noted the second part of the amendment clarifies what they have been doing, formerly called special admissions, which is a secondary or targeted preference. All City preference categories are weighted, with the elderly, disabled, and families with children under the age of 18 who live or work in their jurisdiction weighted as the highest preference category. When the City takes people on the waiting list that is who they are typically taking. By clarifying and making minor changes to the secondary targeted preference, it opens it up to anyone coming out of the Continuum of Care coordinated entry for those who meet the definition of homeless and disabled. The determination will be up to Shelter House and other partners, but once decided it allows the City to provide vouchers more quickly. Harms asked for more clarification about benefits of the Iowa City Housing Authority's PBV program and how families secure units where it might be hard to use vouchers. Rackis said that benefit is from the Housing and Community Development Commission September 20, 2018 Page 4 of 11 HUD handbook for project based vouchers and the Housing Authority stresses housing choice as a priority, believes in scattered site housing, and does not want to create programs that concentrate housing. Project based vouchers can concentrate housing, so they looked at the hard to serve homeless population; but if there is a low-income housing tax credit project, the Housing Authority may want to partner. The Housing Authority has two ways to partner with project based vouchers, they can issue an RFP and take bids, or they can select a project that has gone through a competitive bid process. Shelter House went through a competitive process with the Iowa Finance Authority, so the City was able to select them for project based vouchers. If the City wants to sponsor a project in a neighborhood that has higher rents and that otherwise our population of tenants and families cannot get into, the City can find a developer to work with and create a project based project in that neighborhood. That is the benefit to help families secure units in areas where it might otherwise be hard to use vouchers. Eastham asked if the Iowa Finance Authority, in their awarding process, take away points from awarding funds for project based voucher projects. Rackis said it changes, it can be based on the percentage of project based vouchers proposed or simply if there are project based vouchers, points are awarded or if none than no points awarded. Eastham asked if it was possible for the Housing Authority to change a project based voucher to a tenant based voucher. Rackis stated the Iowa Finance Authority was concerned about tenant based vouchers because after the 12 month lease expires, the tenant can just leave, so what happens to that voucher. Rackis explained that the City has a waiting list for vouchers and if someone leaves and gives up their voucher then the next person/family on the list gets the voucher. Rackis added with project based vouchers, if an individual or family in good standing with the landlord and Housing Authority requests to move with continued assistance after the completion of a year lease, they must be issued a tenant based voucher and allowed move. So in reality tenant based and project based vouchers work the same in these types of projects. Eastham asked if the City would stick with the 100 project based vouchers or would that number change. Rackis said the amount will be 5% of the total 1,215 vouchers, which is around 60, that at any given time could support two project based voucher projects. Eastham asked if this change would result in fewer vouchers being used because a project based voucher may be used for a unit that is not rented out 6 months out of the year or so. Rackis replied that with a project based voucher if someone moves out and the unit is vacant, no housing assistance payment is made until another tenant is in that unit. However they can continue to pay on a vacant unit for an additional month while they are looking for a new tenant to fill the space. That would not be done for a tenant based voucher, the voucher would leave with the tenant. Rackis added this year they received more funds from HUD than previous years and the communication coming from Congress states they intend to keep the funds at this level so he does not feel there is any need for concern for the tenant based vouchers. Brouse asked how they transition tenant based vouchers into project based and are there enough vouchers in each program. Rackis said in the case of Cross Park Place, there are 24 units so there will be 24 vouchers committed. If somebody gets to the point where they leave Cross Park Place for other supported or permanent housing, they will convert from a project based to a tenant based voucher and Cross Park Place will then refill that unit and the City will give Cross Park Place another project based voucher. The project based vouchers will also be on a one year cycle with renewal so they are treated administratively the same as tenant based vouchers. He noted there is always turnover in the voucher system. McKinstry moved to recommend to City Council amendments to the Iowa City Housing Authority's Housing Choice Voucher Program Administrative Plan, Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF HCDC MONITORING UPDATES IN FY19: Lehmann stated that for projects that HCDC funds, the City likes to have organizations come to a meeting and update HCDC on their projects. Lehmann created this tentative schedule for monitoring updates: November 15 6 Little Creations Academy, FY18 Daycare Rehab Housing and Community Development Commission September 20, 2018 Page 5 of 11 • Crisis Center, FY18 Food Bank Rehab • Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County o FY19 Aid to Agencies o FY19 Siding Improvement • Successful Living o FY18 Rental Acquisition o FY18 Rental Rehab o FY19 Rental Acquisition January 17 • Domestic Violence Intervention Program, FY19 Aid to Agencies • Shelter House o FY17 FUSE land acquisition and construction o FY19 Aid to Agencies o FY19 Rental Acquisition The Housing Fellowship o FY17, FY18, and FY19 Rental Rehab o FY19 Rental Acquisition o FY19 CHDO Operating • Habitat for Humanity o FY17 Property acquisition and construction on N. Governor Street o FY18 Property acquisition and construction on Blazing Star Drive o FY19 Property acquisition and construction of 2 homes on Blazing Star Drive February 21 • Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program, FY19 Rental Acquisition • Prelude, FY19 Transitional Housing Improvements • Arthur Street Healthy Life Center, FY19 Clinic Rehab • 4Cs, FY19 Daycare Technical Assistance March 21 • City of Iowa City o FY17 Tenant Based Rental Assistance o FY18 and FY19 Park Improvements o FY18 and FY19 Homeowner Rehab o FY19 South District Investment Partnership Lehmann will invite the organizations to either submit a written update of the project or to come to the meeting and present. UPDATE ON ANNUAL INPUT FOR THE 2016-2020 CITY STEPS CONSOLIDATED PLAN: Kubly stated each year Staff solicits input regarding the five-year CITY STEPS Consolidated Plan, the goal is to get input from actual residents rather than service providers and work with local nonprofits to meet people and get that input. Next week Staff will go to a Housing Authority voucher briefing meeting which will have residents present who are trying to get on the voucher program. Then on October 6 Staff will attend the Center for Worker Justice meeting and will solicit input there as well. The goal is to see if the findings are consistent with the goals of the CITY STEPS Plan and if there is a significant change, the plan can be amended. Housing and Community Development Commission September 20, 2018 Page 6 of 11 UPDATE ON RACIAL EQUITY ANALYSIS FOR THE SOUTH DISTRICT INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP: Kubly noted the City was allocated $100,000 in HOME Funds to rehab and sell four duplex units on Taylor and Davis Streets as owner -occupied, HCDC had some concerns about the racial impact that may have. Staff utilized the City's Equity Toolkit to look at that along with soliciting guidance from the Human Rights Equity office. The first question in the Toolkit is who is affected. Kubly said she focused on racial and ethnic equity for this report rather than looking at income. She began by looking at census blocks as close to Taylor and Davis Streets as possible. The census data is from 2010 because anything newer covers broader areas. This data shows blacks or African Americans comprise 35% of the population in the Taylor/Davis area whereas it is only around 6% in all of Iowa City. Additionally, the Hispanic population is higher in the Taylor/Davis area than in the rest of Iowa City. Kubly also looked at the housing stock and rental permits in that area and a large percentage of the Taylor/Davis area has duplexes with rental permits. There are 96 total parcels in that area with 188 units, and 168 of those are rentals (89%). Converting four units to homeownership through the HOME project would reduce the rentals to 86% of units. Next Kubly looked at housing tenure based on race, changes in assessed values in the neighborhood, and the use of housing choice vouchers in the area. Those results are noted in the report in HCDC's agenda packets. Kubly stated the next step was to conduct neighborhood outreach and they attended a South District Neighborhood Meeting in July, though it wasn't well -attended with only three residents present, none of whom live on Taylor or Davis Streets. Due to the low attendance, Tracy Hightshoe (NDS Director) and Henry Harper (Community Outreach Assistant) did a neighborhood walk-through to talk to residents. The question posed to the residents as they walked the neighborhood was: Which of the two housing activities would neighbors prefer? 1) Rental rehabilitation where the City would work with the landlord to remodel/make repairs to homes and the City would require that the landlord couldn't raise rents for a specific period of time, or 2) Homeownership where the City would buy two duplexes (4 homes), make repairs/remodel and sell the homes at approximately what it takes to rent the homes — goal would be about $850/month if possible. Six preferred homeownership, two preferred rental and two were okay with either, they were just happy the City was investing in their neighborhood. After data was collected, staff did the analysis in the Toolkit and identified African Americans, Hispanics, low income residents, and renters as potentially disproportionately affected populations. Per the Toolkit, staff identified affordable homeownership possibilities and neighborhood improvements (housing quality, fewer housing code violations, reduced police calls and nuisance complaints, increased property values) as potential positive impacts. Staff identified displacement of current residents or residents no longer being able to afford to live in the neighborhood as potential negative impacts. From that analysis, staff developed recommendations to mitigate negative impacts and enhance positive impacts. These included limiting tenant displacement by acquiring vacant properties; providing relocation assistance to displaced tenants (per HOME requirements); giving current residents of the South District preference in purchasing the homes; fostering partnerships with Habitat, Horizons, or related agencies for homeowner education opportunities; continuing to work with Henry Harper for ongoing communication with neighborhood residents; looking for additional opportunities for future investment in the neighborhood; and reviewing the Equity Toolkit prior to undertaking any additional phase of the South District Partnership in the future. Harms noted if these four rentals are turned into four owner -occupied homes, the rental percentage would fall from 89% to 86% and wondered if the City has a goal of percentage of rentals. Kubly said there is no specific goal set and rather take an incremental approach and see how this goes or identify if there is more interest in homeownership opportunities. She noted they would not do more than 35% in the neighborhood to ensure/preserve affordable rental options. Alter asked if any preliminary data was collected on adjacent streets in that area and the percentage of homeowners or property values in those areas. Kubly said they did not review that data. Eastham stated when he reviewed the data earlier his opinion is Taylor and Davis have a much higher percentage of rental permits than any of the surrounding areas. Lehmann directed them to the map of rental permits for that area and it is significant in the Taylor/Davis area. Housing and Community Development Commission September 20, 2018 Page 7 of 11 Eastham directed to section S.11.6.2 of the report to the table labeled Douglass Court Neighborhood Assessed Values and the discussion of a similar program that was done in the Douglass Court/Douglass Street neighborhood where assessed values increased. Eastham does not believe that table proves there was an increase in assessed values by this program, it is misleading, and the percentage of increase for the assessed values for the properties in the Douglass Court area between 2011 and 2018 is actually less than 2% per year which is close to the average increase throughout the City. Lehmann noted perhaps it should show it stabilized assessments more so than increased them. Eastham said the table should also so the comparison to the overall City's assessed values as the decline between 2006 and 2011 included the housing crisis time period. Kubly said they will revise the table. Eastham also noted that in the report section Stage IIIA Worksheet it shows potential positive impact and neighborhood improvements and that is a general statement and doesn't refer to specific properties so he doesn't understand how these four homes will aid in improving housing quality, fewer housing code violations and fewer police calls at those four homes. Kubly said the impact is intended to be on the neighborhood in general, not just those four properties. Eastham believes it is speculative. Brouse noted that the goals of these programs often go beyond just the properties directly affected. McKinstry asked if the City is collecting information on this neighborhood anyway, not just for this analysis. Kubly said yes, they can track all this data, and they can find specific data on those four properties with regards to housing code violations and police calls. She said they are working with the Police Department to identify the problem properties, however the City cannot just acquire a property that is not for sale, but having the information is helpful. Eastham noted this area is tricky, they are dealing with an area that is primarily African American so he asks that City Staff be very careful and deliberate about what they are saying about what the conditions are now and what the conditions would be if this project moves forward. Vaughn noted that four units may not make a difference regarding the number of police calls in a neighborhood and it may take more units than that before an actual change was seen. McKinstry agreed but noted at least there is a baseline for data. Lehmann noted this is part of a broader neighborhood stabilization project and the benefit is not only on the four units that are changing from rental to owner - occupied, there is a larger impact to gain. Kubly noted with project they are targeting units where the mortgage would be comparable to the fair market rents to make it affordable homeownership. Eastham noted the people in this area are predominately black and therefore the preference for the home ownership should state the buyers will be black residents. Lehmann said that may not be possible, the City attorney would have to be consulted. Alter noted that can be achieved by giving preference to the residents of the neighborhood without stating a race preference since many residents in the neighborhood are of one race. Vaughn asked how the City will find the buyers for these homes once converted from rentals. Kubly said that will come with communication with the neighborhood association and residents. And the priority would be for residents already in the South District, which encompasses more than just Taylor and Davis Streets. Padron noted that the City can prioritize residents in the neighborhood but what if none of them want to buy a house or qualify then it has to be available for others. Harms asked if there was a possibility of someone buying the units and turning them into rentals. Lehmann said it must be the buyer's primary residence and any sale within 10 years would have to be approved by the City for an income qualified buyer. Eastham asked about the Douglass Court/Douglass Street UniverCity project and how converting those rentals into owner -occupied affect the racial equity in that neighborhood. Kubly did not have that data readily available. McKinstry thanked the Staff for gathering this data and presenting it, he is supportive of the transition of rentals to owner -occupied and feels the impacts on racial equity will be seen after the project is complete. Housing and Community Development Commission September 20, 2018 Page 8 of 11 Harms asked if there are any other rental units the might possibility be available to be bought by the City and transitioned to owner -occupied. Kubly said they are going to look at a unit next week, she is not sure of the address, but before they move forward on any other units they want to make sure there is a positive outcome on this particular project. INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING: Lehmann shared with the Commission a presentation on the Fair Housing Study, what the study is, what it entails and how the City plans to carry it out. The City strives to affirmatively further fair housing, which is also a legal requirement as the City is the recipient of federal funds. However, fair housing does not just apply to those items funded by federal funds but by any activity of the City. Affirmatively furthering fair housing means the City has to take meaningful actions over historical patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice and strive to foster inclusive communities free from discrimination. Fair housing means one has the right to choose housing free from discrimination and for housing protections are stronger than for other categories such as credit or employment. In Iowa City, there are more housing protections than are federally required and what the State requires, for example public assistance as a source of income is a protected class in Iowa City in addition to age, disability, color, race, marital or family status in addition to other. These protections extend to owners, renters, and even includes those seeking financing or insurance for housing. This Fair Housing Study will update one completed in 2014, the City tries to update it every five years, and it will look at all barriers to fair housing, not just zoning laws, public regulations and policies the City uses but also the private market (landlords, banks, insurance companies). The Study also looks at the availability of affordable housing and range of unit sizes because that is an important component to fair housing choices. Staff intends to complete this study by May 2019 so it can inform the update to the Consolidated Plan the next year. Lehmann noted when this study was conducted last year, five major barriers were identified. The following are those barriers and what the City has done to address them, which is also reported to HUD: 1. Racial and ethnic concentrations in Iowa City. The City is trying to disperse affordable housing throughout the city to avoid concentrations and since FYI they have created 397 new affordable units dispersed throughout the community; the Affordable Housing Location Model helps disperse certain kinds of housing throughout the City by preventing concentrations of units. 2. The Affordable Housing Location Model disperses affordable housing but can reduce where new affordable housing can be made. In 2017 HCDC and Council revised the Model and decreased the areas in which affordable housing was restricted and this will continue to be an ongoing conversation. 3. African American and Hispanic individuals may experience unfair treatment in home mortgage loan denials and high-cost loans. This came up initially based on denial rates so the Office of Equity and Human Rights reviewed the lending data with more detail and information than the City originally had; their analysis showed banks classify any kind of loan not moving forward as a denial, so there is an inflated percentage of denials for some of these groups and the Office of Equity and Human Rights didn't find the same discrepancies as at first identified. 4. Barriers to mobility and free housing choice for protected classes and persons of low income. This is the reason public assistance as a source of income (Housing Choice Voucher receipients) became a protected class. Since that change, the City has seen 92 new landlords accept Housing Choice Vouchers and there is less turnover of vouchers as people search for housing. The City has also started surveying voucher holders about their experience using the program. 5. Fair housing violations go unreported either because there is a lack of confidence something will change or someone doesn't know they are a protected class and there is some form of discrimination going on. The City tries to do public education and make sure landlords are aware of what are and are not violations, trying to ensure tenants know what their rights are and publishing those things in multiple languages, and auditing sites for discriminatory ads. Housing and Community Development Commission September 20, 2018 Page 9 of 11 The City is starting the process and is collecting data, they have not begun analyzing data yet as they want to also get some public input to find information. They are meeting with stakeholder groups, so far the local Homeless Coordinating Board, and they are reaching out to landlords, realtors, home builders, apartment owners, they attended a Job Fair to talk with people trying to find jobs, and will host a public meeting on September 27. Lehmann noted there will also be a survey, so efforts are both broad and targeted to experts. Once data is collected and analyzed, they will begin drafting the report and receiving feedback. The timeline is to have an initial draft in February with a final draft in April and May. Eastham noted that if this Commission is going to be making a recommendation to Council regarding this study he hopes to see the document before May in order to have sufficient time to review. Lehmann agreed and noted the Commission will be reviewing the document through the multiple drafts. Lehmann asked the Commission their first blush feedback, any initial thoughts on what the City should first examine, and what are barriers to fair housing the Commission sees. Lehmann encourages the Commission to send him any comments. Vaughn suggested Lehmann email the Commission the documentation thus far so they can review and think about possible ideas and suggestions. Eastham noted that he feels zoning has been a barrier to affordable housing but does feel in the past couple years the Zoning Commission has not denied many multifamily zoning requests. Padron noted that many of people who are opposed to affordable housing in their neighborhoods have are very vocal with a good command of English and can prepare elaborate arguments whereas other constituents may not have a way to attend Council meetings or be able to speak in public, so perhaps the City can work for find a way to help those constituents be able to express their feelings and concerns. McKinstry noted a report that was in the paper a few months ago about Hills Bank having a higher rate of loan denials in Hispanic and Black applicants. McKinstry talked to Tim Feener at Hills Bank, and suggests Lehmann talk to him as well, and he explained how the process of reporting is discretionary and a lot of banks don't report denials on cases where people are have not even completed the application process, and Hills Bank does report that even through it is not that the bank denied the loan, it is the customer halting the procedures. Eastham added perhaps banks will deny people before any application process is started and therefore there is no paper trail and no reporting. Lehmann noted the public kickoff event for this study will be September 27 from 5:30 to 7:00 pm at the Assembly Room at the Senior Center and encourages the Commission to attend. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE FY18 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE &EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER)* — ONLINE AT www. icgov.orglactionplan Lehmann shared with the Commission a revised PR26 report which is included as an appendix to the CAPER to show the HUD income match what the City says because they are different standards of accounting, accrual versus cash basis. The CAPER is a report that shows what the City has accomplished in the past year and what projects from FY18 or earlier progressed or were completed. Lehmann focused his report to the Commission on the summary tables in the report, first showed the goals established in the Consolidated Plan which all funding decisions must meet. The table shows many goals were modest, 90 homeowner units rehabilitated, 5 households having direct homeowner assistance, and so forth; it also shows progress towards the goals and given what they expect in FY19 the City should reach its goals. The only category where it is unlikely to reach the goal is to Remove Slum and Blight, initially the City was doing fagade programs for businesses downtown and there has been a step back from that. There is still talk of doing fagade programs downtown but will not be funded through CDBG funds. Not only are we reporting the number of organizations we fund each year, we report the number of individuals we are assisting. The second table looks at specific projects from FY18, where they stand, what is complete, what still needs to be completed. Many projects are done, especially those for public facility and public service projects, affordable housing projects take longer to progress. The Housing and Community Development Commission September 20, 2018 Page 10 of 11 next table reports projects completed during FY18 by HOME and CDBG funds, regardless of the fiscal year the project was awarded and the other table shows the projects that are still underway as of the end of FY18. Lehmann noted the Race and Ethnicity Composition table shows that about 36% of the households the City assists are black or African American, about 47% are white, about 9% are Hispanic. Eastham asked if the statistics in that table are for projects that are only assisted with HOME or CDBG funds. Lehmann confirmed it was and showed only the projects completed in that particular fiscal year. He added public facility projects like with the Crisis Center helps many people so it inflates the numbers somewhat. The next table shows the resources available, in FY18 there were less new resources available, there were some holdover funds which will be expended this upcoming fiscal year. Eastham inquired if it was possible just to get a simple table to show for affordable housing the number of beneficiaries that actually reduced cost burden. Lehmann stated cost burden is not reported in the CAPER but it could be if it fits within the HUD structure of the report. Cost burden could be examined. Alter moved to approve and submit to HUD the FY18 Consolidated Annual Performance & Evaluation Report (CAPER), Eastham seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed 7-0 STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Lehmann noted the next meeting is October 11 and will be looking at one LITHC application and CDBG projects that don't have agreements. There may be a Consolidated Plan Amendment if an update is needed, and the FY20 Aid to Agencies applications have been received so those will be sent out for review. There is an affordable housing memo being drafted to show the progress the City has made in all its affordable housing programs and that will be shared with the Commission. The Affordable Housing Location Model memo is being forwarded to Council along with the South District Partnership Equity Review. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Brouse seconded. Passed 7-0. Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record Name Terms Exp. 9/21 10/30 11/16 12/18 1/23 2/15 3/15 4/19 5124 6121 7/10 9/20 Alter, Megan 6/30/21 -- -- – -- – – -- -- – – X X Brouse, Mitch 6/30/21 – – – – – – – – X X Conger, Syndy 6130/18 X X O/E X X X X X X X Eastham, Charlie 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X X X X X Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa 6/30/20 X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X O/E Harms, Christine 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X X X X X Lamkins, Bob 6/30/19 O/E X O/E X X O/E X O/E X O/E O/E O/E McKinstry, John 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X X O/E X X Olmstead, Harry 6/30/18 X O/E X X X X X X X X – Padron, Maria 6/30/21 X X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X Vaughan, Paula 6/30/19 X X O/E X X X X X X X X X Kev: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused — = Vacant MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20,2018-7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Dyer STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Ann Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Ritter, Matt Miller, Kyle Hancock RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 (Hensch recused, Dyer absent) the Commission recommends approval of REZ18-00018, an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for a rezoning of CI -1 to P-1 on 5.82 acres of land located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue subject to City Council approval of the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards, and 2. Prior to any site disturbance on the property receive approval from the State Archeologist to proceed. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEM (R Z18-00018): Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for the rezoning of approximately 5.82 acres of property located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1). Hensch recused himself from this item per his conflict of employment with Johnson County. Russett stated this rezoning application is for a change from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1), it is submitted by Johnson County, Iowa, for a proposed Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center or Access Center. The Access Center will provide services to Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 2 of 6 individuals experiencing behavioral health crises and connect them with necessary service such as mental health services or housing support and the center will provide crisis observation and stabilization, substance abuse treatment and act as a low -barrier winter shelter. The property is generally located at the northwest corner of Southgate Avenue and the Crandic Rail Line, the property is currently privately held however Johnson County has a purchase agreement for the property. Russett showed a map of the current zoning in the area, the project site is zoned Intensive Commercial, the areas to the east and west are also zoned Intensive Commercial, there are some areas to the north and the west that are zoned Community Commercial. The proposed zoning is to Neighborhood Public, which is a zone district that applied to properties owned by either County, the City or the Iowa City Community School District. The Comprehensive Plan, future plan use map, identifies this area a commercial and the South District Plan also identifies this area as an area for commercial development. Russett showed some photos of the project site. She noted the site is located within flood hazard areas, in both the 500 and 100 year floodplains. The City does have a floodplain management ordinance which does not allow facilities to locate within flood hazard areas if they are the base of operations for emergency services, are particularly difficult to evacuate during a flood event, or provide services essential to the life, health, and safety of the community. Per the floodplain management ordinance, these facilities are Class 1 Critical Facilities. Based on the description of the Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center, staff has determined it to be a Class 1 Critical Facility since the facility could be difficult to evacuate and would be unable to provide stabilization and treatment services during a flood event. In order to comply with the City's floodplain management ordinance, development of the proposed Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center requires raising the grade around the facility to the 500 -year flood level elevation. Furthermore, at least one access to and from the site needs to be passable during a 500 -year flood level event. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the development of the center must comply with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards. The site is accessed via Southgate Avenue and the applicant is exploring providing a connection to the site via Waterfront Drive that crosses the Crandic railroad and that access might be able to be used during a flood event. Russett noted there are also possible archeological resources in this area and therefore Staff recommends a condition of approval that the site must be approved by a State Archeologist prior to any site disturbance. In terms of stormwater management, the site was platted in 2007 and required at that time to install stormwater management facilities, and these stormwater management facilities will be further analyzed by the public works staff at the time of site plan review to ensure they have an adequate capacity for the proposed access center. Russett stated Staff has received one letter from the public regarding this possible rezoning, which was passed out to the Commission, and the concerns in the letter were focused on stormwater management. Staff recommends that REZ18-00018, an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for a rezoning of CI -1 to P-1 on 5.82 acres of land located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue subject to City Council approval of the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards, and Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 3 of 6 2. Prior to any site disturbance on the property receive approval from the State Archeologist to proceed. Signs asked if the access on Waterfront Drive would solve the problem of ingress and egress during a flood event. Russett noted part of Waterfront Drive is above the floodplain and based on the elevations it would probably be the best location for that access. Baker asked why staff chose to use the 500 year floodplain as the condition placed on approval rather than the 100 year event. Russett replied that the 500 year is what is required for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the Zoning Code. Baker asked what the difference between the 500 and 100 year events. Russett explained the difference as the percentage of which the event could occur. A 500 year flood event would happen with a 0.2% chance in a year and a 100 year event is a 1 % change within a year. Baker asked what the difference would be on the development if the City required it to be at the 100 year event standard. Russett said the elevation grade the property would need to be raised would be lower than the 500 year elevation. The impact of a 500 year event is greater and therefore the elevations need to be higher. Baker asked if the difference in elevations from the 100 to 500 year events have impact on the neighboring properties. Russett stated regardless they need to provide stormwater management. Townsend asked if the whole area would be raised to the 500 year level. Russett said just the building on the property and an access driveway. Townsend noted that at any given time there may be anywhere from 16 to 60 beds in the facility, and is concerned how to get that many people evacuated if there is a flood. Russett said that is why the facility needs to be elevated to the floodplain, in 2008 the access across the railroad tracks and even the corner of Southgate Avenue on the southeast side were not under water. Parsons noted there is generally enough warning during a 500 year flood event to have time to evacuate. Parsons opened the public hearing. Scott Ritter (Hart -Frederick Consultants) answered Baker question of the difference in elevations from a 500 and 100 year events is 2.7 feet and the natural ground there is at the 500 elevation so they will raise the area a little to get above that, and they would add an access off of Waterfront Drive to be used for emergencies. Ritter also noted regarding the letter from the neighbor, that property is above the subject property, the subject property is downstream. The difference between the subject property and Highway 6 is one foot difference in elevation. Baker asked if any other sites or locations were considered. Ritter is not privy to those discussions, that discussion would have been with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. Matt Miller (Project Manager, Johnson County) stated there were several other properties researched for this access center. He noted he was hired by the County on May 15 and at that point they already had this location picked out, but he does understand there were other locations previously looked at but for one reason or another just didn't pan out. Parsons asked about the Good Neighbor Meeting and if one has been held. Miller said one has not been held yet, but they are planning to conduct one. Kyle Hancock (Hansch, LLC, 1840 S. Gilbert Street) is concerned and wants to address the plan for runoff and stormwater management. The property that he owns is downstream and at lower Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2015 Page 4 of 6 elevations than the subject property and feels raising the subject property up will put his property and others at more of a risk. Hancock also raised concern about the construction process and plans, and if the building will be in the southeast corner of the property, he questions what is the proposed use of the rest of the property. Ritter responded that the rest of the site will remain as is except for the area where the building and parking lot will be. There is currently a detention pond already there with outflow going east. Parsons closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ78-00018, an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for a rezoning of CI -1 to P-1 on 5.82 acres of land located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue subject to City Council approval of the following conditions: 3. Compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards, and 4. Prior to any site disturbance on the property receive approval from the State Archeologist to proceed. Martin seconded the motion. Signs noted typically the Commission sees more of a site plan with such applications so they can see where the building will be located and where the detention basins will be, etc. Townsend is concerned with flooding in that area and the possibility of children being there during a flood. She noted that property will only have the building and parking lot and then a lot of open space that will be zoned P-1 and something could be put on that area like a school. Parsons asked if that were to happen, would Staff need to approve that site plan. Russett confirmed they would, and for a school to be there the property would need to be owned by the School District, as long as the County owns the property there could be a public use there but not likely a school. Hektoen noted that any structure that is put on this property would have to be elevated to the 500 year floodplain plus one foot. Martin stated she likes the proposal and feels good about the two caveats for the recommendation because this access center is something the area really needs. The plans for elevations make sense. Parsons agrees with Martin and feels this will serve the community and conforms with the area. Baker shared Signs concern that they did not receive site plans or elevations for this proposal. He added it helps with decision making and likes to have those items presented. Russett stated there are not different standards for rezoning public versus non-public zones, having a site plan and elevations is not something that is required of anyone for rezonings however is something that is encourage as it does help the Commission in the decision making process. Baker said if this were a private project he would likely want to defer and request more information, however he does agree with Martin that this access center is much needed in the community. Baker asked a general procedural question, at the last three meetings the Commission has been Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 5 of 6 asked to alter a regulation or zone based upon a specific problem of a specific project, here is a problem so change the rules for us situations. Baker wonders if that is a recurring process the Commission deal with often. Hektoen said they are not asking the Commission to change the rules for them, they are asking for a rezoning and a rezoning is to satisfy the needs of whoever is doing the development. Russett noted rezoning applications can be initiate by the City, the property owner, the developer, the purchaser, in effort to create a new project. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0 (Hensch recused, Dyer absent). Hensch rejoined the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 6,201 Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 6, 2018 Parsons seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett introduced the new associate planner, Jessie Lile. Baker will miss the October 18 meeting. Townsend will be absent October 4 and November 1 meetings. Adjournment: Martin moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 2/15 3/1 (W.S) 3/12 3/15 (W.S.) 4/2 4/5 (W.S) 4/16 4/19 5/3 5/17 6/7 6/21 7/5 8/16 9/6 9/20 BAKER, LARRY -- -- -- -- -- -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X O/E X X DYER, CAROLYN X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X O O/E O FREERKS, ANN X X X X X X X X O/E X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X O/E O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE O/E X X- X X X X X X X X X O/E TOWNSEND, BILLIE ---- ---- --- ---- --- X X X x KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 10-18-18 IP7 Preliminary Minutes August 16, 2018 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION August 16, 2018 ROOM 205, IOWA CITYMOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER Members Present: Kenn Bowen, Cheryll Clamon, Scott Finlayson, Margaret Reese, Hiram (Rick) Webber Members Absent: Lorraine Dorfman Staff Present: LaTasha DeLoach, Kristin Kromray Others Present: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Reese at 4:00 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE JULY 19, 2018 MEETING: Motion: To accept the minutes from the July 19, 2018 with amendments. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Bowen/Clamon PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS: Webber will attend an upcoming City Council meeting. Bowen will attend the Board of Supervisors meeting on September 6t'. OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW: DeLoach reported she is beginning work on the Friends of the Center Board. She is hoping to advertise the need for Friends board members in the near future. The first day of registration was today. Clamon noted that she had signed up for classes for the first time using the online registration site and she found it easy to use. Preliminary Minutes August 16, 2018 Reese said she was impressed by the wide range of classes, including both rigorous and fun options, for the fall and she appreciates that the classes are member driven. Bowen stated that he is on the Program Committee and that the members of the committee make suggestions for classes as well as talk to people who are interested in offering classes at the Senior Center. Clamon stated that she appreciates the opening of the billiards room so that members can bring in a guest. She brought her grandson in recently and they had a fun time. DeLoach is currently working on a grant from Delta Dental to get new water bottle filling stations throughout the building. Other building updates include brighter lighting in the elevator as well as the creation of a staff break room. DeLoach will be bringing in some traveling cultural exhibits from various museums. These will likely be displayed in the lobby area. DeLoach would like to improve the way -finding signs throughout the building. Ideas include color coded signs and well as more prominent welcome signs. Another option is getting TV's at the entrances with general and programming information. DeLoach is also hoping to update the bulletin boards to make them more attractive. She would also like to utilize yard signs to draw attention to the building. Commissioners discussed placing banners on the outside the building or projecting lights and or images onto the outside of the building. Webber asked if something could be done with the limestone block at the corner of the building. The blocks were part of the building and were removed to make space for the skywalk. DeLoach said it could not be painted but a plaque could be placed. DeLoach will be working with the Communications Department to come up with a marketing plan by the end of October. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Reese noted that the Commission currently has one seat open and will have two more at the end of this year. She asked Commissioners to think about people to potentially approach to let them know about the openings and how to apply. Clamon left the meeting. Reese noted that Kathy Mitchell had been the Commission Liaison to the Steering Council. She asked if any Commissioners would be willing to fill this role. Kromray reported that this meeting occurs on the 2nd Thursday of the month at 10:45. The Steering Council is meant to be the communication component that brings the various committees, including the Commission, together. This role Preliminary Minutes August 16, 2018 would entail attending the meeting and reporting on what the Commission discussed. Weber agreed to be the Commission Liaison. Webber noted that the trip hazards outside of Ecumenical Towers had been fixed after the last Commission meeting and that he appreciated the quick action by the City Manager's office. Reese asked if there were any items for the agenda in September for the Commission to discuss. It was suggested the memorial block be revisited. Reese asked DeLoach to add any items that she would like the Commissions feedback on. DeLoach also noted that she is happy to talk with Commissioners regarding any ideas they have for the Senior Center and to reach out to put those items on the agenda for the following month. Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 4/0. Bowen/Finlayson Preliminary Minutes August 16, 2018 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Name Term Ex fires 9/21/17 10/26/17 11/16/17 12/14/17 1/18/18 2/16/18 3/15/18 4/19/18 5/17/18 6/21/18 7/19/18 8/16/18 Kenn Bowen 12/31/20 X X NM X X X N/M X X X X X Cheryll Clanton 12/31/18 X X NM X X O/E N/M X X O/E X X Lorraine Dorfman 12/31/19 X X NM X X X N/M X X X X 0/E Robert (Scott) Finlayson 12/31/20 -- X X O/E X X Mark Holbrook 12/31/18 O/E X NM X Kathy Mitchell 12/31/19 X X NM X X X N/M X X X - Margaret Reese 12/31/17 X X NM O/E X X N/M X X X X X Hiram (Rick) Weber 12/31/20 X X NM X O/E X N/M X X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting -- = Not a member Preliminary Minutes August 16, 2018 10/16/2018 09:47 OF IOWA CITY 0 1 RRromray (CITY YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET REPORT IP glytdbud FOR 2019 99 -63,000 0 -63,000 ACCOUNTS FOR: ORIGINAL TRANFRS/ REVISED AVAILABLE PCT 1000 General APPROP ADJSTMTS BUDGET YTD ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET USED 10570100 Senior Center Administrations 10570100 336110 Johnson County -60,000 0 -60,000 -30,000.00 .00 -30,000.00 50.Ot 10570100 346600 Memhership Fees -63,000 0 -63,000 -20,615.00 .00 -42,385.00 32.71 10570100 356200 Permit Parking -26,000 0 -26,000 -8,160.00 .00 -17,840.00 31.41 10570100 362100 Contrib & Donation -64,000 0 -64,000 -2,835.00 .00 -61,165.00 4.4% 10570100 363910 Misc Sale of Merch -5,500 0 -5,500 -1,247.24 .00 -4,252.76 22.7* 10570100 369100 Reimb oExpes nse2 -3,09 0 -3,092 -543.00 .00 -2,549.00 17.6% 10570100 369300 Canhiefr Overages 0 0 0 .01 .00 -.01 100.0% 10570100 382200 Building/Room Rent -10,820 0 -10,820 -4,800.00 .00 -6,020.00 44.4% 10570100 382400 Locker Rentals -1,790 0 -1,790 -480.00 .00 -1,310.00 26.8% 10570100 384200 Vending Machine Co -160 0 -160 -17.86 .00 -142.14 11.244 TOTAL Senior Center Administrations -234,362 0 -234,362 -68,698.09 .00 -165,663.91 29.3% 10570220 Senior Center Classes 10570220 346400 Lessons -1,230 0 -1,230 -677.00 .00 -553.00 55.04; 10570220 348900 Charges for Servic -18,470 0 -18,470 -4,918.25 .00 -13,551.75 26.61 TOTAL Senior Center Classes -19,700 0 -19,700 -5,595.25 .00 -14,104.75 28.41 10570250 Senior Center Chorus 10570250 346500 Zntry-Fee-a -5,000 0 -5,000 -1,000.00 .00 -4,000.00 20.0% 10570250 369100 Raimh of Expenses -500 0 -500 .00 .00 -500.00 .O% TOTAL Senior Center Chorus -5,500 0 -5,500 -1,000.00 .00 -4,500.00 18.2% 10570260 Senior Center Special Events 10570260 346700 Syecial Events -4,000 0 -4,000 -613.58 .00 -3,386.42 15.3% 10570260 369100 Reimb of Expenses -15,000 0 -15,000 .00 .00 -15,000.00 .Ot TOTAL Senior Center Special Events -19,000 0 -19,000 -613.58 .00 -18,386.42 3.2% 10570270 Senior Center Television 10570270 363910 Misc Sale of Merch -850 0 -850 -156.00 .00 -692.00 18.6% 10/16/2018 09:47 (CITY OF IOWA CITY KKro=ay YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET REPORT FOR 2019 99 ACCOUNTS FOR: 1000 General ORIGINAL TRANFRS/ REVISED APPROP ADJSTMTS BUDGET TOTAL Senior Center Television -850 TOTAL General -279,412 TOTAL REVENUES -279,412 0 -850 0 -279,412 0 -279,412 Current Members as of 10/16/18 = 1647 P 2 glytdbud AVAILABLE PCT YTD ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET USED -158.00 .00 -692.00 18.6% -76,064.92 .00 -203,347.08 27.2% -76,064.92 .00 -203,347.08 10/16/2018 09:47 (CITY OF IOWA CITY IP 3 KKromray YRAR-TO-DATE BUDGET REPORT glytdbud FOR 2019 99 ORIGINAL TRANFRS/ REVISED APPROP ADJSTMTS BUDGET YTD ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCES AVAILABLE PCT BUDGET USED GRAND TOTAL -279.412 0 -279.412 -76.064.92 .00 -203.347.08 27.2% ** END OF REPORT - Generated by Kristin Kromray ••