HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-17 Info Packeti � 1
n i ,p'> *x
CITY 01 10VVA CITY
www.icgov.org
City Council Information Packet
IP1. Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
January 17, 2019
January 22 City Conference Board Meeting
IP2. Conference Board Agenda and Meeting Packet
January 22 Work Session
IP3. Work Session Agenda
IP4. Memo from Assistant City Manager: Analysis for a change in
temporary/hourly employee status
IPS. Pending Council Work Session Topics
Miscellaneous
IP6. Proposed resolution submitted by Council member Salih: University of Iowa
funding to the Labor Center
IP7. Memo from City Manager: Pedestrian Mall Bench Replacement
IP8. Memo from Assistant to the City Manager: Traffic Collision Analysis
IP9. Memo from Assistant to the City Manager: City Plaza Food Cart Vendors
IP10. Memo from Development Services Coordinator & Senior Building Inspector:
Regulations on construction activity
IP11. Memo from Assistant Transportation Planner: Progress on the Iowa City
Bicycle Master Plan
IP12. Memo from Budget & Compliance Officer: Quarterly Financial Summary for
Period Ending December 31, 2018.
IP13. Johnson County Board of Supervisors: 2019 Legislative Priorities and Issues
IP14. Iowa City Community School District: Legislative Priorities 2019
IP15. Invitation: Houses into Homes fundraiser, January 26
Draft Minutes
IP16. Airport Commission: December 20
IP17. Human Rights Commission: January 8
IP18. Planning and Zoning Commission, January 3
January 17, 2019 City of Iowa City Page 1
Item Number: 1.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Council TentaLive Meeting Schedule
r
City Council Tentative Meeting
Schedule
� AW
Subject to change
�r ON
• Mw=IGQ
CITY OF IOVVA CITY
January 17, 2019
Date
Time
Meeting
Location
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
5:00 PM
Iowa City Conference Board
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Work Session
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
5:00 PM
Iowa City Conference Board
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Work Session
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Monday, April 15, 2019
4:00 PM
Reception
ICCSD
4:30 PM
Joint Entities Meeting
TBA
Tuesday, April 16, 2019
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Item Number: 2.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Conference Board Agenda and Meeting Packet
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Agenda and Meeting Packet
OFFICE OF THE
IOWA CITY ASSESSOR
JOHNSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
BRAD COMER
ASSESSOR
MARTY BURKLE
CHIEF DEPUTY
MARY PAUSTIAN
DEPUTY
January 16, 2019
Dear Conference Board Member:
The annual meeting of the Iowa City Conference Board for the consideration of the Iowa City Assessor's
FY 2020 budget is scheduled for Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 5:00 P.M. at the Iowa City Civic Center.
Enclosed for your review before the meeting are:
1. The Agenda.
2. A copy of the February 20, 2018 minutes.
3. The Proposed Budget.
4. Annual performance review responses provided to the Assessor Evaluation Committee
(completed by the Assessor)
5. A salary survey.
6. A Board of Review Application.
7. Certification that the Assessor has completed continuing education requirements.
8. The 2018 Iowa City Assessor's Annual Report.
There is an increase in the amount to be raised by the Assessment Expense Fund from last year's amount.
The increase consists of:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
9.
h.
i.
J•
k.
$ 12,249
for a 2.25 percent COLA increase in salaries
$ 10,221
for merit increases.
$ 700
for a step increase (appraiser — new construction)
$ 2,095
for an increase in FICA.
$ 5,547
for an increase in IPERS.
$ 7,221
for an increase in health insurance.
$ 4,200
for an increase in Board of Review to be prepared for the possibility of a fall session
$ 100
for an increase in life insurance, which is based on salaries.
$ 200
for an increase in bonds and worker's compensation.
$ 23,000
for an increase in legal fees & expert witnesses.
4,000
for an increase to the auto replacement reserve fund.
$ 69,533
Total Increase
This increase is offset by the following decrease:
a. $ 5,700 to decrease postage, an alternate year expense
b. $ 2,500 to decrease printing, an alternate year expense
c. $ 100 to decrease dues.
8,300 Total Decrease
$ 61,233 Net Increase
913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET • IOWA CITY IOWA 52240
TELEPHONE 319-356-6066
The Assessment Expense Fund levy rate will change from 0.23187 to 0.19747.
The increase for salaries is based on a 2.25 percent cost of living increase. The enclosed salary survey
indicates that our salaries fall below those of the most comparable assessment jurisdictions in Iowa. The City
Assessor Evaluation Committee met on January 9, 2018 to review the performance of the Assessor and the
proposed budget.
Merit increases allow step increases similar to the pay plans used by the city, the county and the schools.
There is an increase of $700 to an appraiser position. This appraiser position receives much less in pay than
comparable positions in the Johnson County Assessor's office. This employee has 25 years in the office at his
current position, which is more than any other employee in either of the Assessor's offices. The average
salary of 3 county appraiser positions with more than 10 years of experience is $79,762 in the proposed FY20
budget. The positions are not identical, as there are some additional valuation duties that the county
appraisers have. Our goal is to get our appraiser within 20% of the county average. This $700 increase would
get us to that goal at 80% or $63,548.
The increases above are also reflected in FICA and IPERS.
Health insurance was increased due to a projected increase in rates for the next fiscal year.
Board of Review was increased to provide for the possibility of meeting in the fall. This has always been a
possibility, but has not been budgeted for in the past.
Postage and printing were decreased because 2020 will not be a reassessment year and we will not be mailing
assessment rolls to all property owners.
Employee life insurance premiums are based on salaries and must be increased when salaries increase.
Worker's compensation was changed due to increasing insurance premiums.
Dues were decreased slightly.
Legal fees and expert witnesses were increased in order to be prepared for the increase in appeals by tax
representatives.
The auto replacement reserve fund was increased by $4,000. This account builds by $4,000 per year and
carries over until a new car is needed.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions about individual items or wish to see any of the supporting
documents for this budget.
Sincerely,
Brad Comer
Iowa City Assessor
bcomer@co.johnson.ia.us
(319) 356-6066
JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA CITY IOWA CITY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY
SCHOOL BOARD
The Iowa City Conference Board Agenda
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
hiTiTl !A ►h
A. Call meeting to order by the Chairperson (Mayor).
B. Roll call by taxing body.
C. Motion to approve minutes of February 20, 2018 Conference Board
meeting.
Action:
D. FY 20 Budget
Comment — The purpose of this meeting is to set a date for a public
hearing on the Iowa City Assessor's proposed budget for FY 2020.
1. Assessor presents proposed budget (included in packet)
2. Discuss proposed budget. (Possible closed session, pursuant
to Iowa Code Section 21.5(1)(i), to evaluate the professional
competency of individuals whose appointment, hiring,
performance, or discharge is being considered. A motion
must be made to adjourn to executive session.)
3. Motion to approve publication on proposed budget.
Action:
E. Motion to set date for public hearing.
(Suggested date: February 19, 2019)
Action:
F. Present Board of Review applications
1. Appoint Board of Review member
Action:
G. Motion to re -appoint Chace Ramey as Examining Board member
(School Board Representative)
Action:
H. Re -appointment of Assessor
1. Re -appoint Brad Comer to a six year term as the Iowa City
Assessor beginning January 1, 2020
Action:
H. Other business.
I. Adjournment.
Action:
The Conference Board votes as three voting units, with a majority of the members present for each unit
determining the unit's vote. At least two members of a voting unit must be present in order to vote. A quorum is
reached when at least two members from two units are present.
IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD
MINUTES
February 20, 2018
City Conference Board: February 20, 2018 at 5:01 P.M. in the Council Chambers at
the Iowa City City Hall, Mayor Jim Throgmorton presiding.
Iowa City Council Members Present: Botchway, Cole, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Thomas
and Throgmorton.
Johnson County Supervisors Present: Sullivan and Rettig.
Iowa City School Board Members Present: None.
Others Present: Burkle, Comer, Fruin, Monroe, Dilkes and Fruehling.
Digital Recording: February 20, 2018.
Chair Jim Throgmorton called the meeting to order and Clerk Comer called roll and
stated that a quorum was present.
The City (Botchway) moved to accept the minutes of the last Conference Board
meeting, January 16, 2018, the County (Sullivan) seconded and the motion carried
unanimously 2/0. The Iowa City School Board, having no members present, did not
have a vote recorded.
Chairman Throgmorton declared the public hearing on the FY19 Budget open. After
no comment from the public, the public hearing was declared closed.
The City (Mims) moved to accept the proposed budget as published in the Iowa City
Press -Citizen on February 2, 2018 and the County (Rettig) seconded. Rettig asked if
the office has a reserve fund in the event that legal fees become excessive. Assessor
Comer responded that a number equal to 25% of the budget is held in reserve to cover
expenses for the time period of July 1 through September 30 prior to property taxes
being collected. He also stated that there is a $50,000 line item for legal fees in the
budget. The motion carried unanimously 2/0.
There being no other business, it was moved by the City (Botchway) and seconded by
the County (Sullivan) to adjourn at 5:04 P.M. Motion carried unanimously 2/0.
Brad Comer
Clerk, Iowa City Conference Board
IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
ITEMIZED BUDGET - ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND
EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES
FY 2019
FY 2020
INCREASE
SALARIES
Current
Proposed
CITY ASSESSOR
112,755
116,983
3.75%
CHIEF DEPUTY ASSESSOR
97,953
101,994
4.13%
DEPUTY ASSESSOR
90,910
94,660
4.12%
OTHER PERSONNEL
242,820
253,971
4.59%
STEP INCREASE (APPRAISER - NEW CONSTRUCTION)
(1,000)
(700)
MERIT INCREASES (have been added to salaries above)
(8,676)
(10,221)
SUBTOTAL
$544,438
$567,608
4.26%
Proposed salaries include merit increases, cost of living adjustments
and a step increase.
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
EMPLOYER SHARE: FICA
44,476
46,571
4.71%
EMPLOYER SHARE: IPERS
51,905
57,453
10.69%
HEALTH INSURANCE
158,630
165,851
4.55%
SUBTOTAL
255,011
269,874
5.83%
TOTAL EMPLOYEE COST
$799,449
$837,482
4.76%
OTHER EXPENDITURES
LEAVE CONTINGENCY
$20,000
$20,000
0.00%
BOARDS
BOARD OF REVIEW
16,800
21,000
25.00%
BOARD OF REVIEW EXPENSES
200
200
0.00%
CONFERENCE BOARD
0
0
EXAMINING BOARD
30
30
0.00%
SUBTOTAL
$17,030
$21,230
24.66%
OFFICE EXPENSES
MILEAGE & AUTO
4,500
4,500
0.00%
OFFICE SUPPLIES
3,500
3,500
0.00%
POSTAGE
8,100
2,400
-70.37%
TELEPHONE
1,300
1,300
0.00%
PUBLICATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS
700
700
0.00%
PRINTING
4,000
1,500
-62.50%
INSURANCE
4,700
4,800
2.13%
EQUIPMENT PURCHASE
3,400
3,400
0.00%
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
200
200
0.00%
UNEMPLOYMENT
2,000
2,000
0.00%
DATA PROCESSING SERVICES
18,000
18,000
0.00%
SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE
18,000
18,000
0.00%
BONDS & WORKER'S COMPENSATION
1,700
1,900
11.76%
COMPUTER REPLACEMENT
2,500
2,500
0.00%
SUBTOTAL
$72,600
$64,700
-10.88%
PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES
SCHOOLS & CONFERENCES
13,500
13,500
0.00%
DUES
2,400
2,300
-4.17%
SUBTOTAL
$15,900
$15,800
-0.63%
TECHNICAL SERVICES
LEGAL FEES & EXPERT WITNESSES
52,000
75,000
44.23%
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
10,000
10,000
0.00%
APPRAISAL SERVICE
1,000
1,000
0.00%
SUBTOTAL
$63,000
$86,000
36.51%
TOTAL OTHER EXPENDITURES
$188,530
$207,730
10.18%
SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES
$987,979
$1,045,212
RESERVES
AUTO REPLACEMENT
12,000
16,000
TOTAL RESERVES
$ 12,000
$ 16,000
TOTAL ASSMT EXPENSE FUND BUDGET
$999,979
$1,061,212
6.12%
UNENCUMBERED BALANCE
$140,008
$317,694
126.91%
TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION
$859,971
$743,518
-13.54%
IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
MAXIMUM LEVY ALLOWED
MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND 3,765,219,654 X.000675 $2,541,523
IPERS & FICA FUNDS $103,897
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION & TORT LIABILITY $4,000
MAXIMUM ALLOWED WITHOUT STATE APPROVAL $2,649,420
MAXIMUM EMERGENCY FUND 3,765,219,654 X.00027 $1,016,609
(requires State Appeal Board approval)
MAXIMUM THAT COULD BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR FY 2019 $3,666,029
PRIOR YEARS LEVIES AND RATES
SPECIAL APPRAISERS FUND
ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND
FY
AMOUNT LEVIED
LEVY RATE
1996-97
319,513
0.20450
1997-98
318,270
0.19946
1998-99
318,699
0.19269
1999-00
341,910
0.19784
2000-01
359,341
0.19823
2001-02
396,829
0.20636
2002-03
403,136
0.20694
2003-04
412,379
0.20818
2004-05
470,398
0.22926
2005-06
472,050
0.22525
2006-07
529,702
0.23164
2007-08
603,916
0.25868
2008-09
611,955
0.24917
2009-10
600,013
0.23848
2010-11
621,785
0.23147
2011-12
680,786
0.24538
2012-13
700,997
0.24164
2013-14
769,744
0.25873
2014-15
732,073
0.23866
2015-16
754,689
0.24325
2016-17
804,099
0.24339
2017-18
859,971
0.25141
2018-19
838,975
0.23187
2019-20
743,518
0.19747
SPECIAL APPRAISERS FUND
TOTAL LEVY
AMOUNT LEVIED
LEVY RATE
17,000
0.01088
0.21538
52,834
0.03311
0.23257
184,357
0.11146
0.30415
352,508
0.20398
0.40182
180,293
0.09946
0.29769
6,442
0.00335
0.20971
4,426
0.00227
0.20921
10,051
0.00507
0.21325
15,728
0.00767
0.23693
25,995
0.01240
0.23765
0
0
0.23164
4,792
0.00205
0.26073
1,540
0.00063
0.24980
0
0
0.23848
8,730
0.00325
0.23472
2,608
0.00094
0.24632
8,384
0.00289
0.24453
N/A
N/A
0.25873
N/A
N/A
0.23866
N/A
N/A
0.24325
N/A
N/A
0.24339
N/A
N/A
0.25141
N/A
N/A
0.23187
N/A
N/A
0.19747
IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW
Conducted January 2018
(Completed by the Iowa City Assessor)
Assessors Name: Brad Comer
Date of Review: January 9, 2018
Has the assessor adequately performed all duties as required by the Iowa Code § 441 and as outlined in the
assessor's job description?
Yes, I have performed the duties as required in the code. Much of the credit goes to our veteran,
knowledgeable staff who allow our office to operate in a very efficient manner.
Has the assessor complied with all applicable Iowa City and Johnson County policies and procedures?
Yes, we have complied with those policies and procedures. We follow the Johnson County Employee
Handbook.
What is Iowa City's ranking on the most recent state listing of Coefficients of Dispersion? Also list any other
related data, awards, classes or recognitions.
The Coefficient of Dispersion (COD) is a measure of the average deviation from the median of selling
price to assessment ratios, with a low ratio considered good. Iowa City ranked first in the state with a
residential COD of 7.50. The median of the 107 jurisdictions was 21.15. The statistics are from a
Department of Revenue study of the 2017 sales. The 2017 commercial sales show that we are ranked 6`h
overall with a COD of 12.03 and 3rd among jurisdictions with more than 5 sales. The median for all
jurisdictions was 29.59.
Based on the FYE 2019 budget, our office has the 5'h lowest assessor levy rate in Iowa. The Iowa City
Assessor levy is .23187, while the median across all 107 assessing jurisdictions is .42853. When
considering 2017 Census estimates and FY2019 Assessment Expense Levies, Iowa City has the 2"
lowest tax per capita to operate the assessor's office among the 20 highest paid assessors.
During the past year I attended 3 separate conferences in Iowa which covered various educational
offerings. The ISAA (Iowa State Association of Assessors) Annual School of Instruction and two ISAC
(Iowa State Association of Counties) conferences. I also attended the IAAO (International Association
of Assessing Officers) Annual Conference on Assessment Administration in Minneapolis.
In my time as a Deputy Assessor, I served on numerous committees for the Iowa State Association of
Assessors (ISAA). I am also a past president of the East Central District of Assessors (ECD). I am
currently serving on the IDR (Iowa Department of Revenue)/ISAC Working Group SF295 and the ISAA
Ways and Means Committee.
List any pertinent input (anonymously) from the assessor's staff, the community and/or the Review Board
regarding the assessor's performance.
I have not received complaints from the public, the community, the Board of Review or the staff. I
encourage you to talk with anyone who may interact with our office. We take great pride in being very
responsive to any request, as well as being fair and understanding when dealing with property owners.
Review previous goals and objectives:
1. Continue in-house appraisal of all single family residential properties in Iowa City with a goal
of 1050 properties visited by 1/1/2019. In progress. By 12/31/2018, we were at 1225 properties
which is above our goal and an improvement over the past few years. We also monitor real estate
listings on-line and have been able to gain valuable information that our office may not have
previously been aware of.
2. Request income and expenses for" income type properties. Increase the weight of our income
approach on apartments from 60% to at least 75% for the 2019 assessments. Income and
expense questionaires were mailed to property owners in April 2018. Responses were input to our
appraisal software. Income approach will be weighted at 80% of the 2019 assessments. Rental
information is also gathered from apartment owner websites.
3. Evaluate whether we have received enough information to incorporate the income approach
on commercial properties. We continue to receive a minimal response from commercial property
owners when we request property income and expenses. They are not required to provide that
information and due to a lack of information available we continue to assess at 100% cost approach.
4. Analyze land values for all classes of property and revalue as needed for the 2019 assessment.
Land revaluation is nearing completion and will be complete for the 2019 assessments.
Other goals:
List goals, objectives and areas of concern for the coming year:
1. Continue in-house appraisal of all single family residential properties in Iowa City with a goal
of 1300 properties visited by 1/1/2020.
2. Cross train employees to allow our office to better assist the public in answering questions and
to create efficiencies in the office.
3. Start process of collecting data and entering all non-taxable government parcels in our
appraisal software. Complete land data entry and valuation by 7/1/19.
Employee Comments pertaining to this review:
The hours of operation for the Assessor's Office was brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors by a
county employee. Currently the County and City Assessor's Offices close at 4:00 pm, while a number of other
offices in the County Administration Building remain open until 4:30 pm. The Assessor does remain open later
when there is an expected. increase in counter traffic, such as when deadlines for credit applications or
assessment appeals are approaching. The Assessor Evaluation Committee is not recommending any changes at
this point. The committee would like it noted that this was discussed based on a comment from within the
County Administration Building.
Signed: � P—hv-1, Date:
Employee
Signed
-e Date:
r
Conference Board Assessor Evaluation Committee
JURISDICTION
0102
SALARY
0910
SALARY
2018
1011
SALARY
SALARY
1112
SALARY
SURVEY
1213
SALARY
1314
SALARY
1415
SALARY
1516
SALARY
1617
SALARY
1718
SALARY
1819
SALARY
% RAISE
1 YEAR
% RAISE
5 YEAR
% RAISE
17 YEAR
1ST
DEPUTY
AMES
79,959
107,276
110,500
113,938
116,662
120,322
123,943
127,668
131,300
137,770
143,302
4.02%
19.10%
79.22%
114,932
POLK COUNTY
93,867
118,177
121,722
122,330
122,330
125,157
127,974
131,493
135,437
138,822
142,639
2.75%
13.97%
51.96%
133,092
POTTAWATTAMIE
74,764
100,845
102,862
104,919
108,067
111,307
115,087
118,155
123,526
127,868
131,609
2.93%
18.24%
76.03%
105,288
CEDAR RAPIDS
74,378
104,099
106,181
109,328
114,015
117,171
120,083
122,484
125,546
128,057
130,618
2.00%
11.48%
75.61%
112,849
JOHNSON
63,500
95,470
97,500
99,455
101,616
106,976
111,297
114,640
117,506
122,206
127,094
4.00%
18.81%
100.15%
107,548
STORY
69,300
97,500
100,425
102,435
104,485
106,575
108,705
111,670
116,150
123,000
126,690
3.00%
18.87%
82.81%
101,355
SIOUX CITY
68,294
84,000
84,000
84,840
86,537
91,000
93,730
96,073
98,955
101,429
122,990
21.26%
35.15%
80.09%
98,392
LINN
65,472
87,069
89,246
91,477
93,581
95,764
99,563
102,550
105,622
109,685
122,000
11.23%
27.40%
86.34%
101,185
DALLAS
57,200
83,770
85,450
87,150
88,904
91,572
93,403
102,650
105,730
112,074
118,747
5.95%
29.68%
107.60%
100,963
IOWA CITY
63,340
87,060
89,500
91,510
94,970
99,010
103,340
100,000
104,500
108,680
112,755
3.75%
13.88%
78.02%
97,953
CLINTON CO
102,478
135,475
139,201
146,017
146,525
150,188
152,790
154,341
157,640
161,730
110,000
-31.99%
-26.76%
7.34%
85,000
DAVENPORT
67,836
92,043
94,803
97,648
97,189
98,160
100,756
104,453
106,135
107,842
109,998
2.00%
12.06%
62.15%
99,206
DUBUQUE CITY
66,083
87,317
87,317
87,317
89,937
92,635
95,414
98,276
101,224
106,295
108,430
2.01%
17.05%
64.08%
89,289
MUSCATINE
66,432
87,557
87,557
89,309
91,540
94,280
96,166
99,060
102,280
105,200
108,360
3.00%
14.93%
63.11%
74,268
BOONE
45,000
58,368
90,000
90,000
88,000
93,380
95,719
100,724
102,990
105,305
107,674
2.25%
15.31%
139.28%
63,219
BLACKHAWK
66,200
87,320
87,320
88,630
90,420
92,457
95,004
97,854
100,790
103,813
106,928
3.00%
15.65%
61.52%
74,819
WOODBURY
63,600
85,760
85,760
87,050
89,660
94,080
97,840
95,000
97,850
100,790
105,000
4.18%
11.61%
65.09%
91,350
DUBUQUE COUNTY
62,500
83,410
83,410
83,410
85,912
88,489
91,144
93,878
100,413
100,079
103,081
3.00%
16.49%
64.93%
83,496
SCOTT
62,666
87,506
89,256
91,486
93,316
95,183
97,087
99,890
96,000
98,100
101,100
3.06%
6.22%
61.33%
66,000
WARREN
55,000
74,722
70,500
72,263
73,800
75,046
76,500
80,413
86,600
88,332
91,000
3.02%
21.26%
65.45%
72,800
Iowa City Rank
MEDIAN
66,142
87,413
89,378
91,482
93,449
95,474
98,702
101,637
105,061
108,261
111,378
3.00%
16.07%
70.53%
98,173
2001-02 JOHNSON AND IOWA CITY HAD NEW ASSESSORS STARTING WITH A SIMILAR RATE
2017-18 JOHNSON AND IOWA CITY HAD NEW ASSESSORS WITH 12.44% DIFFERENCE
CLINTON COUNTY COMBINED CITY AND COUNTY ASSESSORS FOR THE 2018-19 YEAR.
LINN CO AND SIOUX CITY BOTH HIRED NEW ASSESSORS FROM OUTSIDE OF THEIR OFFICE IN THE PAST YEAR WHICH RESULTED IN LARGE INCREASES.
POTTAWATTAMIE HIRED A NEW ASSESSOR FROM WITHIN THEIR OFFICE IN THE PAST YEAR.
JURISDICTION
POLK COUNTY
POTTAWATTAMIE
CEDAR RAPIDS
SIOUX CITY
LINN
DALLAS
IOWA CITY
CLINTON CO
DAVENPORT
DUBUQUE CITY
MUSCATINE
BOONE
BLACKHAWK
DUBUQUE CO.
City Rank
2018-19
Taxable
Taxes
Population
Population
Taxes Per
Value 2017
Value Per
Budgeted
Budget Per
of
Per
STAFF
Taxable
Employee
2017
Employee
Jurisdiction
Employee
8
$2,917
$ 365
$ 1,219,697
$ 152,462
66,498
8,31
37
$23,334
$ 631
$ 6,495,107
$ 175,543
481,830
13,02
13
$4,893
$ 376
$ 1,812,369
$ 139,413
93,386
7,18
13
$6,681
$ 514
$ 2,179,020
$ 167,617
132,228
10,17
10
$4,453
$ 445
$ 1,467,152
$ 146,715
73,412
7,34
7
$1,626
$ 232
$ 862,693
$ 123,242
31,004
4,42
8
$2,760
$ 345
$ 1,210,759
$ 151,345
82,514
10,31
13
$4,398
$ 338
$ 1,718,787
$ 132,214
91,887
7,06
12
$5,465
$ 455
$ 1,731,624
$ 144,302
87,235
7,27
7
$3,660
$ 523
$ 987,979
$ 141,140
75,798
10,82
6
$1,336
$ 223
$ 622,822
$ 103,804
47,010
7,83
12
$4,345
$ 362
$ 1,568,589
$ 130,716
102,320
8,52
6
$2,505
$ 418
$ 780,695
$ 130,116
58,276
9,71
6
$1,974
$ 329
$ 756,532
$ 126,089
42,880
7,14
7
$1,401
$ 200
$ 813,187
$ 116,170
26,484
3,78
14
$5,424
$ 387
$ 1,603,833
$ 114,560
132,648
9,47
5
$1,607
$ 321
$ 817,940
$ 163,588
19,915
3,98
5.75
$2,304
$ 401
$ 700,547
$ 121,834
38,765
6,74
8
$4,353
$ 544
$ 1,061,600
$ 132,700
70,189
8,77
7
$2,094
$ 299
$ 861,800
$ 123,114
50,163
7,16
2018-19
Assessment
Taxes Per
Residential
Commercial
Yrs in
Appraisal
Expense Levy
Capita
COD 2017
COD 2017
Office
Experience
0.29989
$18.34
9.93
37.70
12
31
0.25471
$13.48
14.00
22.23
4
38
0.35557
$19.41
21.11
24.50
1
30
0.29933
$16.48
11.75
19.71
18
33
0.31212
$19.99
8.05
23.54
3
27
0.49808
$27.83
16.13
20.93
40
45
0.31049
$14.67
18.39
33.95
17
25
0.29558
$18.71
8.76
17.38
10
25
0.25251
$19.85
9.67
24.22
15
25
0.23187
$13.03
7.69
12.03
4
23
0.26734
$13.25
18.54
19.60
3
7
0.32800
$15.33
15.92
46.15
4
27
0.27535
$13.40
15.43
45.74
17
39
0.35068
$17.64
14.78
30.14
26
40
0.56004
$30.70
21.83
48.33
12
30
0.25005
$12.09
20.76
26.28
4
18
0.50886
$41.07
16.53
55.47
4
25
0.27779
$18.07
11.53
29.18
13
37
0.19523
$15.12
10.80
23.38
3
14
0.40098
$17.18
16.02
37.37
2
17
MILLIONS MILLIONS YEARS
MEDIAN 8 $ 3,289 $371 $1,136,180 $132,457 63,889 7,588 0.29961 $17.41 15.11 25.39 7 27
10 OF THESE 20 JURISDICTIONS HAVE AN ASSESSOR WITH 4 YEARS OR LESS IN THE POSITION.
IOWA CITY HAS THE SECOND LOWEST ASSESSOR LEVY RATE ON THE LIST.
TAXES BUDGETED FOR THE OFFICE DIVIDED BY 2017 POPULATION SHOWS IOWA CITY AT THE SECOND LOWEST AMOUNT.
POPULATION NUMBERS ARE BASED ON 2017 ESTIMATES FROM WWW.CENSUS.GOV
NOTICE
THE CITY CONFERENCE BOARD IS CONSIDERING APPOINTMENT TO THE FOLLOWING BOARD:
BOARD OF REVIEW
One vacancy — Six -Year Term
January 1, 2019 - December 31, 2024
• It is the duty of members of the Board of Review to: equalize assessments by raising or lowering
the individual assessments of real property, including new buildings, personal property or monies
and credits made by the Assessor;
• to add to the assessed rolls any taxable property which has been omitted by the Assessor.
Members of the Board of Review shall be residents of the Assessor's jurisdiction. Iowa City -appointed
members of boards and commissions must be 18 years of age. The City of Iowa City encourages diversity
in the appointment of citizens to boards and commissions
Applications can be completed and submitted on the City of Iowa City website at www.icgov.orq
or by contacting the Clerk's office. Vacancy open until filled.
Questions about the Iowa City Board of Review should be directed to Brad Comer at 356-6066.
Board/Commission Application Cover
Board/Commission: Board of Review
One vacancy to fill a six-year term
1/1/2019 -12/31/2024
It is hereby established, as a formal policy of the City Council of Iowa City, that each application for reappointment to
a City Board or Commission will be considered without regard to incumbency. If reappointed, an individual would be
limited to one reappointment to a full term in order to increase the opportunities for new applicants to serve.
Council Announcement Date: 10/2/2018
Application Deadline: Open until filled
Appointed by City Conference Board
Date of Non -Gender Appointment: 1/3/2019
After date above City Conference Board may appoint without
regard to gender.
Gender Balance Requirement: None
Current Gender Balance: Female: 2 Male: 2
Gender ! Name and Address
Male Hahn, Mike
52 Brentwood Lane
r Advisory Board/Commission Application Form
This application is a public document and as such can be reproduced and distributed for
awl®' m i
the public. This application will be considered for twelve months only and automatically
CITY OF IOWA CITY considered for any vacancy during that time.
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
If appointed to a Board/Commission, all other applications will be removed from
consideration.
NOTE: Must be 18 years of age and live within city limits of Iowa City to apply
Date of Application
12/13/2018
First Name
mike
Last Name
hahn
Home Address*
52 brentwood lane
City
IOWA CITY
State
IA
Zip Code*
52245
Is your home address (listed above) within the corporate limits of Iowa City?*
Yes
Contact Phone Number*
319-0847
Email Address*
mhahn@mccomaslacina.com
Boards & Commissions
Select a Board or Commission you are interested in:
Review, Board of
Board of Review Category*
Registered Architect or a Person
Experienced in Building and Construction
Preference on first choice
If rrultiple boards are being applied for.
How long have you been a resident of Iowa City?*
45+ years
Occupation:
general contractor
Gender*
'This question is rrandatory in order for the City to corrply with the State's gender balance requirerrent, which treats gender as binary. "Gender Identity" ray
be provided in the Derrographics sectionof the application below.
V Male
F Female
Experience and/or activities which you feel qualify you for this position:*
I have been in the construction business for 40 years and co owner of mccomas lacina construction a general
contracting firm for the last 15 years doing both commercial and residential construction my expertise was in
estimating which gives me a very good working knowledge of the cost of numerous types of projects
What is your present knowledge of each advisory board you are interested in?*
the review board of is challenged with listening to concerned owners and determine a fair assessed value
Please contact the City Attorney at 356-5030 to discuss questions or concerns regarding a potential conflict
of interest. The following describe some but not all potential conflicts.
Potential Conflicts of Interest
The Housing and Community Development Commission makes recommendations to the City Council
regarding the distribution of federal CBDG/HOME funds. The general rule is that no persons who exercise or
have exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to federally funded activities, or who are in a
position to participate in the decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities,
may obtain a financial interest or benefit from a federally—assisted activity, or have a financial interest in any
contract, subcontract, or agreement with respect to a federally -assisted activity, or with respect to the
proceeds of the federally -assisted activity, either for themselves or those with whom they have business or
immediate familyties, during their tenure orfor one yearthereafter.
Section 362.5 of the Code of lowagenerally prohibits, with certain important exceptions, a member of a City
Board or Commission from having an interest in a City contract.
City Council Resolution # 15-300 established a policy that the following persons shall not be eligible for
appointment to Boards and Commissions:
A Council Member's spouse, domestic partner or partner by cohabitation, children, step -children, children
for whom the Council Member assumes parental responsibility, mother, father, son-in-law, daughter-in-law,
mother-in-law, father-in-law, step-parent, brother, sister, step -siblings and half -siblings, brother-in-law,
sister-in-law, grandparents and grandchildren, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, first cousin, foster parent, foster
child, persons who are parents of the same child, and persons with whom the employee is in an intimate
relationship
Res. #15-300 states that each application for reappointment to a City Board or Commission will be
considered without regard to incumbency. If reappointed, an individual would be limited to one reappointment
to a full term in order to increase the opportunities for new applicants to serve.
Council policy is not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards or Commissions at the same
time. You will be asked to resign from one if appointed to another.
Do you currently have a conflict of Interest?*
No
Do you currently serve on another Iowa City board or commission?*
No
Demographic Information
The City Council values all types of diversity on its Boards and Commissions. Your responses on this page
provide valuable information to the Council in achieving that goal.
In order to ensure that the Board and Commission is representative of the community and the groups(s) which
it serves, please provide your information for the following:
Age
68
Country of Origin
Sexual Orientation
Religion
Do you have a disability?
No
Ethnicity
Race
Gender identity
*NOTE:
The Human Rights Commission strives to ensure the Commission is representative of the community.
Therefore, appointment shall take into consideration persons of various racial, religious, cultural, social and
economic groups in the city. (Ordinance)
The Housing and Community Development Commission strives to satisfy its purpose and intent, when
possible to have at least one person with expertise in construction, at least one person with expertise in
finance, and one person who receives rental assistance. (Resolution)
Signature of Applicant*
Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an
appointee. If you fail to answer all the questions, except demographics, Council will not
consider your application.
You are encouraged to contact individual Council Members to express your interest in
serving.
`December 20, 2018
Chairperson, Iowa City Conference Board
Hoover State Office Building
1305 East Walnut Street
Des Moines, IA 50319
hftps://tax.iowa.gov
This shall serve as official certification from the Director that Brad Comer, Iowa City Assessor,
has successfully completed the continuing education requirements for Iowa assessors as set forth
in Iowa Code Section 441.8 and therefore is eligible for reappointment as Iowa City Assessor.
cc: Brad Comer, Iowa City Assessor
L
a� =a -
IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
2018 ANNUAL REPORT
ASSESSOR
=j a=ak
IOWA CITY
ASSESSOR
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
2018-2019 IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD................................................................. 2
IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL............................................................................................. 2
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD................................................................... 2
JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.......................................................... 2
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FINANCE......................................................... 2
OTHER BOARDS AND SUPPORT STAFF......................................................................... 3
IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE STAFF..................................................................... 3
IOWA CITY BOARD OF REVIEW..................................................................................... 3
IOWA CITY EXAMINING BOARD..................................................................................... 3
LEGALCOUNSEL............................................................................................................ 3
ANNUALREPORT............................................................................................................... 4
MISSION STATEMENT.................................................................................................... 4
GOALS.............................................................................................................................. 4
OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................... 4
VALUATIONS................................................................................................................... 5
COURTCASES................................................................................................................ 5
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD................................................................ 5
BOARDOF REVIEW........................................................................................................ 6
EQUITY VERSUS MARKET IN ASSESSMENT............................................................... 6
WEBPAGE....................................................................................................................... 6
ROLLBACKS..................................................................................................................... 6
NEWLEGISLATION......................................................................................................... 6
CONTINUING EDUCATION............................................................................................. 8
ASSESSMENTDATA.......................................................................................................... 9
2018 ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR IOWA CITY ................................................ 9
EXEMPT PROPERTY IN IOWA CITY FOR 2018............................................................. 9
VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED ................................................
10
COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL VALUES TO
TOTAL ASSESSED AND TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE ...................................................
12
2017 TOP REAL ESTATE TAXPAYERS........................................................................
13
COMPARISON OF TAX RATES TO CITIES WITH A CITY ASSESSOR .......................
14
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS................................................................................
14
RESIDENTIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS..........................................................
14
COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.........................................................
16
HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICS.......................................................
16
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
2018-2019 IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD
IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL
2019 Council
Jim Throgmorton, Mayor
Pauline Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem
Bruce Teague
Rockne Cole
Susan Mims
Mazahir Salih
John Thomas
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD
2018-19 School Board
Janet Godwin, President
*Paul Roesler, Vice President
J.P. Claussen
Shawn Eyestone
**Ruthina Malone
*Phil Hemingway
Lori Roetlin
*Conference Board Designee
**Alternate Conference Board Designee
2018 Council
Jim Throgmorton, Mayor
Pauline Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem
Susan Mims
Rockne Cole
Terry Dickens
Kingsley Botchway II
John Thomas
2017-18 School Board
Janet Godwin, President
**Paul Roesler, Vice President
J.P. Claussen
Shawn Eyestone
*Phil Hemingway
*Ruthina Malone
Lori Roetlin
JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
2019 Board
Lisa Green -Douglass, Chairperson
Rod Sullivan, Vice Chairperson
Pat Heiden
Royceann Porter
Janelle Rettig
2018 Board
Mike Carberry, Chairperson
Lisa Green -Douglass, Vice Chairperson
Kurt Friese
Janelle Rettig
Rod Sullivan
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FINANCE
Courtney M. Kay -Decker— Director, Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance
2
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
OTHER BOARDS AND SUPPORT STAFF
IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE STAFF
Brad Comer — Iowa City Assessor
Marty Burkle — Chief Deputy Assessor
Mary Paustian — Deputy Assessor
Mark Fedler — Appraiser/Clerk
Diane Campbell — Accounting Clerk
Todd Kruse — Real Estate Clerk
Bruce Sodahl — Appraiser
IOWA CITY BOARD OF REVIEW
Ernie Galer, Chairperson
Dave Hintze,
Phoebe Martin
Chuck McComas
Sara Meierotto
IOWA CITY EXAMINING BOARD
Karin Franklin for Iowa City
Mike Kennedy for Johnson County
Chace Ramey for Iowa City Schools
LEGAL COUNSEL
Eleanor Dilkes — City Attorney
Eric Goers — Assistant City Attorney
9
Date of Employment: 14 Jan, 2002
Appointed 2015 thru 2019 (remainder of prior
assessor's appointment)
Date of Employment: 01 Feb, 2006
Hired as Chief Deputy 9 Mar, 2015
Date of Employment: 05 Jan, 2011
Hired as Deputy 8 June, 2015
Date of Employment: 20 Jun, 1994
Date of Employment: 16 Feb, 1998
Date of Employment: 14 May, 2001
Date of Employment: 29 May, 2018
Appointed 2018 through 2023
Appointed 2013 through 2018
Appointed 2015 through 2020
Appointed 2014 through 2019
Appointed 2016 through 2021
Appointed 2018 through 2023
Appointed 2017 through 2022
Appointed 2013 through 2018
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
ANNUAL REPORT
To: Members of the Iowa City Assessor's Conference Board
From: Brad Comer — Iowa City Assessor
Subject: 2018 Annual Report — Issued December 31, 2018
The following report covers the activities of this office from January 1, 2018 to date of issue.
MISSION STATEMENT
The purpose of the Iowa City Assessor's Office is to find, list and value for tax purposes, all
real property in Iowa City and maintain records for all parcels in Iowa City.
GOALS
To establish values according to Iowa law on all commercial, industrial, agricultural,
residential and multi -residential property within the City of Iowa City; to achieve equitable
assessments across all classes of property based on actual physical aspects of the
property and all pertinent sales data available; to improve the efficiency by which these
assessments are made; to provide prompt and courteous response to all inquiries for
information.
OBJECTIVES
1. Receive calls and inquiries and dispense information efficiently and in a timely manner.
2. Complete all daily record changes and related duties as they are received.
3. On a quarterly basis, inspect and review all new construction and demolition, and make
final review of said construction and demolition by January 1 every year.
4. Notify all new homeowners of potential eligibility for the homestead and military credits
by July 1 every year.
5. Notify all owners of commercial and industrial property of potential eligibility for the
business property tax credit (BPTC) by July 1 every year.
6. Remove all homestead exemptions, military credits and business property tax credits
from the permanent file for those who are no longer eligible to receive the credit by July
1 every year.
7. Efficiently process all other new and routine annual filings, making sure they are in
compliance with all laws and rules, and filed by their statutory dates.
8. Send out assessment notices to all properties requiring assessment notices, by April 1 st
every year.
9. Accept formal written protests for the Board of Review from April 2nd to April 30th,
inclusive, every year and coordinate the Board of Review meetings during the month of
May.
10. Receive and review tentative equalization orders from the State Department of Revenue
and Finance in August of reassessment years.
11. Receive final equalization orders by October 1 of reassessment years.
12. Accept formal written protests for the Board of Review Special Session from October 9
thru October 31 inclusive of reassessment year and coordinate the Board of Review
Special Session from October 10 to November 15 of reassessment years, if needed.
13. Prepare and distribute the annual report by December 31 every year.
14. Hold preliminary Conference Board and public hearings to adopt the annual budget by
March 15 every year.
15. Prepare and submit annual abstract to the Department of Revenue & Finance by July 1
every year.
rd
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
16. Maintain assessment information on website at httg:Hiowacity.iowaassessors.com and
make improvements based on input from the public. The site went online February 15,
2001 and has over 2 million hits since that time.
17. Provide online access to application forms for Homestead Credits, Military Exemptions,
Commercial Property Tax Credits, Charitable Exemptions, Business Property Tax Credits,
and Board of Review petition forms which are available on our Johnson County website at
http://www.mohnson-county.com
18. Review sales as they occur and compare selling price to assessments.
19. Review selling price/assessment ratios by neighborhood, age, size, building type and
other relevant criteria.
20. Make adjustments to assessed value as indicated by the sales review and land value
review at least every 2 years.
21. Physically inspect properties with selling price -to -assessment ratios outside acceptable
standards.
22. Utilize GIS for quality control of assessment data and analysis of valuation.
23. Update recording information (book & page) on our website for older sales.
24. Maintain recently completed in-house re -appraisal of all Commercial properties in Iowa
City.
25. Annually inspect/re-appraise 10% of residential properties in Iowa City.
26. Continue to cross -train employees for tasks or skills that are outside their specific job
descriptions.
VALUATIONS
Although 2018 was not a real estate revaluation year, some revaluation occurs each year
as part of our ongoing reassessment efforts, especially in residential property. Residential
new construction added approximately $125 million and revaluation about $28 million.
Commercial new construction added approximately $37 million and revaluation added
about $3 million. There was $30 million of Multi -residential new construction and $4 million
of revaluation.
1015 residential deed sales in 2018 give us a median ratio (assessed value/sale price) of
88.89% compared to 91.38% for 1047 sales in 2017 at the time of sale. This tells us that
the selling prices of homes have increased since last year and the number of sales has
remained stable. The number of sales above does not include new construction completed
during the past year. When including new construction there were 1133 sales.
It should be kept in mind that when a jurisdiction is at the State mandated sales ratio level
of 100%, a full one-half of home sales will be for less than the assessed value. Sales for
less than the assessed value tend to result in appeals to the Board of Review.
COURT CASES
There are no active District Court appeals.
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD
There were 5 commercial properties and 1 residential condominium building containing
332 parcels appealed to PAAB for 2018. The residential condominium building was
dismissed. Twelve commercial properties appealed to PAAB for 2017. Ten were
dismissed, one was settled and one is still active.
5
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
BOARD OF REVIEW
The Board of Review was in session from May 1 through May 24, the day of adjournment.
555 protests were filed, with 7 being upheld and 545 denied. 533 of the appeals were
residential condominium units from Hawks Ridge and The Rise at Riverfront Crossings.
The total value of real estate being protested was $154,473,200. The Board allowed a total
reduction of $6,668,130.
EQUITY VERSUS MARKET IN ASSESSMENT
It is difficult to be both equitable among assessments and in tune with the market. Similar
properties do not always sell for similar prices, so the market is not always equitable and
sometimes a long way from it. Most assessors would lean toward equity if they could
choose between the two. Our first priority is equity since it is not always possible to have
every assessment match the selling price. Our statistics show that we are doing a good job
in this regard.
WEB PAGE
The Iowa City Assessor's web page went online during the spring of 2001. Internet
availability of comparable sales and comparable assessments has been very helpful to
taxpayers concerned about the fairness of their assessments. Links are also provided to
the Johnson County Treasurer for tax information and to the Johnson County GIS for
online maps and aerial photography. We continue to look for ways to get more of our
information accessible online and to increase the ability to query our data. In recent years,
historical property record cards were added to our website. All of this has, and continues
to reduce traffic at our counter, and frees up personnel to focus on our core function of
equitable assessment of property.
There have been over 2 million hits on our web site since it went online. It can be seen at
httg:Hiowacity.iowaassessors.com. We also have an internet presence through the
Johnson County website at http://www.mohnson-county.com. Electronic forms for the
Homestead Credit, Military Exemption, Business Property Tax Credit, Charitable
Exemptions, and Board of Review appeals are available to the public on this web page
site.
ROLLBACKS
The residential rollback will go up from 55.6209%, for the current taxes, to 56.9180% for
taxes payable in 2019-2020.
The rollback for agricultural property will increase from 54.4480% to 56.1324%.
The commercial rollback will stay at 90% for the foreseeable future.
Multi -Residential is a newer class of property that started with the 2015 assessment year
(taxes payable 2016-2017). This class of property will have a rollback of 75.00% for the 2018
assessment year (taxes payable 2019-2020) and continue to decrease until the 2022
assessment year, when it will equal the residential rollback.
NEW LEGISLATION
The 2018 Iowa Legislative Session produced two property tax law changes.
SF 2388 — An act relating to the assessment and taxation of telephone and telegraph
company property for certain assessment years and including effective date and
applicability provisions.
Senate File 2388 changes how telephone and cable company property is valued for
property taxation purposes. Beginning with assessment year (AY) 2022, assessment of
X
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
telephone and cable company property for property taxation purposes would be restricted
to the value of land and buildings. Also, all such property would be assessed at the local
level and classified as commercial property. For AY 2019 through AY 2021, the Bill
provides for a phased -in property tax exemption for telephone and cable company property.
Under current law, the property of telephone companies is assessed by the Iowa
Department of Revenue (centrally assessed). Cable television and cellular transmission
equipment becomes exempt 1/1/2022.
SF 2059 — Electronic delivery of assessments, notices or other information by local
assessors.
Senate File 2059 allows the assessor to provide the assessment, notice, or other
information by electronic means if the person entitled to receive the information has by
electronic or other means, authorized the assessor to provide the information in that
manner.
7
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
CONTINUING EDUCATION
Continuing education is a requirement for the assessor and deputies for re -appointment to
their positions. Over a six-year term, assessors must complete one hundred -fifty hours of
classroom instruction, including at least ninety hours from courses requiring a test.
Deputies must complete ninety hours of classroom instruction, including at least sixty
tested hours over their six-year terms. It is also beneficial for other employees to attend
classes so they can update their skills and stay current with assessment practices.
The Assessor attended the following courses and conferences during 2018:
ISAC Spring School of Instruction
(Iowa State Association of Counties) 3.75 C.E. Hrs.
IAAO Annual Conference on Assessment Admin.
(International Association of Assessing Officers) 9.00 C.E. Hrs.
ISAA Annual School of Instruction 11.00 C.E. Hrs.
(Iowa State Association of Assessors)
ISAC Annual Conference 7.50 C.E. Hrs.
The Chief Deputy attended the following courses and conferences during 2018:
Iowa Assessment Taxation & Review 18.50 C.E. Hrs.(Tested)
ISAA Annual School of Instruction 11.00 C.E. Hrs.
ISAC Annual Conference 7.50 C.E. Hrs.
The Second Deputy attended the following courses and conferences during 2018:
Iowa Assessment Taxation & Review 18.50 C.E. Hrs. (Tested)
ISAA Annual School of Instruction 11.00 C.E. Hrs.
Residential Appraising — New Things to Think About 7.00 C.E. Hrs. (Tested)
(Iowa Certified Assessors)
NCRAAO Annual Conference 7.50 C.E. Hrs.
(North Central Regional Assoc. of Assessing Officers)
Other staff attended classes and seminars related to operation and maintenance of various
third party software utilized by the assessor's office.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My staff and I would like to thank the Conference Board, the Board of Review, the City
Attorney and her assistants, and the City Staff along with Johnson County and the Iowa
City School Board for their assistance, cooperation and confidence during the past year. I
would also like to recognize and thank my staff at this time for their part in establishing and
maintaining the professional standards of the office.
E-3
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
ASSESSMENT DATA
2018 ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR IOWA CITY
Value of Agricultural Land and Structures
Value of Residential Dwellings on Agricultural Realty
Value of Residential Lots and Buildings
Value of Commercial Lots and Buildings
Value of Multi -Residential Lots and Buildings
Value of Industrial Lots and Buildings
Actual Value of All Real Estate*
$2,541,960
$765,530
$4,432,353,660
$1,001,176,523
$502,245,262
$79,351,860
$6,018,434,795
*All of the above values are based on the 2018 abstract as reported to the Iowa
Department of Revenue on July 13, 2018. The values for Railroad and Utility Property are
supplied to the Auditor by the Iowa Department of Revenue. The taxable (post roll -back)
value of utilities and railroads in Iowa City for 2018 is $53,346,641.
EXEMPT PROPERTY IN IOWA CITY FOR 2018
Religious Institutions
Literary Societies & Educational Institutions
Low Rent Housing
Associations of War Veterans
Charitable and Benevolent Societies
Forest and Fruit Tree
Partial Industrial, Urban Revitalization, Recycling, Mobile Home
Storm Shelter, Public TV & New Jobs, Geothermal, Historical
Sub -Total
University of Iowa (As Reported by U of I as of June 30, 2018)
TOTAL EXEMPT
9
$103,411,330
$6,490,960
$5,857,540
$586,060
$162,640,845
$1,413,600
$3,182,476
$283,582,811
$4,088,661,068
$4,372,243,879
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED
STATE
YEAR ORDER TYPE
2018 Agricultural
Ag Dwelling
Residential
Commercial
Multi -Res
Industrial
TOTAL
2017 -10%
2016
2015*
2014
Agricultural
Ag Dwelling
Residential
Commercial
Multi -Res
Industrial
TOTAL
Agricultural
Ag Dwelling
Residential
Commercial
Multi -Res
Industrial
TOTAL
Agricultural
Ag Dwelling
Residential
Commercial
Multi -Res
Industrial
TOTAL
Agricultural
Ag Dwelling
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
TOTAL
VALUE
2,541,960
765,530
4,432,353,660
1,001,176,523
502,245,262
79,351,860
$6,018,434,795
2,949,150
1,019,410
4,280,031,980
966,669,459
482,528,656
74,023,380
$5,807,222,035
3,484,890
1,015,050
4,012,070,900
879,281,368
420,708,451
79,489,600
$5,396,050,259
3,814,000
1,120,840
3,893,910,250
859,076,798
415,794,401
80,349,550
$5,254,065,839
3,784,570
1,202,940
3,616,765,260
1,158,203,990
78,113,470
$4,858,070,230
10
STATE ADJUSTED
ROLLBACK VALUE
56.1324
1,426,863
56.9180
435,724
56.9180
2,522,807,056
**90.0000
901,058,871
75.0000
376,683,947
**90.0000
71,416,674
$3,873,829,135
54.5580
1,608,997
55.6209
567,005
55.6209
2,380,592,307
**90.0000
870,002,513
78.7500
379,991,316
**90.0000
66,621,042
$3,699,383,180
47.4996
1,655,309
56.9391
577,960
56.9391
2,284,437,062
**90.0000
791,353,231
82.5000
347,084,472
**90.0000
71,540,640
$3,496,648,674
46.1068
1,758,513
55.6259
623,477
55.6259
2,166,022,622
**90.0000
773,169,118
86.2500
358,622,670
**90.0000
72,314,595
$3,372,510,995
44.7021
1,691,782
55.7335
670,440
55.7335
2,015,749,866
**90.0000
1,042,383,591
**90.0000
70,302,123
$3,130,797,802
11
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED - CONTINUED
STATE
STATE
ADJUSTED
YEAR ORDER TYPE
VALUE
ROLLBACK
VALUE
2013* Agricultural
3,708,350
43.3997
1,609,413
Ag Dwelling
1,190,610
54.4002
647,694
Residential
3,494,886,480
54.4002
1,901,225,235
Commercial
1,160,168,050
**95.0000
1,102,159,648
Industrial
80,897,070
**95.0000
76,852,217
M & E
0
0
TOTAL
$4,740,850,560
$3,082,494,207
2012 Agricultural
2,743,540
59.9334
1,644,297
Ag Dwelling
1,190,610
52.8166
628,840
Residential
3,371,349,260
52.8166
1,780,632,053
Commercial
1,122,041,780
1.000000
1,122,041,780
Industrial
78,576,040
1.000000
78,576,040
M & E
0
1.000000
0
TOTAL
$4,575,901,230
$2,983,523,010
2011 * +6.1% Agricultural
2,566,040
57.5411
1,476,528
Ag Dwelling
1,313,570
50.7518
666,660
Residential
3,264,269,180
50.7518
1,656,675,366
Commercial
1,182,516,370
1.000000
1,182,516,370
Industrial
80,153,050
1.000000
80,153,050
M & E
0
1.000000
0
TOTAL
$4,530,818,210
$2,921,487,974
2010 Agricultural
2,317,426
69.0152
1,599,376
Ag Dwelling
1,256,350
48.5299
609,705
Residential
3,182,677,000
48.5299
1,544,549,965
Commercial
1,170,960,470
1.000000
1,170,960,470
Industrial
81,786,730
1.000000
81,786,730
M & E
0
1.000000
0
TOTAL
$4,438,997,976
$2,799,506,246
2009* +62.6% Agricultural
2,382,167
.662715
1,578,698
Ag Dwelling
1,256,350
.469094
589,346
Residential
3,124,020,860
.469094
1,465,459,944
Commercial
1,170,461,470
1.000000
1,170,461,470
Industrial
81,979,330
1.000000
81,979,330
M & E
0
1.000000
0
TOTAL
$4,380,100,177
$2,720,068,788
The adjusted values given are not exact but are meant to give a representation of the
growth of Iowa City's tax base.
* Reassessment Year
** Commercial and Industrial Rollback Loss is to be replaced
by State of
Iowa. Based on
2014 replacement amounts
11
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
Total Assessed Value over time and Year to Year change in Total Assessed Value
Fs.
$7
.11 M
$50s O
11 ® m
c
O
_ $
$396 412
1 1 M
Tota I
$325 Abstract
Value
11 $285
$241 $243
$198 $211
$193
11 $180 .@ .".$165 _
$157
a
$137 ///♦♦♦ $ 2 +Total
A$106 $107 $119 $105 :
j $92 / Y Change In
1 1 68 ... $73 $68 ' ..
$ $4s $17 $a0 $ss i1 Y i2 l $59 159 $45 (Millions)
$19i $21 $34 �( Y
®...,....
........ ....... ........... ....... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................._
COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL VALUES TO
TOTAL ASSESSED AND TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE
ASSESSED VALUES
Year Residential % Commercial % Multi -Res % Industrial % AG %
2018 4,433,119,190 73.7 1,001,176,523 16.6 502,245,262 8.3 79,351,860 1.3 2,541,960 <0.05
2017 4,281,051,390 73.7 966,669,459 16.6 482,528,656 8.3 74,023,380 1.3 2,949,150 <0.1
2016 4,013,085,950 74.4 879,281,368 16.3 420,708,451 7.8 79,489,600 1.5 3,484,890 <0.1
2015 3,895,031,090 74.1 859,076,798 16.3 415,794,401 7.9 80,349,550 1.5 3,814,000 0.1
2014 3,617,968,200 74.5 1,158,203,990 23.8 NA 78,113,470 1.6 3,784,570 0.1
2013 3,496,077,090 73.7 1,160,168,050 24.5 NA 80,897,070 1.7 3,708,350 0.1
2012 3,372,539,870 73.7 1,122,041,780 24.5 NA 78,576,040 1.7 2,743,540 0.1
2011 3,265,582,750 72.1 1,182,516,370 26.1 NA 80,153,050 1.7 2,566,040 0.1
2010 3,183,933,350 71.7 1,170,960,470 26.4 NA 81,786,730 1.8 2,317,426 0.1
2009 3,125,277,210 71.3 1,170,461,470 26.7 NA 81,979,330 1.9 2,382,167 0.1
TAXABLE VALUES
2018 2,523,242,780 65.1 901,058,871 23.3 376,683,947 9.7 71,416,674 1.8 1,426,863 <0.04
2017 2,381,159,312 64.4 870,002,513 23.5 379,991,316 10.3 66,621,042 1.8 1,608,997 <0.05
2016 2,285,015,022 65.3 791,353,231 22.6 347,084,472 9.9 71,540,640 2.1 1,655,309 <0.1
2015 2,166,646,099 64.2 773,169,118 22.9 358,622,670 10.6 72,314,595 2.2 1,758,513 0.1
2014 2,016,420,307 64.4 1,042,383,591 33.3 70,302,123 2.2 1,691,782 0.1
2013 1,901,872,929 61.7 1,102,159,648 35.7 76,852,217 2.5 1,609,413 0.1
2012 1,781,260,893 59.7 1,122,041,780 37.6 78,576,040 2.6 1,644,297 0.1
2011 1,657,342,026 56.7 1,182,516,370 40.4 80,153,050 2.8 1,476,527 0.1
2010 1,545,159,671 55.2 1,170,960,470 41.8 81,786,730 2.9 1,599,376 0.1
2009 1,466,048,788 53.9 1,170,461,470 43.0 81,979,330 3.0 1,578,698 0.1
Commercial -Industrial Rollback Loss is to be replaced by State of Iowa at FY 2017 levels.
12
80%
75%
70%
65%
Cz
> 60%
6 55%
0 50%
45%
cz
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
Percentaae of Taxable and Assessed Value — Past 14 Years
I
2017
Taxable
# of
I
Rank
Contract or Title holder
Value
Parcels
I
1
ACT INC
_
19
I
2
BBCS-HAWKEYE HOUSING LLC
$45,356,700
522
_
I
3
MIDWESTONE BANK
$26,244,740
9
I
4
ANN S GERDIN REVOCABLE TRUST
$25,448,230
4
I
5
DEALER PROPERTIES IC LLC
$21,465,430
4
I
6
PROCTER & GAMBLE HAIR CARE LLC
$18,682,280
3
I
7
VESPER IOWA CITY LLC
$27,190,500
201
I
8
GRADUATE IOWA CITY OWNER, LLC
$15,121,560
1
I
9
ALPLA INC
$15,577,140
2
... • • Residential
Assessed
Commercial,
Multi -Res, &
Industrial
Assessed
Residential
Taxable
T Commercial,
Multi -Res, &
Industrial
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Taxable
2017 TOP REAL ESTATE TAXPAYERS
(Excluding Utilities & Credit Unions Assessed by the State)
* Utilities and railroads actual taxes billed for the 2017 assessment year were $2,014,097.
* If MidAmerican Energy were included, it would rank 2nd with $1,521,637 Taxes Billed.
** These figures do not include the money state has paid to the county for the BPTC.
13
2017
Taxable
# of
Actual
Rank
Contract or Title holder
Value
Parcels
2017 Taxes
1
ACT INC
$56,145,260
19
$1,957,794
2
BBCS-HAWKEYE HOUSING LLC
$45,356,700
522
$985,836
3
MIDWESTONE BANK
$26,244,740
9
$927,916
4
ANN S GERDIN REVOCABLE TRUST
$25,448,230
4
$888,670
5
DEALER PROPERTIES IC LLC
$21,465,430
4
$748,570
6
PROCTER & GAMBLE HAIR CARE LLC
$18,682,280
3
$653,578
7
VESPER IOWA CITY LLC
$27,190,500
201
$591,090
8
GRADUATE IOWA CITY OWNER, LLC
$15,121,560
1
$555,720
9
ALPLA INC
$15,577,140
2
$544,694
10
NATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC
$15,192,450
2
$531,162
11
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST
$14,720,420
1
$514,558
12
MENARD INC
$12,769,210
1
$445,922
13
MCLAUGHLIN, MICHAEL T
$18,739,730
76
$421,162
14
CORE SYCAMORE TOWN CENTER LLC
$11,882,270
1
$414,722
15
OC GROUP LC
$11,017,680
2
$403,976
16
CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT SERVICES INC
$21,604,690
20
$399,876
17
MERCY FACILITIES INC
$18,705,180
8
$360,952
18
WEBBER-IOWA LLC
$14,907,650
85
$352,262
19
IOWA CITY LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES III LLLP
$12,180,240
2
$351,180
20
FSC HEALTHCARE IV DST
$10,009,110
1
$348,868
21
UNITED NATURAL FOODS INC
$9,896,170
1
$344,860
22
PLAZA TOWERS LLC
$10,243,750
66
$341,704
23
RIVERVIEW WEST LLC
$15,123,650
96
$328,790
24
SEVILLE APARTMENTS COOPERATIVE
$14,890,640
3
$323,710
25
COLLEGE FUND PROPERTIES II LLC
$10,365,910
1
$319,052
* Utilities and railroads actual taxes billed for the 2017 assessment year were $2,014,097.
* If MidAmerican Energy were included, it would rank 2nd with $1,521,637 Taxes Billed.
** These figures do not include the money state has paid to the county for the BPTC.
13
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
COMPARISON OF TAX RATES TO CITIES WITH A CITY ASSESSOR
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS
The median sales ratio (median) is the middle sales ratio and a measure of the percent of
our assessment to the actual sales prices. The coefficient of dispersion (C.O.D.) is a
measure of assessment uniformity based on the degree to which individual sales ratios
vary from the median sales ratio. The goal of the Iowa City Assessor is to keep this C.O.D.
below 10. A C.O.D. of 10 is considered excellent.
RESIDENTIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The following statistics are for Residential sales, and below are tables of the ranking of
Iowa City in comparison to the other 106 assessing jurisdictions in Iowa. For brevity, only
the top 10 are shown. Data is for 2017 sales which is the last complete year available.
These tables show that Iowa City is still one of only a few jurisdictions in Iowa with a C.O.D.
of less than 10. Iowa City also has a large number of sales as could be expected by its
size and mobile population.
Rank
(Sorted by Assessor levy - Low to High)
1
IOWA CITY
16-17
17-18
18-19
17-18
18-19
City
Assessor
Assessor
Assessor
Total Levy
Total Levy
DUBUQUE CO.
Levy
Levy
Levy
BREMER
10
IOWA CITY
.24339
.25141
.23187
38.60513
39.08439
DUBUQUE
.25816
.25234
.27535
33.91801
32.91592
CEDAR RAPIDS
.34474
.32883
.29933
38.24649
37.68282
AMES
.39544
.31814
.29989
31.63447
31.40424
SIOUX CITY
.42001
.34549
.31049
39.84532
40.08667
DAVENPORT
.31859
.32839
.32800
39.93330
39.48449
MASON CITY
.63158
.61966
.40998
35.62236
35.60801
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS
The median sales ratio (median) is the middle sales ratio and a measure of the percent of
our assessment to the actual sales prices. The coefficient of dispersion (C.O.D.) is a
measure of assessment uniformity based on the degree to which individual sales ratios
vary from the median sales ratio. The goal of the Iowa City Assessor is to keep this C.O.D.
below 10. A C.O.D. of 10 is considered excellent.
RESIDENTIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The following statistics are for Residential sales, and below are tables of the ranking of
Iowa City in comparison to the other 106 assessing jurisdictions in Iowa. For brevity, only
the top 10 are shown. Data is for 2017 sales which is the last complete year available.
These tables show that Iowa City is still one of only a few jurisdictions in Iowa with a C.O.D.
of less than 10. Iowa City also has a large number of sales as could be expected by its
size and mobile population.
Rank
Jurisdiction
1
IOWA CITY
2
JOHNSON
3
LINN
4
DALLAS
5
AMES CITY
6
SCOTT
7
DUBUQUE CO.
8
CEDAR RAPIDS
9
BREMER
10
POLK
SORTED BY COD
Mean
Median Weiahted
C O D
PRD
91.20%
91.35%
90.94%
7.60%
100.3%
94.28%
94.04%
94.19%
8.05%
100.1%
95.52%
94.11%
94.52%
8.76%
101.1%
93.56%
93.16%
83.86%
9.67%
111.6%
97.63%
96.60%
96.98%
9.93%
100.7%
95.90%
94.94%
95.60%
10.80%
100.3%
95.78%
94.18%
94.78%
11.53%
101.0%
98.13%
95.05%
94.63%
11.75%
103.7%
99.76%
97.32%
96.58%
12.44%
103.3%
97.01%
93.02%
93.33%
14.00%
104.0%
14
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
The Regression Index, also known as the Price Related Differential (PRD), is an indicator
of the degree to which high value properties are over or under assessed in relationship to
low value properties. An index of 100.00 indicates no difference in assessments of high
value properties in comparison to low value properties based upon that year's sales. An
index over 100 indicates that high value properties are under assessed in relation to low
value properties. As you can see in the following table, Iowa City's regression index is still
close to the ideal 100.00 level. For brevity, only the top 15 are shown.
SORTED BY REGRESSION INDEX (URBAN RESIDENTIAL)
Rank
Jurisdiction
Mean
Median
Weighted
C O D
PRD
1
JOHNSON
94.28%
94.04%
94.19%
8.05%
100.1%
2
IOWA CITY
91.20%
91.35%
90.94%
7.60%
100.3%
3
SCOTT
95.90%
94.94%
95.60%
10.80%
100.3%
4
AMES CITY
97.63%
96.60%
96.98%
9.93%
100.7%
5
DELAWARE
92.03%
89.22%
91.36%
18.88%
100.7%
6
DUBUQUE
95.78%
94.18%
94.78%
11.53%
101.0%
7
LINN
95.52%
94.11%
94.52%
8.76%
101.1%
8
MADISON
92.95%
92.57%
91.98%
15.26%
101.1%
9
WASHINGTON
129.1%
91.45%
127.4%
53.09%
101.4%
10
CERRO GORDO
91.84%
90.67%
89.69%
14.42%
102.4%
11
SIOUX
93.74%
93.53%
91.44%
14.57%
102.5%
12
WINNESHIEK
96.61%
95.00%
94.15%
14.60%
102.6%
13
RINGGOLD
87.76%
87.58%
85.19%
17.26%
103.0%
14
BREMER
99.76%
97.32%
96.58%
12.44%
103.3%
15
CEDAR RAPIDS
98.13%
95.05%
94.63%
11.75%
103.7%
Below is a tabulation of year by year sales statistics for Iowa City Residential Property
over time.
Year
Median
C.O.D
# Of Sales
Average Sale Price
Estimate #2018
88.89
7.76
1015
266,715
#2017
91.35
7.60
1069
246,289
2016
92.44
7.69
1064
224,879
*2015
94.20
7.30
999
219,886
2014
92.62
7.49
974
209,633
*2013
95.18
6.72
937
204,632
2012
96.55
8.02
826
195,585
*2011
97.57
7.32
740
191,701
2010
95.92
9.99
745
182,635
*2009
95.42
8.29
796
191,459
2008
95.92
7.92
833
188,873
*2007
95.00
7.88
856
192,294
2006
88.70
9.67
665
197,878
*2005
90.50
8.61
717
186,437
2004
84.50
9.57
751
176,136
*2003
88.30
7.93
809
159,766
2002
94.32
8.03
777
152,219
*2001
94.60
7.83
682
144,912
2000
89.00
9.16
675
137,725
*1999
93.30
9.38
691
134,200
1998
91.60
8.24
699
129,556
*1997
93.45
8.71
658
123,278
Total Price
270,715,725
263,282,941
239,271,256
219,666,114
204,182,923
191,740,184
161,553,210
141,858,740
136,062,994
152,401,156
157,331,213
164,603,799
131,588,850
133,675,410
132,277,978
129,250,592
118,274,003
98,830,294
92,964,467
92,732,093
90,559,435
81,117,152
* Re -Assessment year
# 2017 & 2018 - Avg sale price includes new construction. Previously did not include new construction.
15
Iowa City Assessor's Office 2018 Annual Report
COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The Coefficient of Dispersion for Commercial properties varies from 2.56 to 129.10 with a
median of 29.59
for all Iowa jurisdictions while
Residential C.O.D.'s vary from 7.60 to 53.09
with a median of 21.15. Commercial properties are typically more
difficult
to appraise than
residential properties because of the wide variety
of building
types and fewer comparable
sales. For this
reason, only jurisdictions with more than 5 sales are included in table below.
Year
COMMERCIAL SALES SORTED
BY C O
D (2017 Sales Analysis)
Estimate 2018
No
Jurisdiction # of Sales
Mean
Median
C O D
PRD
1
WRIGHT 10
102.4%
101.1%
11.14%
102.0%
2
CHEROKEE 6
85.82%
89.45%
11.24%
99.79%
3
IOWA CITY 6
93.83%
95.25%
12.03%
149.5%
4
TAMA 6
106.1%
108.7%
14.33%
93.50%
5
DICKINSON 57
95.41%
95.37%
14.63%
102.8%
6
LINN 30
86.27%
84.59%
17.38%
107.7%
7
HUMBOLDT 10
85.74%
84.50%
19.32%
101.1%
8
MASON CITY 25
92.68%
95.80%
19.34%
133.0%
9
FLOYD 6
94.27%
91.91%
19.53%
98.96%
10
CLINTON 10
79.76%
78.33%
19.60%
95.12%
11
CEDAR RAPIDS 41
95.48%
98.26%
19.71%
105.2%
12
CHICKASAW 11
96.73%
99.20%
20.04%
106.3%
13
STORY 21
93.89%
99.64%
20.93%
136.9%
14
PLYMOUTH 15
92.45%
91.13%
21.38%
85.68%
15
KOSSUTH 9
84.92%
87.47%
21.55%
139.5%
16
HARRISON 6
93.60%
88.88%
21.62%
94.97%
17
MARSHALL 10
85.48%
87.89%
21.96%
131.9%
18
POLK 125
93.62%
94.40%
22.23%
105.2%
19
JEFFERSON 8
87.22%
98.65%
23.35%
125.8%
20
SCOTT 26
89.60%
92.43%
23.38%
123.1%
HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICS
Below is a tabulation of year by year sales statistics for Iowa City commercial properties.
Because of the small number of sales, one or two bad sales can greatly influence the
performance measurements, therefore creating greater fluctuation in the numbers. See data
above to illustrate this and to show Iowa City's standing
16
# of
# of
Year
Median
C.O.D.
Sales
Year
Median
C.O.D.
Sales
Estimate 2018
81.88
29.00
12
1998
89.10
11.68
25
2017
95.25
12.03
6
1997
87.80
11.57
21
2016
92.54
21.77
19
1996
89.50
15.78
24
2015
90.67
13.13
12
1995
90.10
12.76
22
2014
90.82
15.39
12
1994
87.90
12.44
24
2013
92.98
18.15
20
1993
90.35
14.24
26
2012
93.51
12.84
14
1992
89.90
14.86
21
2011
90.83
27.99
18
1991
87.85
8.38
8
2010
97.77
12.82
29
1990
89.60
19.53
13
2009
89.21
13.60
29
1989
94.40
13.81
13
2008
95.29
21.32
36
1988
95.40
19.77
20
2007
91.80
23.24
35
1987
87.65
17.27
16
2006
87.55
17.05
26
1986
98.20
14.21
15
2005
85.65
15.52
34
1985
82.00
12.63
16
2004
80.90
17.82
17
1984
76.80
18.30
13
2003
89.22
15.08
39
1983
87.85
10.58
26
2002
92.40
16.81
17
1982
78.00
10.25
8
2001
93.50
15.04
23
1981
87.55
10.07
14
2000
96.85
14.99
28
1980
80.85
22.69
12
1999
87.50
14.14
33
1979
78.00
16.66
15
16
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Work Session Agenda
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Work Session Agenda
Item Number: 3.
_I � I 1
IR 7 zq�
'Sz
f's's- oo=IMP
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-51000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www,icgov,org
City Council Work Session Agenda
Tuesday, January 22 2019
Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall
Follawing 5:00 City Conference Board Meeting
• FY 2020 Budget Discussion
• Clarification of Agenda Items
• Information Packet Discussion [January 10, January 17]
Council Direction needed on the following items:
1. (1/17) IP7: Bench replacement
2. (1/17) IP8: Traffic Collision Analysis
3. (1/17) IP9: Food Cart Program
• Council updates on assigned boards, commissions and committees
Item Number: 4.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Memo from Assistant City Manager: Analysis for a change in
temporary/hourly employee status
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Memo from Assistant City Manager: Analysis for a change in temporary/hourly employee status
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 17, 2019
To: City Council
From: Ashley Monroe, Assistant City Manager
Re: Analysis for a change in temporary/hourly employee status
At the January 5, 2019 budget review session, the City Council requested an exploration of
converting temporary/hourly employees that work consistent year-round schedules to a
permanent part-time status. Using some general assumptions about wage increases and the cost
of benefits, staff has developed a rough estimate of costs for such a transition.
Exercise Background
Converting an hourly position to a permanent position would likely make the position a part of the
AFSCME Local #183 Collective Bargaining Unit. As of July 1, 2019, Grade 1 Step 1 hourly pay
on the AFSCME pay plan will be $17.87. This exercise assumes that positions added would begin
at the base of the current pay plan unless they are already making a higher hourly wage rate.
Actual placement in the collectively bargained pay plan would take a detailed position -by -position
analysis.
Staff compiled reports of all City hourly employees, totaling 355 as of January 11, 2019. Of these
employees, approximately 38 were identified as being in positions that reflected the Council's
interest for this conversion analysis. The positions identified include:
• Customer Service Representative — Recreation
• Lesson Coordinator (Aquatics) — Recreation
• Pool Manager (Aquatics) — Recreation
• Facilities Maintenance Worker — Government Buildings
• Grounds Maintenance (Non CDL) — Park Maintenance
• Assistant GIS Specialist — Water
• Clerical Assistant — Engineering
• Clerk Assistant — Senior Center
• Clerical Assistant — Police
• Intake/Customer Service Clerk — Housing Authority
• Communications Aide — Communications
■ Creative Assistant — Communications
• Video Production Specialist — Senior Center
• Facilities Services — Library
• Community and Access Services — Library
• Adult Services — Library
• Collections - Library
• Administrative Clerk - Library
Cost Analysis
The following assumptions were used for the cost analysis:
• Costs reflect employees that will work twenty hours per week on a year-round basis. Wage
increases for all positions were increased from current levels to a Grade 1, Step 1 of the
January 17, 2019
Page 2
AFSCME pay plan ($17.87), unless the temporary position is already earning a higher per
hour rate.
Costs for FICA and IPERS have been included in the wage estimate.
Benefits cost includes life insurance. Health and dental insurance costs are based on the
family rate.
Estimated costs for converting 38 hourly employees with an average of 20 hours per week and
year-round employment to half-time permanent positions in FY2020:
• Average wage increase from the current rate to AFSCME Grade 1 Step 1 ($17.87 as of
July 1, 2019): $5.63/hour or an average increase of 47.4%. Total cost for wage increase
to 38 positions with no change in hours worked: Approximately $254,400.
• Increased cost in benefit pay for up to 38 positions: $367,000.
• Total increase including wage increase, benefits, FICA, and (PERS: $621,400.
It should be stressed that the actual costs may vary considerably based on the actual wage
designation per position and the level of health insurance benefits selected by each individual
employee.
Further Considerations and Staff Recommendation
The costs analysis presented above is dependent on many assumptions. Should the Council wish
to proceed staff will need to take a deeper look into each position and engage in conversations
with AFSCME. We would also need to study current staffing models and determine what, if any,
impacts the conversion will have on operations. This is particularly true with positions that are
currently supported by multiple hourly employees. The flexibility in scheduling those hourly
employees can sometimes aid in providing consistent services to the public.
At this time, staff does not recommend proceeding with this conversion. The considerable
expense, combined with the Council's goal to increase the minimum wage will require significant
operational dollars and further restrict our ability to expand permanent staff in the future, which is
needed to meet the growing service demands in the community.
Item Number: 5.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Pending Council Work Session Topics
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Pending Council Work Session Topics
.ANUI
•'�rrrm�4��
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS
January 16, 2019
Stratesic Plan Actions Requiring Initial City Council Direction:
1. Through cooperation with the Iowa City School District, Iowa Workforce Development, Kirkwood
Community College, Iowa Works, and others, increase opportunities for marginalized populations and low-
income individuals to obtain access to skills training and good jobs
2. Improve collaborative problem -solving with governmental entities in the region on topics of shared interest
3. Explore expanded use of a racial equity toolkit within City government, embedding it within city
department and Council levels
4. Review the preliminary traffic accident analysis and related set of recommendations and hear from
University of Iowa Professor Jodi Plumert on her related research. Discuss approach to on -street parking
regulations for narrow streets.
Other Topics:
1. Joint meeting with the Telecommunications Commission
2. Review alternative revenue sources
3. Consider a plan for rubberized surfacing at park playgrounds and develop strategies to address equity gaps
noted in the Parks Master Plan and plan for the equitable distribution of destination parks within an easy and
safe distance of all residents. (request Parks Commission to discuss first)
4. Review of RFC Form Based Code, including density bonus provisions and height allowances
5. Discuss future City actions in response to the home at 101 Lusk
6. City Conference Board (Jan 22 and Feb 19)
7. Discuss staff memo regarding regional transit service
8. Review the Johnson County Fringe Area agreement
Item Number: 6.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Proposed resolution submitted by Council member Salih: University of
Iowa funding to the Labor Center
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Proposed resolution submitted by Council member Salih: University of Iowa funding to the Labor
Center
Submitted by Council member Salih
A Resolution urging the University of Iowa to recommit funding to the Labor Center as a vital
resource for Iowa
Whereas the University of Iowa, one of the nation's premier public universities and a member of the
Big Ten Conference with over 30,000 students, is located in Iowa City; and
Whereas the University and Iowa City thrive when they work in close partnership and provide each
other essential services, such as the City's provision of quality utilities, fire safety, development
considerations, housing initiatives, and transportation that serve the university community, and the
university's tradition of funding centers that connect Iowa City residents with the University's
research and education capacity to improve their lives; and
Whereas the University of Iowa Labor Center has an exemplary record of conducting research and
education that has improved the lives and job quality of Iowa City residents since 1951, and is a
trusted source of information and classes for workers, allies, and service providers on wage
payment rights, workplace health and safety, confronting discrimination and harassment on the
job, and other topics relevant to the needs and experiences of Iowa City workers, in languages and
at times that are accessible to them; and
Whereas the Labor Center enhances undergraduate, graduate, and professional education while
improving our City by providing students with service learning, applied research, practicum, and
internship opportunities with diverse community-based partners in Iowa City; and
Whereas the Labor Center has been highly successful in fulfilling every aspect of the University of
Iowa's mission for over 60 years, on a shoestring budget that currently represents a miniscule
0.0001 of the overall University budget, while bringing additional revenues to the University
through program fees and competitive federal grants; and
Whereas the Labor Center was formally recognized as recipient of the 2018 Bill Reagan Human
Rights award from the Iowa City Human Rights Commission for outstanding contributions to
human rights by an organization; and
Whereas University of Iowa President Bruce Harreld shocked the community and the state by
announcing in July 2018 that he intended to completely defund and close the Labor Center, and
reallocate its funding to the College of Law, without any input from staff, faculty, students, or
workers who are its stakeholders; and
Whereas hundreds of Iowa City -area workers, students, faculty, and community leaders have
organized with nearly 10,000 people across the state by signing petitions, providing public
testimony, attended rallies, and speaking out to university leaders to emphasize the vital role the
Labor Center plays in improving the lives of workers and students and to call on the administration
to recommit funding to this institution; and
Whereas Deans and Directors of other Big Ten universities wrote a letter to University
administrators emphasizing the important role labor centers play on their campuses in fulfilling the
mission of comparable institutions; and
Whereas the Labor Center staff and its stakeholders have all worked to meet the University half-
way by finding ways to replace over $250,000 of the Center's current university allocation with new
funding from grants, higher class fees, and fundraising, creating a practical solution to address the
university's budget concerns while maintaining this vital institution for Iowa City and the state, so
long as the university steps forward to do its part; and
Whereas closing the Labor Center will cause irreparable harm to people in Iowa City, while saving
no money and having no impact on undergraduate tuition, since its existing university funds will be
reallocated to the College of Law;
Therefore be it resolved that the Iowa City Council calls on the University of Iowa to reverse its
decision to close the Labor Center and recommit funds to preserving this resource for
generations of workers and students to come.
Item Number: 7.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Memo from City Manager: Pedestrian Mall Bench Replacement
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Memo from Crty Manager: Pedestrian Mall Bench Replacement
� r�`q 74k,
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 17, 2019
To: Mayor and Council
From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Re: Pedestrian Mall Bench Replacement
In December 2018, the City Council requested that staff provide cost estimates for replacing all
or a portion of the benches with center arm rests that are a part of the Pedestrian Mall
improvement project. As a reminder, phase one of this project is nearly complete while phase
two will commence this spring. Thus, staff's cost estimates include the replacement of existing
benches and the changing of bench styles for the phase two portion of the project.
Because the project is already under contract, staff must work through the general contractor
and process a change order in order to modify project specifications. The contractor informed us
that the bench manufacturer has not yet processed the order for the phase two benches. This
will make the costs of changing a portion of the benches for the entire project less than originally
anticipated.
The costs in the table below are estimates from the contractor and may change as details of any
change order are negotiated. The information assumes the replacement benches are the same
model as those already installed, only without the center arm rests.
Percentage of
Benches to be
Estimated
Notes
Changed for the
Cost
Entire Project
10%
$5,974.80
Replacement of 4 existing benches and 3 phase two
benches.
20%
$10,125.10
Replacement of 7 existing benches and 7 phase two
benches.
30%
$15,450.70
Replacement of 11 existing benches and 10 phase two
benches.
47%
$21,222.30
Replacement of 15 existing benches and 18 phase two
benches.
Replacement of all 70 benches. Existing benches cannot
100%
$149,194.50
be returned to the manufacturer and would need to be
re ur osed throughout the city or sold.
The costs above include an upcharge to change bench styles and labor to remove and reinstall
benches that have already been installed as part of phase one. After 47% of benches are
changed the costs increase at a faster rate as the benches installed in phase one cannot be
reused and the City would incur the costs of purchasing more benches than needed for this
specific project.
If the City Council directs staff to replace a portion of the benches we will plan to intersperse the
various bench styles evenly throughout the entire Pedestrian Mall. If Council wishes to cluster
bench styles then staff will need that direction prior to finalizing the change order.
January 17, 2019
Page 2
BenchMarks Project
In 2012, the City entered into an agreement with the Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD) that
enabled the creation of the BenchMarks project. Under this agreement the ICDD manages a
program that enables local artists to paint benches in the downtown and Northside Marketplace
on an annual basis. The City does not contribute financially to this project, but we enable the
use of our benches and the Public Art Advisory Committee and City staff must approve the
designs.
During the planning for the Pedestrian Mall project, the ICDD expressed an interest in scaling
back the number of benches that would be painted. Through those conversations we created a
BenchMark gallery that will be located on the east wing of the College Street portion of the
Pedestrian Mall from the Iowa City Public Library to the playground and fountain area. The new
benches for this part of the Pedestrian Mall are a slightly different model that were selected in
large part because of this art program.
The City plans to continue this partnership with the ICDD and as we have in years past we will
continue to be flexible and allow for the program to expand or contract as needed.
Item Number: 8.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Memo from Assistant to the City Manager: Traffic Collision Analysis
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Memo trom Assistant to the City Manager: Traffic Collision Analysis
r.® CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 15, 2019
To: City Council
From: Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager
Re: Traffic Collision Analysis
Introduction
City Council's 2018-2019 Strategic Plan includes an action item to, "Complete an analysis of traffic
accident data and identify actions to improve the safety of our roadways for motorists, bicyclists,
and pedestrians." In January of 2019 the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County
(MPOJC) completed a traffic collision analysis for the years 2015-2017. This report is attached.
Next steps
This topic is included on City Council's pending work session list. Council has indicated a desire
to engage in a discussion reviewing the collision analysis and potential countermeasures. Council
has also suggested that University of Iowa Professor Jodi Plumert be invited to the work session
to update Council on her related research and participate in the discussion. Staff recommends
scheduling Professor Plumert and the traffic collision analysis discussion at the same work
session.
Please review the attached analysis to ensure the information needed to engage in your
discussion is present. Staff will work with the Mayor, Council, and Professor Plumert to find a
suitable date for scheduling the work session item.
City of Iowa City
Traffic Collision Analysis
2015-2017
s 1
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Analysis Completed By:
Emily Bothell, Senior Transportation Engineering Planner
Nate Bauer, Transportation Planning Intern
January 2019
Table of Contents
Introduction
1
Evaluation Process, Inputs and Weighted Formula
1
Intersection Evaluation
2
Intersection Assumptions
2
Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations
3
Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations by Quadrant
4
2013-2015 / 2015-2017 Collision Comparison
6
Intersection Capital Improvement Program Projects
7
Mid -Block Evaluation
8
Mid -Block Assumptions
8
Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations
8
Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations by Quadrant
10
2013-2015 / 2015-2017 Collision Comparison
11
Mid -Block Capital Improvement Program Projects
13
Potential Countermeasures
14
Per Capita Collision Comparisons
17
Complete Intersection Ranking
18
Complete Mid -Block Ranking
22
This report identifies high collision locations in Iowa City for the years 2015 through 2017. The goal of this
report is to increase awareness of high collision locations. As a result, Iowa City will be able to identify and
implement countermeasures designed to reduce collisions at these locations. The previous collision study
analyzed collisions between years 2013 and 2015, which will be compared to the collisions that occurred
between 2015 and 2017.
The data used in this report was sourced from the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT). The Iowa
DOT obtains copies of collision reports from local jurisdictions to compile a database called the Iowa Crash
Analysis Tool. This report utilizes the most complete and current data available from the Iowa DOT for the
years 2015 through 2017.
Evaluation Process
Collision frequency was summarized for all intersection and mid -block locations in Iowa City. Locations with
three or more collisions were evaluated for this report. The total number of intersection locations (locations
with three or more collisions) within the Iowa City area is 171. The total number of mid -block collision locations
(locations with three or more collisions) is 64. Each location is ranked using the Iowa DOT Office of Traffic
Safety weighted formula. The formula has three data inputs: number of collisions (weighted at 25%), crash rate
(weighted at 25%), and severity of the collisions (weighted at 50%). The three inputs are explained in more
detail below.
Inputs
1. Number of collisions — This is the total number of collisions per location obtained from the Iowa Crash
Analysis Tool during the years 2015-2017. Based on the number of collisions, each location was given
a score. Scores are assigned as shown in Table 1.
2. Crash Rate — This is the total number of collisions per one -million vehicles divided by the total number
of days per Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Crash rates allow each intersection to be evaluated
with a common denominator. The crash rate is then assigned a corresponding score as shown in Table
1.
Intersection crash rate formula: (# Collisions) * (1,000,000)
(# Days) * (Total entering AADT)
Mid -block crash rate formula: (# Collisions) * (1,000,000)
(# Days) * (Total AADT) * (segment length in miles)
3. Severity — This is the combined severity of all collisions per location. Collisions are categorized by:
property damage only, possible/unknown personal injury, minor personal injury, major personal injury,
and fatality. These types of collisions are given a weight of 1, 1, 3, 5, and 12, respectively, and then
totaled to give each location a severity raw score. These raw scores are then converted to a total
severity score as shown in Table 1.
Weighted Formula
After points are assigned for the three categories, the points are entered into the Iowa DOT weighted ranking
formula and organized from highest to lowest rank as shown on Pages 18-23.
Formula: (Collision Points * 0.25) + (Crash Rate Points * 0.25) + (Severity Points * 0.5)
Table 1: Iowa DOT Evaluation Criteria and Associated Points
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made for collisions occurring at intersections:
• Collisions occurring within 250 feet (+/- 50) feet from the intersection of streets will be included.
• Sideswipes involving Failure to Yield (FTY) will be included, whereas sideswipes for vehicles traveling
the same direction will not be included (i.e. changing lanes, hitting a parked car).
• If the data record is incomplete regarding the manner of the crash, but still involves two vehicles, it will
be counted.
• If the roadway type is a commercial/residential drive, the crash will not be counted.
• If the roadway type is a non -intersection but the manner of the crash is likely caused by the intersection
(i.e. rear -end) the crash will be counted.
• Collisions involving one vehicle will be counted, assuming the accident was most likely caused by the
intersection.
Top 10 Intersections
Figure 1 displays the top ten intersections in Iowa City, between 2015 and 2017, with the highest combined
score after taking into account the number of collisions, crash rate, and severity of collisions. Three of the ten
intersections are located on Riverside Drive and four are sited along the Hwy 1/ Hwy 6 corridor. As shown in
Table 2, the intersections of E Burlington Street/ S Gilbert Street and S Riverside Drive/ W Benton Street are
both ranked sixth as they have the same combined score of 9.25. Similarly, the intersections of Riverside
Drive/ Hwy 1 and Hwy 6, Hwy 1/ Mormon Trek Boulevard, and Madison Street/ W Burlington Street are all
ranked eighth with a combined score of 8.75.
Oq
.. M
.
Number of Collisions
Crash Rate
Severit
Collisions
Points
Rate Points
Raw Score
Points
>29
15
>3.5
15
>56
15
27-28
14
3.26-3.5
14
53-56
14
25-26
13
3.01-3.25
13
49-52
13
23-24
12
2.76-3.0
12
45-48
12
21-22
11
2.51-2.75
11
41-44
11
19-20
10
2.26-2.5
10
37-40
10
17-18
9
2.01-2.25
9
33-36
9
15-16
8
1.76-2.0
8
29-32
8
13-14
7
1.51-1.75
7
25-28
7
11-12
6
1.26-1.5
6
21-24
6
9-10
5
1.01-1.25
5
17-20
5
7-8
4
0.76-1.0
4
13-16
4
5-6
3
0.51-0.75
3
9-12
3
4
2
0.26-0.5
2
5-8
2
3
1
1 <0.25
1
1 <5
1
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made for collisions occurring at intersections:
• Collisions occurring within 250 feet (+/- 50) feet from the intersection of streets will be included.
• Sideswipes involving Failure to Yield (FTY) will be included, whereas sideswipes for vehicles traveling
the same direction will not be included (i.e. changing lanes, hitting a parked car).
• If the data record is incomplete regarding the manner of the crash, but still involves two vehicles, it will
be counted.
• If the roadway type is a commercial/residential drive, the crash will not be counted.
• If the roadway type is a non -intersection but the manner of the crash is likely caused by the intersection
(i.e. rear -end) the crash will be counted.
• Collisions involving one vehicle will be counted, assuming the accident was most likely caused by the
intersection.
Top 10 Intersections
Figure 1 displays the top ten intersections in Iowa City, between 2015 and 2017, with the highest combined
score after taking into account the number of collisions, crash rate, and severity of collisions. Three of the ten
intersections are located on Riverside Drive and four are sited along the Hwy 1/ Hwy 6 corridor. As shown in
Table 2, the intersections of E Burlington Street/ S Gilbert Street and S Riverside Drive/ W Benton Street are
both ranked sixth as they have the same combined score of 9.25. Similarly, the intersections of Riverside
Drive/ Hwy 1 and Hwy 6, Hwy 1/ Mormon Trek Boulevard, and Madison Street/ W Burlington Street are all
ranked eighth with a combined score of 8.75.
Oq
Figure 1: Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations
SCOTT BLVD
rn
LU
m
a
z
RIVERSIpe DR
ROCHESTER AVE
[S Riverside Or. !Burlington St. Madison St. 1 W Burlington St.
Melrose Ave. / Mormon Trek Blvd. 1
: BURLINGTON ST
m E COURT ST
MELROSE AVE
In S Riverside Dr. f W Benton SL y
� ,� E flurlingtan St. / S Gilbert St.
J
w LJ 0
W BENTON ST MUSCATINE AVE
A Boyrum St. ! Hwy 6
tie z Riverside Dr. / Hwy 1/6 V
O
0
c 1
O
g _
Hwy 11 Marmon Trek Blvd. S Gilbert St I Hwy 8
ry�� �' Sycamore St. f Hwy fi
G�
1 `PA m
i Ranked Intersections
0 0.5 1 2
Miles N
Table 2: Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations
M
ID
Intersection Location
Intersection Rank
1
Sycamore St. and Hwy 6
1
2
S Gilbert St. and Hwy 6
2
3
Boyrum St. and Hwy 6
3
4
Melrose Ave. and Mormon Trek Blvd.
4
5
Riverside Dr. and W Burlington St. / Grand Ave.
5
6
E Burlington St. and S Gilbert St.
6
7
S Riverside Dr. and W Benton St.
6
8
Riverside Dr. and Hwy 1 / Hwy 6
8
9
Hwy 1 and Mormon Trek Blvd.
8
10
Madison St. and W Burlington St.
8
M
Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations by Quadrant
In order to further evaluate the types of intersections with high collision/crash/severity rates, the City was
divided into four quadrants defined by major arterials (Dubuque Street, Gilbert Street, Melrose Avenue,
Burlington Street and Court Street). Figure 2 and Tables 3 and 4 display the top ten intersections with the
highest combined score by quadrant.
Figure 2: Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations by Quadrant
Q 1 RIVERS"DE OR
8
2 — 3
7 MELROSEAVE
a
J 9
m W SENTON ST
Y 2
LU
7 4
100 C;7
O s
Z Q4
Ranked Intersections
0 4.5
2
1 Miles
3
IV
SCOTT BLVD
i
2
9
ROCHESTER AVE
ST
E COURT ST
MUSCATINE AVE
Q3
•C s
When analyzing the collisions by quadrant, it becomes evident that a majority of intersections with the highest
combined score are located along major corridors or at intersections with higher volumes.
The highest-ranking intersections in Quadrant 1 are primarily located along Melrose Avenue and Dubuque
Street. In Quadrant 2 the highest collision locations are situated along Burlington Street and in downtown Iowa
City. The majority of intersections with the highest-ranking collisions in Quadrant 3 are located along the
Highway 6 corridor. Lastly, in Quadrant 4 the highest-ranking intersections are situated along Highway 1.
4
Table 3: List of Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations for Quadrants 1 and 2
Table 4: List of Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations for Quadrants 3 and 4
e
Intersection
Rank
1
West of Dubuque St. & North of Melrose Ave
Quadrant
2
East of Dubuque St. & North of Burlington SUCourt St.
1
Camp Cardinal Blvd. and Melrose Ave.
Gilbert St. and Burlington St.
2
Kennedy Pkwy. And Melrose Ave.
Iowa Ave. and Van Buren St.
3
Galway Dr. and Melrose Ave.
Dodge St. and E Burlington St.
4
Dublin Dr. and Melrose Ave.
Dodge St. and Iowa Ave.
5
Hawkeye Park Rd. and Melrose Ave.
Governor St. and Iowa Ave.
6
Melrose Ave. and Westwinds Dr.
E Jefferson St. and N Gilbert St.
7
Melrose Ave. and Mormon Trek Blvd.
E Court St. and S 1St Ave.
8
Bartlett Rd. and Mormon Trek Blvd.
E Market St. and N Linn St.
9
Cameron Way and Mormon Trek Blvd.
N Scott Blvd. and Rochester Ave.
10
Mormon Trek Blvd. and Westwinds Dr.
E Market St. and Johnson St.
Table 4: List of Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations for Quadrants 3 and 4
A
Intersection
Rank
Quadrant
3
4
East of Gilbert St. & South of
Burlington SUCourt St.
West of Gilbert St. & South of Melrose Ave
1
Hwy 6 and Sycamore St.
S Gilbert St. and Hwy 6
2
Hwy 6 and Bo rum St.
S Riverside Dr. and W Benton St.
3
S 1 st Ave. and Hwy 6
Hwy 1 and Mormon Trek Blvd.
4
Keokuk St. and Hwy 6
Hwy 1 and Hwy 6
5
Fair Meadows Blvd. and Hwy 6
Hwy 1 and Sunset St.
6
Heinz Rd. and Hwy 6
McCollister Blvd. and S Gilbert St.
7
Dickenson Ln. and Russell Dr.
Hwy 1 and Orchard St.
8
Industrial Park Rd. and Hwy 6
Hwy 1 and Ruppert Rd.
9
Gilbert Ct. and Kirkwood Ave.
Myrtle Ave and S Riverside Dr.
10
Broadway St. and Hwy 6
Cae Dr. and Rohret Rd.
A
2013-2015 / 2015-2017 Collision Comparison
In comparing the top ten intersections between 2013 and 2015 to those between 2015 and 2017, the data
shows collision numbers, severity of collisions and collision rates continue to remain constant as shown in
Figures 3 and 4. Two intersections moved into the top ten ranking (Riverside Dr./ Highway 1 and 6 and
Highway 1/ Mormon Trek Boulevard) and two intersections moved out of the ranking (Riverside Drive/ Hawkins
Drive and Highway 6/ Fair Meadows Boulevard).
cC
N s0
C
O
LO 40
O
U
y.. 30
O
L-
20 20
E
Z 10
0
Figure 3:Total Collisions
■ 2013-2015 3 2015-2017
Svcamare St & S Glibert St. & Bovrum St. & Melrose Pe. Riverside Dr. & E Burlington St. 5 Riverside Dr. RiverSlde Dr. & Hwy ? & madison 51. &
6 H•:•'ry 6 Hlwy 6 & 'vlormon 6,.riington St. / & 5 Gilber- 5-. & 'A' 3enton St. -h"- 1/6 Mormnn Trek A, 3urlina.on
Trek Blvd. Grand Ave. Blvd. St.
Figure 3 compares the total number of collisions for the top ten intersection locations between 2015 and 2017
to those between 2013 and 2015. Between 2013 and 2017, the intersection with the highest number of total
collisions was S Gilbert Street/ Highway 6.
Figure 4: Manner of Collision
Rea- End ■Angle, oncoring left -tum Ervadsic;
a_
40
U) 35
C
D
'� 30
V 25
w
D 20
L
C 15
0
Z 10
5
0
If] P-
VI R
1!4 M1
Ln R
VI R
Y!1 P.
N I -I
O O
N N
N H
C Q
N N
M
�A H
O 4
N N
V1
N N
O O
N N
M
N N
Q O
N N
M
H rl
CI 4
N N
H H
4 4
N N
M
H H
O D
N N
N N
4 D
N N
Rl
rA H
4 4
N N
P'1 III
0 0
N N
IR
0 o
N N
1'/4
a a
fY N
If]
o 0
N N
If]
0 o
N N
1'/1 Y.1"I
a a
fY N
l!l
a o
N N
P'I II']
0 0
N N
If]
0 o
N N
1'M1 U'1
a a
N N
Sycamore St &
5 GlibertSt &
Boyrum St. &
Melrose Ave.
Riverside Dr. &
E Burlington
S Riverside Dr.
Riverside Dr. &
Hwy 1 &
Madison St. &
Hwy 6
Hwy 6
Hwy6
& Mormon
Burlington St
St. &S Gilbert
& W Benton
Hwy 1/6
Mormon Trek
W Burlington
Trek Bllvd.
Grand Ave.
I St.
St.
Blvd,
St.
6
Figure 4 compares the three highest collision types for each intersection between 2013 and 2015 to those
between 2015 and 2017. Across the ten intersections, rear -end collisions account for a majority of collisions
followed by angle, oncoming left -turn collisions.
2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program Projects
The Madison Street and Burlington Street intersection will be reconstructed to add turn lanes on Madison
Street and signal improvements, amongst others, in order to address pedestrian and vehicle traffic flows.
These improvements will also help to reduce the number of rear -end collisions as vehicles will be able to
queue in a dedicated turn -lane as compared to queuing in a through/ left -turn lane. Additionally, with only one
dedicated through lane the number of broadside collisions may also decrease as opposing vehicles will only
need to respond to one -lane of oncoming vehicles. This project will begin in 2019.
Potential Countermeasures
To date, staff reviewed the top ten intersection collision locations and have identified and/or implemented
potential countermeasures at multiple intersections.
• Hwy 6 & Sycamore Street: Staff is currently researching the flashing yellow arrow sequence at the
intersection.
• Hwy 6 & Gilbert Street: Staff installed a `Yield to Pedestrian' sign on the northwest corner of the
intersection for west to northbound right -turning vehicles. This will remind motorists to yield to
pedestrians as they turn right.
• Hwy 6 & Boyrum Street: Staff is reviewing the left -turn traffic signal poles, shields, etc. to determine if
any adjustments need to be made.
• Hwy 1/ Hwy 6 corridor. Staff reviewed the signal timings for yellow clearance and will adjust if
necessary.
Staff intends to continue to monitor the top ten intersection collision locations to identify potential
countermeasures to decrease the number and severity of collisions. An overview of best practice
countermeasures is available on Page 14.
7
Table 5: CIP Projects
Of the top ten intersection collision
locations, two intersections have
rose Ave. Mormon Trek Blvd.
projects scheduled in Iowa City's
2018-2022 Capital Improvement
` Tl --'s `nz'_1.1 _ _,e 'I1=t3113t'CI_ _ 3 I' g = -a 1 .L T. 3'-e f -o -n r'd= ror Trek
Program. The Mormon Trek
to7e' .., `_=t, ll ; 1121. g: a r L = e C0- I -S 011 = a v = .11 0
-rcn- -o
r., =,•1x0.'- Trey 31-c to tF—e ire.
Boulevard four to three lane
-e o .c 311x-J3te.'3tf.- bask -ups and redUce ve-ic e
conversion will be completed in
a, --c -,e-= ss_'es.
2019 and will help to reduce the
number of rear -end and angle,
oncoming left -turn collisions by
M a dison .St. & W Burliingtoln St.
upwards of 25% because of the
, F:e=o�s=.L1v= = 1 af. _ __ =echo _= eL Aire on & r;;lgo sc 1 to 9--C =_.rr files on
dedicated center left -turn lane. The
r, -9u sc_n, -i2r,3 --n; -0,..:e -I lit r 31-,:: =i} 5:e -n Itof-__9ttir er_ =..L,-r3ir_ -9_
conversion will also improve
-9- t1-- i}a._rti31 S.t e. _ - of 9 3 _-_ voe.: , =: 3�- -..: -r .re io..9 F. -..:e-to
r, -1v s_:11 3t.
walkability with fewer lanes for
. ilvi.ro,_ ��7ts 4, a ad tressedes.rien 3r =r3f= c f _ .{ss_ct ...1 .: tr t1
pedestrians to cross, and traffic will
III- ve--ity.
be located farther from the sidewalk.
The Madison Street and Burlington Street intersection will be reconstructed to add turn lanes on Madison
Street and signal improvements, amongst others, in order to address pedestrian and vehicle traffic flows.
These improvements will also help to reduce the number of rear -end collisions as vehicles will be able to
queue in a dedicated turn -lane as compared to queuing in a through/ left -turn lane. Additionally, with only one
dedicated through lane the number of broadside collisions may also decrease as opposing vehicles will only
need to respond to one -lane of oncoming vehicles. This project will begin in 2019.
Potential Countermeasures
To date, staff reviewed the top ten intersection collision locations and have identified and/or implemented
potential countermeasures at multiple intersections.
• Hwy 6 & Sycamore Street: Staff is currently researching the flashing yellow arrow sequence at the
intersection.
• Hwy 6 & Gilbert Street: Staff installed a `Yield to Pedestrian' sign on the northwest corner of the
intersection for west to northbound right -turning vehicles. This will remind motorists to yield to
pedestrians as they turn right.
• Hwy 6 & Boyrum Street: Staff is reviewing the left -turn traffic signal poles, shields, etc. to determine if
any adjustments need to be made.
• Hwy 1/ Hwy 6 corridor. Staff reviewed the signal timings for yellow clearance and will adjust if
necessary.
Staff intends to continue to monitor the top ten intersection collision locations to identify potential
countermeasures to decrease the number and severity of collisions. An overview of best practice
countermeasures is available on Page 14.
7
Assumptions
The following are the assumptions made for collisions at mid -blocks:
• Collisions occurring within 250 feet (+/- 50) feet from the intersection of nodes (nodes only include
public streets) will be included.
• Types of roadways include: all non -intersection, intersection with bike/pedestrian, other intersection, not
reported, T -Intersection, and unknown. Cloverleaf freeway ramps and railroad crossings are not
considered intersections. Roundabouts/traffic circles are intersections. Alleyways are not considered
intersections, and collisions occurring in the alleyways will not be counted. Crashes on exit/entrance
ramps for interstate freeways will not be counted.
• Major Causes do not include: ran traffic signal, FTY at uncontrolled intersection, FTY making right turn
on red signal, FTY from yield sign.
• Collisions unlikely caused by the intersection (as ascertained from the crash report) will be counted.
• If the roadway type is a commercial/private road (with other roads intersecting it), the crash will not be
counted. If the roadway is a private commercial/residential driveway, the crash will be counted, except
if there is a traffic controlling device on it at the main road (i.e. traffic light). Accidents in
alleyways/parking lots/institutional roads will not be counted. Accidents with vehicles entering or exiting
alleyways/parking lots/institutional roads will be counted.
• Collisions involving one vehicle will be counted.
• Sideswipes while vehicles were traveling the same direction will be included (i.e. changing lanes,
hitting a parked car), while sideswipes involving FTY at an intersection will not be included.
• If the data record regarding the manner of the crash is incomplete, but involves at least one vehicle, it
will be counted.
• If the roadway type is a non -intersection but the manner of the crash is likely caused by the intersection
(i.e. rear -end) the crash will not be counted.
Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations
Figure 5 depicts the top five mid -block collision locations in Iowa City (2015-2017). Two of the five locations
are located along the Highway 1 and 6 corridor. The other three locations are located along Riverside Drive,
Dubuque Street and North Dodge Street. Table 6 lists the midblock rankings and their associated ID number.
;3
Figure 5: Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations
Table 6: Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations
Five
ID
ank
Highest R .Locations
Mid -Block Location
Mid -Block Rank
1
Hwy 1 between Sunset St. and Mormon Trek Blvd.
1
2
N Dubuque St. between Taft Speedway and Kimball Rd.
2
3
N Dodge St. between 1-80 EB Ramp and Scott Blvd.
3
4
F�
Hwy 6 between Valley Ave. and N Riverside Dr.
4
5
Hwy 6 between S Gilbert St. and Boyrum St.
5
Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations by Quadrant
Figure 6: Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations by Quadrant
❑ Ranked Mid -Blocks
0 0.5 1 2
Miles N
Figure 6 displays the top five mid -block collision locations by quadrant. The four quadrants are defined by
major arterial streets, which allows for a comprehensive view of the highest ranking mid -block locations across
Iowa City. Specific intersection information can be found in Tables 7 and 8. The highest ranking mid -block
locations are primarily situated along major arterial and collector streets.
The highest-ranking locations in Quadrant 1 are primarily located along Dubuque Street. In Quadrant 2 the
highest collision locations are situated along North Dodge Street. In Quadrant 3 the mid -block collision
locations are varied with several located along the Highway 6 corridor. Lastly, in Quadrant 4 the highest-
ranking mid -block locations are situated primarily along Highway 1.
10
4
SCOTT 6LOV
�1J
w
O'
Q2
Q1
2 z
RIVERSIDE
ROCHESTER AVE
dR
MELROSE AVEo
BURLINGTO'
n
C
rn
E COURT ST
Y
W
co
N
00
W BE"5 ON ST
MUSCATINE AVE
it
zrs
4 ty
2 3
{O
%
Q3
Q4
lb
'A
❑ Ranked Mid -Blocks
0 0.5 1 2
Miles N
Figure 6 displays the top five mid -block collision locations by quadrant. The four quadrants are defined by
major arterial streets, which allows for a comprehensive view of the highest ranking mid -block locations across
Iowa City. Specific intersection information can be found in Tables 7 and 8. The highest ranking mid -block
locations are primarily situated along major arterial and collector streets.
The highest-ranking locations in Quadrant 1 are primarily located along Dubuque Street. In Quadrant 2 the
highest collision locations are situated along North Dodge Street. In Quadrant 3 the mid -block collision
locations are varied with several located along the Highway 6 corridor. Lastly, in Quadrant 4 the highest-
ranking mid -block locations are situated primarily along Highway 1.
10
Table 7: List of Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations for Quadrants 1 and 2
11 111�111111 11111111111111111111111111111 Pill iiili��111 e
Quadrant
1
2
Intersection
West of Dubuque St. & North of Melrose Ave
East of Dubuque St. & North of Burlington SUCourt St.
Rank
1
N Dubuque St. between Taft Speedway and
N Dodge St. between 1-80 EB Ramp and Scott Blvd.
1
Kimball Rd.
Hwy 1 between Sunset St. and Mormon Trek Blvd.
2
Hwy 6 between Valley Ave. and N Riverside Dr.
Dodge St. between Governor St. and Brown St
3
N Dubuque St. between 1-80 WB Ramp and 1-80
N Dodge St. between 1-80 WB Ramp and 1-80 EB Ramp
EB Ram
St.
4
N Dubuque St. between 1-80 EB Ramp and
N Dodge St. between Northgate Dr. and 1-80 WB Ramp
Meadow Ridge Ln.
5
Newton Rd. between Woolf Ave. and S
Scott Blvd. between N 1 st Ave. and Rochester Ave.
Riverside Dr.
Table 8: List of Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations for Quadrants 3 and 4
2013-2015 / 2015-2017 Mid -Block Collision Comparison
In comparing the top five mid -block collision locations between 2013 and 2015 to those between 2015 and
2017, the data shows collision numbers, severity and collision rates continue to remain constant as shown in
Figures 7 and 8.
Hwy 1 between Sunset Street and Mormon Trek Boulevard experienced a significant increase in the number of
collisions between 2015 and 2017 moving it from the third highest ranking location to the first. The midblock
location on Hwy 6 between S Gilbert Street and Boyrum Street dropped from fourth to fifth in the intersection
ranking and the combined score increased slightly from 8.25 to 8.5. Though the combined score increased
slightly, the number of collisions, crash rate, and severity of collisions remained roughly the same. The
midblock locations ranked second through fourth between 2015 and 2017 were not in the top five ranking
between 2013 and 2015. These locations experienced an increase in collisions, severity, and crash rate.
11
Quadrant
3
4
Intersection
East of Gilbert St. & South of
West of Gilbert St. & South of Melrose Ave
Rank
Burlington SUCourt St.
1
Hwy 6 between S Gilbert St. and Boyrum St.
Hwy 1 between Sunset St. and Mormon Trek Blvd.
Mall Dr. between Lower Muscatine Rd. and S 1 st
Hwy 1 between Hudson Ave. / Shirken Dr. and Orchard
2
Ave.
St.
3
Hwy 6 between Lakeside Dr. and Heinz Rd.
Hwy 6 between S Riverside Dr. and Sturgis Corner Dr.
Governor St. between Burlington St. and
4
Hudson Ave. between Benton St. and Hwy 1
Bowery St.
Van Buren St. between Burlington St. and
5
W Benton St. between Greenwood Dr. and Miller Ave.
Bowery St.
2013-2015 / 2015-2017 Mid -Block Collision Comparison
In comparing the top five mid -block collision locations between 2013 and 2015 to those between 2015 and
2017, the data shows collision numbers, severity and collision rates continue to remain constant as shown in
Figures 7 and 8.
Hwy 1 between Sunset Street and Mormon Trek Boulevard experienced a significant increase in the number of
collisions between 2015 and 2017 moving it from the third highest ranking location to the first. The midblock
location on Hwy 6 between S Gilbert Street and Boyrum Street dropped from fourth to fifth in the intersection
ranking and the combined score increased slightly from 8.25 to 8.5. Though the combined score increased
slightly, the number of collisions, crash rate, and severity of collisions remained roughly the same. The
midblock locations ranked second through fourth between 2015 and 2017 were not in the top five ranking
between 2013 and 2015. These locations experienced an increase in collisions, severity, and crash rate.
11
35
30'
y 25
u 20
G
L 15
E 10
z 5
0
Figure 7: Total Collisions
■ 2013-2015 11192015-2017
Hwy 1 between Sunset St. N Dubuque St. between N Dodge St. between 1-80 Hwy 6 between Valley
& Mormon Trek Blvd. Taft Speedway & Kimball EB RamP2 & Scott Blvd Ave. & N Riverside Dr.
Rd.
Mid -block Locations
Hwy 6 between 5 Gilbert
St. & Boyrum St.
Figure 8 compares the four highest collision manners (rear -end, angle, oncoming left -turn, sideswipe, and
broadside) for each mid -block location between 2013 and 2015 to those between 2015 and 2017. Across the
five mid -block locations, rear -end collisions account for a majority of collisions followed by sideswipe collisions.
All five mid -block locations experienced an increase in the total number of collisions.
35
30
FA
25
O
y
E
Z 10
5
0
Figure 8: Manner of Collision
■ Rear End i Angle, oncoming left -turn Sideswipe
■
1
t
■ Broadside
2013-2015 2015-2017
2013-2015 2015-2017
2013-2015 2015-2017
2013-2015 2015-2017
2013-2015 2015-2017
Hwy 1 between Sunset St.
N Dubuque St. between
N Dodge St. between 1-80
Hwy 6 between Valley Ave.
Hwy 6 between 5 Gilbert St.
& Mormon Trek Blvd.
Taft Speedway & Kimball
EB Ramp & Scott Blvd
& N Riverside Dr.
& Boyrum St.
Rd.
Mid -block Locations
12
2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program Projects
Of the top five mid -block collision
locations, two locations have projects
scheduled in Iowa City's 2018-2022
Capital Improvement Program. The N
Dubuque Street project (Gateway
Project) involved the reconstruction
and elevation of Dubuque Street while
also addressing pedestrian and traffic
flows. The project is currently in the
final stages of completion and may
decrease the number of rear -end and
angle -oncoming left -turn collisions,
with the decrease in the posted speed
limit from 30 -mph to 25 -mph.
Table 9: CIP Projects
• N Dubuque St. between Taft Speed} ..,ay &.
Kimball Rd.
• This project reconstructs and elevates DribJque St as k:. -"E
Road Bridge, including multi -modal feat..res s X41 - oo isrot�c=iu�,
• Secondarily. these improvements will addre_s pedestrian snr: tr3`.- fl, ::;s.
Hwy 6 betvjeen Valley Ave. & N Riverside
Dr.
• This project is part of the 2018 DCT plan to resurface Hwy 0/R.iverside Dr
from Rocky Shore Dr to Hwy 1/Hwy 5.
A resurfacing project on Highway 6 between Rocky Shore Drive and Hwy 1 and Hwy 6 will be completed in
2019. While the resurfacing may not have direct impacts on the number of collisions, new pavement markings
may reinforce driver expectations and reduce collisions.
Potential Countermeasures
Staff intends to review the top five mid -block collision locations to identify potential countermeasures to
decrease the number and severity of collisions. An overview of best practice countermeasures is available on
Page 14.
13
Potential Countermeasures
After identifying the highest ranked collision locations in Iowa City, the next step is to identify potential
countermeasures. Countermeasures can be defined as a device, program, policy, or capital investment
intended to improve safety and reduce the number of collisions. To follow are best practices available to assist
in identifying countermeasures depending on the collision pattern and probable cause. Staff will use these best
practices to help identify any countermeasure that could be implemented to reduce the number, rate and
severity of collisions.
Right angle collisions at Restricted sight distance Remove sight obstructions
unsignalized
intersections Restrict parking near corners
Install/improve street lighting
Reduce speed approaches*
Install signals [see MUTCD]
Install stop signs [see MUTCD]
Install warning signs [see MUTCD]
Install yield signs [see MUTCD]
Channelize intersections
Large total intersection volume
Install signals [see MUTCD]
Reroute through traffic
High approach speed
Reduce speed limit on approaches*
Install rumble strips
Roadway design inadequate
Widen lanes
Change from angle to parallel parking
Prohibit parking
Reroute through traffic
Rear end collisions at Pedestrian crossing
Install/improve signing or marking of
unsignalized
intersections
pedestrian crosswalk
Relocate crosswalk
Driver not aware of intersection Install/improve warning signs
Slippery surface Overlay pavement
Provide adequate drainage
Groove pavement
Reduce speed limit on approaches*
Provide "SLIPPERY WHEN WET' signs
Large number of turning vehicles Create Left- or right -turn lanes
Prohibit turns
Increase curb radii
*Spot speed study should be conducted to justify speed limit reduction
14
*Spot speed study should be conducted to justify speed limit reduction
15
ProbableCollision
Pattern
Cause
Countermeasure
Rear end collisions at
Poor visibility of signals
Install / improve advance warning devices
signalized intersections
Install overhead signals
Install 12" signal lenses [see MUTCD]
Install visors
Install backplates
Relocate signals
Add additional signal heads
Remove obstacles
Reduce speed limits on approaches*
Inadequate signal timing
Adjust amber phase
Provide progression through a set of
signalized intersections
Fixed object collisions
Slippery surface
Overlay pavement
and/or vehicles running
off roadway
Provide adequate drainage
Groove pavement
Reduce speed limit on approaches*
Provide "SLIPPERY WHEN WET" signs
Roadway design inadequate for
Widen lanes
traffic conditions
Relocate islands
Close curb lane
Poor delineation
Improve / install pavement markings
Install roadside delineators
Install advance warning devices
Sideswipe collisions
Roadway design inadequate for
Improve / install pavement markings
between vehicles
traffic conditions
Channelize intersections
traveling opposite
Create one-way streets
directions or head-on
collisions
Remove constrictions such as parked
vehicles
Install median divider
Widen lanes
Collisions between
Roadway design inadequate for
Widen lanes
vehicles traveling in
traffic conditions
Channelize intersections
same direction such as
Provide turning bays
sideswipe, turning, or
lane changing
Install/improve parking lane lines
Remove parking
Collisions with parked
Large parking turnover
Prohibit parking
cars or cars being
parked
Change from angle to parallel parking
Reroute through traffic
Create one-way streets
Create off-street parking
Reducespeed limit*
*Spot speed study should be conducted to justify speed limit reduction
15
*Spot speed study should be conducted to justify speed limit reduction
16
ProbableCollision
Pattern
Cause
Countermeasure
Right angle collisions at
Poor visibility of signals
Install/improve advance warning devices
signalized intersections
Install overhead signals
Install 12" signal lenses [see MUTCD]
Install visors
Install backplates
Improve location of signal heads
Add additional signal heads
Reduce speed limits on approaches*
Inadequate signal timing
Adjust amber phase
Provide all-red clearance phase
Add multi-dial controller
Install signal actuation
Re-time signals
Provide progression through a set of
signalized intersections
Left-turn collisions at
Large volume of left turns
Provide left turn signal phase
intersections
Prohibit left turns
Reroute left turn traffic
Channelize intersections
Install stop signs [see MUTCD]
Create one-way streets
Restricted sight distance
Remove obstacles
Install warning signs
Reducespeed limit on approaches*
Fixed-object collisions
Object near traveled way
Remove obstacles near roadway
Install barrier curbing
Install breakaway feature to light poles,
sign posts, etc.
Project objects with guardrails
Pedestrian crossings
Install/improve signing or markings of
pedestrian crosswalks
Provide pedestrian "WALK" phase
Slipper surface
Overlay pavement
Provide adequate drainage
Groove pavement
Reduce speed limit on approaches*
Provide "SLIPPERY WHEN WET" signs
Unwarranted signals
Remove signals [see MUTCD]
Large turning volumes
Create left- or right-turn lanes
Prohibit turns
Increase curb radii
Night collisions
Poor visibility
Install/improve street lighting
Install/improve delineation markings
Install/improve warning signs
Wet pavement collisions
Slippery pavement
Overlay with skid-resistant surface
Provide adequate drainage
Groove existing pavement
Reduce speed limit*
Provide "SLIPPERY WHEN WET" si ns
*Spot speed study should be conducted to justify speed limit reduction
16
The following data has been included to compare collision trends between 2013 and 2015 to those occurring
between 2015 and 2017. The number of collisions per 1,000 people in Iowa City was compared to that of
similar sized cities in Iowa.
Between 2013 and 2017, Per Capita Collision Comparisons
the City of North Liberty
had the fewest number of ---- --- 2a15-2017
collisions per 1,000 people 100
followed by the City ofa go
Cedar Rapids. Iowa City 4 go
had the fifth lowest 70
number of collisions per 50
1,000 people as compared L
to eleven other IL 40 11111111111111�
communities, whereas o so
Davenport had the highest " ZQ
number of collisions.„ 10
a
As shown i n Table 10, the •'�a �� �'�'� �;� ¢``
City of Iowa City averaged ��
57.3 collisions per 1,000 1 ` 41�
people from 2015-2017
and 57.1 collisions per car
1,000 people from 2013-
2015. While Iowa City's population and total number of collisions increased between these time frames, the per
capita collision rate only increased marginally (0.2). As compared to the other communities, Iowa City has one
of the lowest numbers of collisions per capita. Of the communities analyzed, the cities of Des Moines and
Davenport had the highest rates of collisions per 1,000 persons.
Table 10: Per Canita Collision Comnarisons 2013-2017
Source: 2016 ACS 5 -Year Population Estimate and Iowa DOT Crash Analysis Tool
17
North Liberty
16,984
330
19.4
13,374
271
20.3
Cedar Rapids
129,537
6,236
48.1
126,326
5,799
45.9
Ames
64,073
3,239
50.6
58,965
3,124
53.0
Ankeny
53,413
3,000
56.2
45,582
2,574
56.5
Iowa City
72,385
4,149
57.3
67,862
3,875
57.1
West Des
Moines
61,624
3,655
59.3
56,609
3,428
60.6
Waterloo
68,357
4,091
59.8
68,406
4,369
63.9
Sioux City
82,666
6,100
73.8
82,684
5,687
68.8
Council Bluffs
62,326
4,615
74.0
62,230
4,509
72.5
Coralville
20,078
1,624
80.9
18,907
1,516
80.2
Des Moines
212,859
17,296
81.2
203,433
15,367
75.5
Davenport
102,305
9,244
90.3
99,685
8,556
85.8
Source: 2016 ACS 5 -Year Population Estimate and Iowa DOT Crash Analysis Tool
17
DAL
Road I
L Road 2
-All
ollisions
ision
Wool, ints
rash Rate
It A
Crash Ra
Pointsts
Severity
Severity
Points IL
ombin
ScorejM
I
Sycamore St.
Hwy 6
41
15
1.44
6
53
14
12.25
1
2
S Gilbert St.
Hwy 6
46
15
1.03
5
54
14
12.00
2
3
Boyrum St.
Hwy 6
33
15
0.79
4
41
11
10.25
3
4
Melrose Ave.
Mormon Trek
Blvd.
29
15
0.93
4
39
10
9.75
4
5
Riverside Dr.
. /
W Burlington StGrand Ave.
36
15
0.72
3
38
10
9.50
5
6
E Burlington St.
S Gilbert St.
32
15
0.99
4
34
9
9.25
6
7
S Riverside Dr.
W Benton St.
32
15
0.82
4
36
9
9.25
6
8
Hwy 1
Hwy 6
28
14
0.61
3
34
9
8.75
8
9
Hwy 1
Mormon Trek
Blvd.
32
15
0.90
4
32
8
8.75
8
10
Madison St.
W Burlington St.
32
15
0.94
4
32
8
8.75
8
11
S 1st Ave.
Hwy 6
25
13
0.87
4
31
8
8.25
11
12
Hwy 1
Sunset St.
25
13
0.78
4
27
7
7.75
12
13
Hawkins Dr.
Hwy 6
23
12
0.45
2
27
7
7.00
13
14
Keokuk St.
Hwy 6
21
11
0.59
3
25
7
7.00
13
15
Church St.
N Dubuque St.
20
10
1.02
5
22
6
6.75
15
16
Iowa Ave.
Van Buren St.
11
6
2.27
10
17
5
6.50
16
17
McCollister Blvd.
S Gilbert St.
17
9
1.39
6
19
5
6.25
17
18
Dodge St.
E Burlington St.
20
10
0.92
4
20
5
6.00
18
19
Fair Meadows Blvd.
Hwy 6
17
9
0.85
4
19
5
5.75
19
20
E Burlington St.
S Clinton St.
20
10
0.52
3
20
5
5.75
19
21
Heinz Rd.
Hwy 6
14
7
1.05
5
18
5
5.50
21
22
Hwy 1
Orchard St.
18
9
0.71
3
20
5
5.50
21
23
Hwy 1
Ruppert Rd.
15
8
0.51
3
19
5
5.25
23
24
Myrtle Ave.
S Riverside Dr.
16
8
0.55
3
18
5
5.25
23
25
Industrial Park Rd.
Hwy 6
14
7
0.72
3
20
5
5.00
25
26
Dickenson Ln.
Russell Dr.
5
3
22.60
15
5
1
5.00
25
27
Broadway St.
Hwy 6
15
8
0.60
3
15
4
4.75
27
28
Dodge St.
Iowa Ave.
12
6
1.08
5
14
4
4.75
27
29
Gilbert Ct.
Kirkwood Ave.
11
6
1.06
5
13
4
4.75
27
30
Governor St.
Iowa Ave.
12
6
1.38
6
12
3
4.50
30
31
Camp Cardinal Blvd.
Melrose Ave.
14
7
0.59
3
14
4
4.50
30
32
Cae Dr.
Rohret Rd.
12
6
0.80
4
14
4
4.50
30
33
E Burlington St.
S Dubuque St.
14
7
0.57
3
16
4
4.50
30
34
Iowa Ave.
S Riverside Dr.
16
8
0.45
2
16
4
4.50
30
35
S Gilbert St.
Stevens Dr.
9
5
1.21
5
13
4
4.50
30
36
E Jefferson St.
N Gilbert St.
12
6
0.69
3
14
4
4.25
36
37
N Dubuque St.
Park Rd.
14
7
0.47
2
16
4
4.25
36
38
E Court St.
S 1st Ave.
12
6
0.51
3
14
4
4.25
36
39
Kirkwood Ave.
S Gilbert St.
13
7
0.48
2
13
4
4.25
36
40
Valley Ave.
Hwy 6
11
6
0.50
2
13
4
4.00
40
41
E Market St.
N Linn St.
10
5
1.01
5
10
3
4.00
40
18
19
I
--�M
I
42
N Scott Blvd.
Rochester Ave.
12
6
0.83
4
12
3
-Mwdk-
4.00
40
43
Muscatine Ave.
S 1st Ave.
11
6
0.36
2
13
4
4.00
40
44
Muscatine Ave.
S 7th Ave.
10
5
1.06
5
10
3
4.00
40
45
E Burlington St.
S Capitol St.
12
6
0.40
2
14
4
4.00
40
46
Bowery St.
Dodge St.
9
5
0.84
4
9
3
3.75
46
47
E Market St.
Johnson St.
8
4
1.16
5
12
3
3.75
46
48
Muscatine Ave.
S Scott Blvd.
9
5
0.77
4
9
3
3.75
46
49
S Gilbert St.
Southgate Ave.
9
5
0.77
4
9
3
3.75
46
50
E Burlington St.
Governor St.
10
5
0.53
3
12
3
3.50
50
51
Taylor Dr.
Hwy 6
8
4
0.34
2
14
4
3.50
50
52
Cameron Way
Mormon Trek
Blvd.
10
5
0.62
3
10
3
3.50
50
53
E Market St.
N Dubuque St.
11
6
0.49
2
11
3
3.50
50
54
N Dodge St.
N Scott Blvd.
12
6
0.37
2
12
3
3.50
50
55
Lower Muscatine Rd.
S 1st Ave.
10
5
0.60
3
10
3
3.50
50
56
Greenwood Dr.
W Benton St.
10
5
0.72
3
12
3
3.50
50
57
Mormon Trek Blvd.
W Benton St.
9
5
0.51
3
11
3
3.50
50
58
Mormon Trek Blvd.
Westwinds Dr.
10
5
0.61
3
10
3
3.50
50
59
E College St.
Lucas St.
5
3
1.77
8
5
1
3.25
59
60
E Market St.
N Gilbert St.
7
4
0.61
3
11
3
3.25
59
61
Lower WRedst Branch
N Scott Blvd.
7
4
0.67
3
11
3
3.25
59
62
N Dodge St.
Northgate Dr.
7
4
0.61
3
11
3
3.25
59
63
E Prentiss St.
S Dubuque St.
6
3
1.34
6
6
2
3.25
59
64
E College St.
S Gilbert St.
8
4
0.53
3
10
3
3.25
59
65
E Court St.
S Scott Blvd.
8
4
0.58
3
10
3
3.25
59
66
N Riverside Dr.
Hwy 6
9
5
0.19
1
11
3
3.00
66
67
E Burlington St.
Lucas St.
7
4
0.48
2
9
3
3.00
66
68
Hawkeye Park Rd.
Melrose Ave.
7
4
0.47
2
9
3
3.00
66
69
Bartlett Rd.
Mormon Trek
Blvd.
7
4
0.44
2
9
3
3.00
66
70
Bradford St.
S 1st. Ave.
7
4
0.47
2
9
3
3.00
66
71
E Court St.
S Gilbert St.
7
4
0.35
2
9
3
3.00
66
72
Iowa Ave.
S Gilbert St.
8
4
0.49
2
10
3
3.00
66
73
Dodge St.
E Washington St.
7
4
0.68
3
7
2
2.75
73
74
E Jefferson St.
Governor St.
8
4
0.74
3
8
2
2.75
73
75
Melrose Ct.
Melrose Ave.
7
4
0.55
3
7
2
2.75
73
76
Old Highway 218
Ruppert Rd.
5
3
0.30
2
9
3
2.75
73
77
Kirkwood Ave.
Summit St.
8
4
0.52
3
8
2
2.75
73
78
Church St.
Dodge St.
6
3
0.53
3
6
2
2.5
78
79
Hudson Ave.
Hwy 1
7
4
0.28
2
7
2
2.50
78
80
Newton Rd.
Hwy 6
7
4
0.32
2
7
2
2.50
78
81
Bowery St.
Johnson St.
6
3
0.69
3
6
2
2.50
78
82
Iowa Ave.
Lucas St.
4
2
1.29
6
4
1
2.50
78
83
Lower Muscatine Rd.
Mall Dr.
6
3
0.58
3
6
2
2.50
78
84
E Court St.
Muscatine Ave.
7
4
0.47
2
7
2
2.50
78
19
O
85
Kimball Ave.
Prairie ddu Chien
4
2
0.96
4
6
2
2.50
78
86
Bowery St.
S Gilbert St.
7
4
0.30
2
7
2
2.50
78
87
E Benton St.
S Gilbert St.
7
4
0.43
2
7
2
2.50
78
88
E Washington St.
S Gilbert St.
7
4
0.40
2
7
2
2.50
78
89
N Dubuque St.
SW Ramp Curve
7
4
0.27
2
7
2
2.50
78
90
Capitol St.
W Benton St.
7
4
0.36
2
7
2
2.50
78
91
Dodge St.
E Jefferson St.
6
3
0.48
2
8
2
2.25
91
92
E Burlington St.
Johnson St.
6
3
0.32
2
8
2
2.25
91
93
Dublin Dr.
Melrose Ave.
5
3
0.34
2
7
2
2.25
91
94
E Market St.
N Clinton St.
6
3
0.38
2
6
2
2.25
91
95
B'Jaysville Ln. /
Foster Rd.
N Dubuque St.
7
4
0.23
1
7
2
2.25
91
96
E Davenport St.
N Gilbert St.
4
2
1.10
5
4
1
2.25
91
97
N 1st. Ave.
Rochester Ave.
6
3
0.44
2
8
2
2.25
91
98
Friendship St.
S 1st. Ave.
6
3
0.33
2
6
2
2.25
91
99
E Washington St.
S Clinton St.
6
3
0.42
2
6
2
2.25
91
100
Liberty Dr.
S Scott Blvd.
4
2
0.71
3
6
2
2.25
91
101
E Burlington St.
Van Buren St.
6
3
0.34
2
6
2
2.25
91
102
Sturgis Corner Dr.
Hwy 6
6
3
0.18
1
6
2
2.00
102
103
Dodge St.
Market St.
4
2
0.30
2
6
2
2.00
102
104
E Court St.
S 7th Ave.
5
3
0.54
3
5
1
2.00
102
105
E Burlington St.
S Linn St.
5
3
0.22
1
7
2
2.00
102
106
E Burlington St.
Summit St.
4
2
0.29
2
6
2
2.00
102
107
Lower Muscatine Rd.
Sycamore St.
5
3
0.52
3
5
1
2.00
102
108
E Washington St.
Johnson St.
4
2
0.69
3
4
1
1.75
108
109
Iowa Ave.
Johnson St.
4
2
0.67
3
4
1
1.75
108
110
Abbey Ln.
Mormon Trek
Blvd.
5
3
0.41
2
5
1
1.75
108
111
Dodge St.
Prairie RDduChien
5
3
0.33
2
5
1
1.75
108
112
N Dubuque St.
Ronald St.
5
3
0.31
2
5
1
1.75
108
113
Mall Dr.
S 1st Ave.
5
3
0.30
2
5
1
1.75
108
114
Keokuk St.
Southgate Ave.
5
3
0.46
2
5
1
1.75
108
115
E Jefferson St.
Van Buren St.
4
2
0.65
3
4
1
1.75
108
116
Miller Ave.
WBenton St.
5
3
0.41
2
5
1
1.75
108
117
1st Ave
Wayne St.
5
3
0.32
2
5
1
1.75
108
118
E Bloomington St.
Governor St.
4
2
0.48
2
4
1
1.50
118
119
Miller Ave.
Hwy1
5
3
0.19
1
5
1
1.50
118
120
S Scott Blvd.
Hwy 6
4
2
0.29
2
4
1
1.50
118
121
Brown St.
N Dubuque St.
5
3
0.14
1
5
1
1.50
118
122
Church St.
N Gilbert St.
3
1
0.52
3
3
1
1.50
118
123
E Jefferson St.
N Linn St.
4
2
0.47
2
4
1
1.50
118
124
Hospital Loop Dr.
Stadium Dr.
4
2
0.48
2
4
1
1.50
118
125
S Riverside Dr.
Sturgis Corner Dr.
5
3
0.19
1
5
1
1.50
118
126
Sunset St.
W Benton St.
4
2
0.30
2
4
1
1.50
118
127
1 Mormon Trek Blvd.
Westside Dr.
4
2
0.30
2
4
1
1.50
118
O
21
128
Melrose Ave.
Westwinds Dr.
4
2
0.25
2
4
1
1.50
118
129
S Scott Blvd.
Wintergreen Dr.
4
2
0.46
2
4
1
1.50
118
130
Dodge St.
E Bloomington St.
3
1
0.30
2
3
1
1.25
130
131
Dodge St.
E College St.
3
1
0.28
2
3
1
1.25
130
132
2nd Ave.
E Court St.
3
1
0.36
2
3
1
1.25
130
133
4th Ave.
E Court St.
3
1
0.36
2
3
1
1.25
130
134
E College St.
Governor St.
3
1
0.34
2
3
1
1.25
130
135
Boyrum St.
Hollywood Blvd.
4
2
0.09
1
4
1
1.25
130
136
Maiden Ln.
Kirkwood Ave.
3
1
0.29
2
3
1
1.25
130
137
Governor St.
Market St.
3
1
0.25
2
5
1
1.25
130
138
Emerald St.
Melrose Ave.
4
2
0.21
1
4
1
1.25
130
139
E Burlington St.
Muscatine Ave.
4
2
0.24
1
4
1
1.25
130
140
1-80 WB Ramp
N Dodge St.
4
2
0.18
1
4
1
1.25
140
141
Fairchild St.
N Dubuque St.
4
2
0.25
1
4
1
1.25
140
142
N Riverside Dr.
River St.
3
1
0.35
2
3
1
1.25
140
143
E Benton St.
S Clinton St.
4
2
0.21
1
4
1
1.25
140
144
E Prentiss St.
S Clinton St.
3
1
0.47
2
3
1
1.25
140
145
Highland Ave.
S Gilbert St.
4
2
0.09
1
4
1
1.25
140
146
E Washington St.
S Linn St.
3
1
0.31
2
3
1
1.25
140
147
E Court St.
Summit St.
3
1
0.31
2
3
1
1.25
140
148
Burns Ave.
Sycamore St.
3
1
0.48
2
3
1
1.25
140
149
Bowery St.
Van Buren St.
3
1
0.34
2
3
1
1.25
140
150
S Capitol St.
W Prentiss St.
3
1
0.45
2
3
1
1.25
140
151
N Scott Blvd.
Washington St.
3
1
0.27
2
3
1
1.25
140
152
S 1st Ave.
Washington St.
3
1
0.29
2
3
1
1.25
140
153
W Benton St.
Westgate St.
3
1
0.35
2
5
1
1.25
140
154
Hwy 1
Westport Plaza
4
2
0.16
1
4
1
1.25
140
155
Grand Ave. Ct.
Grand Ave.
3
1
0.11
1
3
1
1.00
155
156
Keokuk St.
Kirkwood Ave.
3
1
0.21
1
3
1
1.00
155
157
Lucas St.
Kirkwood Ave.
3
1
0.21
1
3
1
1.00
155
158
Galway Dr.
Melrose Ave.
3
1
0.18
1
3
1
1.00
155
159
Kennedy Pkwy
Melrose Ave.
3
1
0.18
1
3
1
1.00
155
160
E Jefferson St.
N Clinton St.
3
1
0.23
1
3
1
1.00
155
161
E Bloomington St.
N Dubuque St.
3
1
0.17
1
3
1
1.00
155
162
E Davenport St.
N Dubuque St.
3
1
0.18
1
3
1
1.00
155
163
E Jefferson St.
N Dubuque St.
3
1
0.25
1
5
1
1.00
155
164
Hickory Heights Ln.
N Scott Blvd.
3
1
0.21
1
3
1
1.00
155
165
N 1st Ave.
N Scott Blvd.
3
1
0.17
1
3
1
1.00
155
166
Hwy 1
Naples Ave.
3
1
0.24
1
5
1
1.00
155
167
McCollister Blvd.
Old Highway 218
3
1
0.21
1
3
1
1.00
155
168
Grand Ave.
S Grand Ave.
3
1
0.15
1
3
1
1.00
155
169
N Dubuque St.
Taft Speedway
3
1
0.12
1
3
1
1.00
155
170
Orchard St.
W Benton St.
3
1
0.25
1
3
1
1.00
155
171
Melrose Ave.
Westgate St.
3
1
0.16
1
3
1
1.00
155
21
ID
Street
Node
..
Crash
Mid
block
1
Hwy 1
Sunset St.
Mormon 32
15
3.39
14
34
9
11.75
1
Trek Blvd.
2
N DuSt. buque
t
Kimball Rd.
31
14
3.25
15
35
9
11.50
2
Speed
3
N Dodge St.
1-80 B
Scott Blvd.
25
13
3.44
14
29
8
10.75
3
Ram
N RivDer side
4
Hwy 6
Valley Ave.
25
13
2.11
9
31
8
9.50
4
5
Hwy 6
S Gilbert
Boyrum St.
18
9
3.59
15
20
5
8.50
5
6
N Dubuque
1-80 WB
1-80 EB
13
7
5.14
15
24
6
8.25
6
St.
Ramp
Ram
Hudson
7
Hwy 1
Ave./
Orchard St.
9
5
4.36
15
20
5
7.50
7
Shirken Dr.
8
N Dubuque
1-80 EB
Meadow
17
9
2.49
10
17
5
7.25
8
St.
Ramp
Ridge Ln.
S Riverside
9
Newton Rd.
Woolf Ave.
11
6
3.27
14
13
4
7.00
9
10
Hwy 6 W
Newton Rd.
Valley Ave.
11
6
5.04
15
11
3
6.75
10
11
S Clinton St.
Washington
Burlington
10
5
12.85
15
10
3
6.50
11
St.
St.
Washington
Burlington
12
S Capitol St.
St.
St.
10
5
85.52
15
10
3
6.50
11
13
Melrose Ave.
Westwinds
Mormon
7
4
4.13
15
7
2
5.75
13
Dr.
Trek Blvd.
14
Hwy 6
S Riverside
Sturgis
8
4
8.23
15
8
2
5.75
13
Dr.
Corner Dr.
Lower
15
Mall Dr.
Muscatine
S 1st Ave.
5
3
7.61
15
5
2
5.50
15
Rd.
16
Iowa Ave.
S RivDr. erside
Madison
5
3
4.06
15
5
2
5.50
15
17
Governor St.
Burlington
Bowery St.
6
3
12.08
15
6
2
5.50
15
18
Van Buren St.
Burliiintgton
Bowery St.
6
3
24.16
15
6
2
5.50
15
19
Dodge St.
Govsetrnor
Brown St.
6
3
3.57
15
8
2
5.50
15
20
Johnson St.
Court St.
Bowery St.
6
3
30.23
15
8
2
5.50
15
21
Hudson Ave.
Benton St.
Hwy 1
5
3
182.97
15
5
2
5.50
15
J St. /
22
S 1st Ave.
Bradford
Mall Dr.
5
3
4.43
15
7
2
5.50
15
Dr.
Miller Ave.
23
W Benton St.
GreeDnwood
5
3
4.11
15
5
2
5.50
15
24
Hwy 6
LakDeside
Heinz Rd.
10
5
2.03
9
16
4
5.50
15
S Riverside
Madison
25
Burlington St.
Dr.
St.
10
5
2.50
10
12
3
5.25
25
26
Madison St.
Washington
Burlington
4
2
8.92
15
8
2
5.25
25
St.
St.
27
Westwinds
Roberts Rd.
Mormon
4
2
14.30
15
6
2
5.25
25
Dr.
Trek Blvd.
28
Melrose Ave.
Dublin Dr.
Hawkeye
4
2
5.25
15
8
2
5.25
25
Park Rd.
Westport
Ruppert
29
Hwy 1
Plaza
Rd.
11
6
1.98
8
11
3
5.00
29
Lower
30
S 1st Ave.
Mall Dr.
Muscatine
7
4
2.47
10
9
3
5.00
29
Rd.
31
W Benton St.
Oaknoll Dr.
GreeDnwood
4
2
15.11
15
4
1
4.75
31
32
Hwy 6
Hawwkins
Newton Rd.
4
2
9.50
15
4
1
4.75
31
33
S Riverside
Benton St.
Sturgis
4
2
10.10
15
4
1
4.75
31
Dr.
Corner Dr.
W,
EL!t
reet
Node
..
I imi
Crash
Points
Severi
Finkbine
34
Hawkins Dr.
Commuter
Elliot Dr.
5
3
2.99
12
7
2
4.75
31
Dr.
35
Emerald St.
Melrose
Benton St.
3
1
6.87
15
3
1
4.50
35
Ave.
Whispering
36
Primrose Ct.
Meadow
Cul de Sac
3
1
159.59
15
3
1
4.50
35
Dr.
37
Williams St.
Muscatine
Wayne
3
1
83.56
15
3
1
4.50
35
Ave.
Ave.
38
DuckDr. Creek
Deerfield
Rohret Rd.
3
1
15.57
15
3
1
4.50
35
39
Taylor Dr.
Tracy Ln.
Sanddu sky
3
1
14.60
15
3
1
4.50
35
40
Gilbert St.
Benton St.
Kirkwood
3
1
4.79
15
3
1
4.50
45
Ave.
41
S Scott Blvd.
American
Hampton
3
1
5.56
15
3
1
4.50
45
Legion Rd.
St.
42
Benton St.
S Riverside
Capitol St.
6
3
2.73
11
8
2
4.50
45
43
S Riverside
Burlington
Myrtle Ave.
10
5
1.61
7
10
3
4.50
45
Dr.
St.
44
S 1st Ave.
D St.
F St.
4
2
3.20
13
4
1
4.25
44
45
Hwy6
Heinz Rd.
ScottttElvd.
8
4
2.10
9
8
2
4.25
44
Camp
Kennedy
46
Melrose Ave.
Cardinal
Pkwy.
7
4
2.21
9
7
2
4.25
44
Blvd.
47
Finkbine MacBride
Melrose Ave
5
3
3.20
13
7
2
4.10
47
Ln._ Rd.
48
_
N Dodge St. 1-80 WB 1-80 EB�
6
3
1.94
8
6
2
3.75
48
Ramp Ram
49
Melrose Ave.
Hawkeye
Westwinds
6
3
1.81
8
8
2
3.75
48
Park Rd.
Dr.
50
Park Rd.
N Riverside
DubSutque
4
2
2.39
10
4
1
3.50
50
Dr.51
N Riverside
River St.
Hwy 6
3
1
2.63
11
3
1
3.50
50
52
Old Hwy 218
Ruppdpert
Imperial Ct.
5
3
1.20
5
9
3
3.50
50
53
S Riverside
Iowa Ave.
Burlington
5
3
1.27
6
5
2
3.25
53
Dr.
Dr.
54
Hwy 6
Sturgis
Gilbert St.
8
4
1.06
5
8
2
3.25
53
Corner Dr.
55
Hwy 1
Ruppdpert
Miller Ave.
4
2
1.60
7
6
2
3.25
53
56
Hwy 6
Boyrum St.
Keokuk St.
5
3
1.36
6
5
2
3.25
53
57
Hwy 6
Keokuk St.
Broadway
5
3
1.31
6
5
2
3.25
53
58
S Riverside
Myrtle Ave.
Benton St.
7
4
1.07
5
7
2
3.25
53
59
Hwy 1
Sunset St.
Westport
5
3
0.94
4
5
2
2.75
59
Plaza
60
Old Hwy 218
Hwy 1
Ruppdpert
3
1
1.58
7
3
1
2.50
60
N Dubuque
Taft
61
St
Foster Rd.
Speedway
3
1
1.39
6
3
1
2.25
61
St.
62
Mormon Trek
1st St.
Hawkeye
4
2
0.69
3
6
2
2.25
61
Blvd.
Park Rd.
63
N Dodge St.
Northgate
1-80 WB
3
1
0.78
4
3
1
1.75
63
Dr.
Ram
64
Scott Blvd.
N 1 st Ave.
Rochester
3
1
0.39
2
3
1
1.25
64
Ave.
23
Item Number: 9.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Memo from Assistant to the City Manager: City Plaza Food Cart Vendors
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Memo trom Assistant to the City Manager: City Plaza Food Cart Vendors
- -4 CITY OF IOWA CITY
T MEMORANDUM
Date: January 17, 2019
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager
Re: City Plaza Food Cart Vendors
Introduction
The City currently permits four mobile food carts on City Plaza. The active three-year permits
expire April 30, 2019. After evaluating the original intent of the program, current conditions, and
the program's impact on public safety, City Plaza infrastructure, and administrative costs, staff
recommends discontinuing the program. This is an opportune time to make changes to the
program, as the current permit cycle is ending and City Plaza reconstruction is being completed.
Background
The City has historically permitted up to eight mobile food carts on City Plaza and Iowa Avenue.
Initially the program was introduced to add outdoor dining options, vibrancy, non-food service
retail opportunities, and additional daytime food service hours for City Plaza patrons. Prior to
2012, the City regulated hours of operation and menus were considered during the selection of
vendors. As the City has moved away from regulating hours and menus, we have observed that
food carts cater almost exclusively to late night bar patrons. Aside from failing to meet the intent
of the program, this has also introduced other unintended consequences.
Changing City Plaza Landscape
The food cart program was introduced before the proliferation of planter, sidewalk, and street
cafes throughout downtown. These locations provide the vibrant streetscape, diverse menu
options, and daytime hours that were the original intent of the food cart program.
City Council has also authorized the operation of food trucks in the intervening years. Though not
permitted on or immediately adjacent to City Plaza, on -street food vending locations are permitted
downtown.
Pop-up performances, shops, and temporary installations have also been introduced in recent
years. These have added vibrancy and serve diverse populations. Temporary retail options may
also provide a more effective method for new businesses looking to gain a foothold than our
current mobile cart program. Three of the four carts currently permitted are owned by one
ownership group and have held food cart permits for many years. There may be better programs
to incubate small businesses with temporary installations.
January 17, 2019
Page 2
Public Safety
Perhaps most importantly, serving late night customers has the impact of extending the hours in
which those customers remain on the pedestrian mall after bar close, presenting a potential public
safety risk. Ultimately, ensuring the public's safety during the late night/early morning hours is
most effective when the majority of patrons vacate City Plaza after bars close.
Special Event Programming
The expansion of special events downtown in recent years also creates challenges and
opportunities for mobile food vendors. Event organizers, City staff, and vendors themselves have
encountered substantial complications handling the logistics of setup and space needs during
events. This presents a safety challenge as food carts are frequently attempting to access City
Plaza while roads are closed and stages are being constructed.
Additionally, events present expanded vending opportunities, as event organizers frequently hire
or provide space to food vendors during their events outside of individual City vendor permits.
Pedestrian Mall Reconstruction
During 2019 the second phase of the ped mall reconstruction project will be completed. Aside
from critical utility needs, goals of the ped mall project include enhancing traffic flow, intentionally
planning the location of outdoor dining, and enhancing performance and gathering spaces. There
have been issues in the past with minor damage and spills caused by vendors on the ped mall.
In 2019 vendors will be operating in areas newly constructed during 2018.
Three-year Permit Cycle
The City extended the one-year permits to a three-year cycle with the 2013 permitting process.
The length of the permit was extended after receiving input from vendors and conducting
stakeholder meetings. Prior to 2013, seniority was a component of applicant scoring, recognizing
the upfront costs associated with starting a food cart business. The City received feedback that
seniority should not be a component of vendor selection and that three years was adequate for
vendors to fully recoup startup costs.
Administrative Costs
The amount of resources staff devotes administering a permitting program for four vendors is
disproportionate to the benefits of the program, especially given that the program does not
achieve its stated purpose.
Supporting Venues Not Serving Alcohol
Under zoning code, restaurants and bars that serve alcohol are defined as either "eating
establishments" or "drinking establishments". Businesses defined as eating establishments must
close by midnight. Additionally, no new drinking establishment may open within 500 feet of an
January 17, 2019
Page 3
existing drinking establishment. Effectively, if a new restaurant wants to serve customers after
midnight an alcohol license is not an option. One of the goals of the "500 foot rule" is to support
businesses downtown that provide dining and entertainment options that do not include or depend
on alcohol sales, and the community has seen a great deal of progress toward this goal. However,
fewer of these venues are open after midnight and thus do not provide a late-night gathering
space for patrons not wishing to drink or who are underage. With food service options benefitting
from the use of public space directly outside the doors of drinking establishments, it becomes
more difficult for new restaurants to choose to provide a non -alcohol serving, late-night venue
over obtaining an alcohol license and closing at midnight.
Recommendation
Staff recommends extending current permits by approximately eight months, through December
22, 2019. This would give existing vendors nearly four years of operation under the current permits
and the ability to operate through the University of Iowa's December commencement ceremony.
Staff recommends discontinuing the program after December 22. Other outdoor downtown food
service options will continue, including food trucks, special event vendors, and outdoor seating
for brick and mortar restaurants.
Item Number: 10.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Memo from Development Services Coordinator & Senior Building Inspector:
Regulations on construction activity
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Memo from Development Services Coordinator & Senior Building Inspector: Regulations on
construction activity
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 14, 2019
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator
Tim Hennes, Senior Building Inspector
Re: Regulations on construction activity
At their January 8th meeting, the City Council requested information on the current regulations for
construction activity.
Construction activity is regulated under the noise control ordinances in the Public Health and
Safety chapter of the City's Municipal Code. This code prohibits any loud and raucous noise, or
any noise which unreasonably disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace
or safety of reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity. This excludes noise from construction and
maintenance activities and equipment which can occur between seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. and
ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. Such activities should be nonroutine operations, temporary in nature and
conducted infrequently. A special permit may be obtained from the City Engineer for the operation
of construction equipment during the prohibited hours. Additionally, the loading/unloading,
opening/closing or handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans or
similar objects outdoors is prohibited between the hours of ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and six o'clock
(6:00) A.M. if it creates a noise disturbance across the property line of residentially zoned property.
In 2017 and 2018, Neighborhood and Development Services staff have received nine (9)
complaints regarding noise due to construction activity. Six (6) of these complaints were for
activity in the morning and three (3) at night. Four (4) complainants identified themselves as
residents of multi -family buildings living in and around infill construction. Only one (1) complaint
appeared to be from a single-family neighborhood.
During that same time, twenty-nine (29) special exception permits for construction activity outside
the normal hours were issued. The majority of these, twenty (20), were for the pouring of concrete
at the Chauncy project on College Street. Concrete pours often require special timing with
favorable weather temperature. Other reasons for special exception permits include avoiding
otherwise busy pedestrian hours for the removal of hazardous materials, accelerated construction
timetables for public projects, and closure of roads or the temporary disruption of utility service.
No special exception permits were issued for single-family home construction.
In 2015 and 2016, staff received eighteen (18) complaints regarding noise due to construction
activity. Eleven (11) of these complaints were for activity in the morning and seven (7) at night.
Six (6) of these seven (7) nighttime complaints related to the same heating equipment over a
period of a few days. Fourteen (14) complainants identified themselves as residents of multi-
family buildings living in and around infill construction.
We would be happy to discuss this issue in more detail if desired.
Cc: Tracy Hightshoe, NDS
Item Number: 11.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Memo from Assistant Transportation Planner: Progress on the Iowa City
Bicycle Master Plan
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Memo from Assistant Transportation Planner: Progress on the Iowa City Bicycle Master Plan
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 15, 2019
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Sarah Walz, Assistant Transportation Planner
Re: Progress on the Iowa City Bicycle Master Plan
Iowa City's Bicycle Master Plan (adopted in August, 2017) includes a set of immediate action
steps focused on achieving a Gold -Level Bike Friendly Community designation from the League
of American Bicyclists. If you recall, the Bicycle Friendly process involves five areas (the 5 E's):
Engineering, Evaluation, Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement.
Engineering: Most visible among these actions is a set of immediate -term bicycle facility
projects to be completed within two years of the plan's adoption. The Capital Improvements
Plan (CIP) establishes the practical timeline for project design and construction/installation. The
first round of proposed bicycle facilities are part of larger road reconstruction or resurfacing
projects, some of which also required additional infrastructure improvements (e.g. stormwater or
curb ramps) as well as replacement of traffic signals. Most of these projects were started during
the 2018 construction season and will be will be completed in Spring 2019.
Projects to be completed in Spring 2019:
• Clinton St. 44o 3- lane conversion with bike lanes (Church St. to Benton St.)
• Mormon Trek Blvd. 4- to 3- lane conversion with bike lanes (Melrose Ave. to Westside
Dr.)
• Riverside Drive and Myrtle Ave., intersection pedestrian refuge island and signal
improvements
o Myrtle -Greenwood Bikeway (between Riverside Dr. and Benton St.)
• Governor St. buffered bike lanes, (Brown St. to Burlington St.)
o Dewey -Brown Bikeway (from Brown to North Dodge St.)
• Dodge St. buffered bike lanes (N. Summit St. to Burlington St.)
• The conversion of edge lines to bike lanes on Camp Cardinal Blvd. was completed in
November, 2018. Staff is working with the City of Coralville, which intends to continue
the bike lanes along the Coralville section of the roadway.
Projects for the 2019 construction season:
• Madison St. 4- 3- lane conversion with bike lanes (Market St. to Court St.)
• Highway 1 sidepath (Sunset St. to Mormon Trek Blvd.)
• Willow Creek Neighborhood Connector (between Willow Creek Drive and the Highway 1
sidepath)
• McCollister Blvd. bike lanes and sidepath (Gilbert St. to Sycamore St.)
• College St. Bikeway (between Morningside Drive and Linn Street)
• Prentiss and Bowery Bikeway (between Madison St. and Summit St.
• Foster Road extension, buffered bike lanes (N. Dubuque Street to Prairie du Chien Rd.)
The requirement for 8 -foot wide sidepaths (wide sidewalks) along arterial streets is written into
City Code. Sidepaths have long been code requirement for arterial streets; the standard 8 -foot
pavement width will be increased to 10 feet accommodate all users.
January 15, 2019
Page 2
In addition to bicycle infrastructure (engineering), the Bicycle Master Plan calls for a number of
other immediate actions intended to support increased bicycling and bicycle safety.
Evaluation: The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), which helped guide the Bicycle Master
Plan process, has been carried over to the implementation phase. In addition to assisting staff
with prioritization of facilities for the CIP and reviewing project design, the BAC will review the
various policy and program changes outlined in the plan. The BAC will meet 5 times in 2019. An
annual agenda will be adopted at its January meeting to guide reporting and review of all areas
of implementation, from infrastructure to programs and policies. At the close of 2019, the BAC
will submit a report card on the City's progress.
During the Bicycle Master Plan process, staff began collecting baseline data to allow staff to
evaluate the increase in bicycle usage and improvements in safety. The following baseline
counts are now complete:
• Bicycle and pedestrian counts at all major intersections where proposed bicycle facilities
are planned.
• Bicycle rack inventories for all public buildings, parks, and schools as well as racks in the
Downtown and at multi -family developments.
• Bicycle and pedestrian counts on all major trails are collected every other year or every
third year.
Education: The City's Cable Channel 4 is now producing "Bike Shorts" a bicycle education
video series. All ten videos created to date may be viewed at www.icgov.org/icbikePIan. Bicycle
safety is included in the ICCSD physical education curriculum and most elementary schools
host a bike rodeo each Spring. Youth bicycle programs are offered through the Iowa City
Recreation Division as well as the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County and the Iowa City
Bicycle Library. A number of bicycle shops and the Iowa City Bicycle Library offer adult classes
or events aimed at encouraging adults to ride. This spring, the Transit Division is implementing
a Bicycle Friendly Driver Program that will educate transit drivers on how to share the road with
bicyclists. The program will be expanded to include other City employees, including police
officers.
Encouragement: A metro -wide system of bicycle wayfinding signs was completed in 2017. As
development and redevelopment occur and destinations, such as new schools and parks or
trails are extended, new signs will need to be added. In 2019, staff will begin reviewing some
proposed changes to existing signs and the placement of new signs where appropriate.
Iowa City's long-awaited bike share program will launch in April. The dockless fleet will include
electric -assist bicycles.
Enforcement: The Iowa City Police Department provides targeted enforcement in areas where
they receive citizen complaints about speeding or other traffic -related concerns.
Representatives from the ICPD will participate in a conversation with the Bicycle Advisory
Committee (January) to better understand the concerns of the bicycling community.
Item Number: 12.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok 10WA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Memo from Budget & Compliance Officer: Quarterly Financial Summary
for Period Ending December 31, 2018.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Memo from Budget & Compliance Officer: Quarterly Financial Summaryfor Period Ending
December 31, 2018.
r
�. pf CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 10, 2019
To: City Manager, City Council
From: Jacklyn Fleagle, Budget & Compliance Officer
Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending December 31, 2018
Introduction
Attached to this memorandum are the City's quarterly financial reports as of December 31,
2018. The quarterly financial report includes combined summaries of all fund balances,
revenues, and expenditures for fiscal year 2019 through the end of the second quarter, which is
50% of the way through the fiscal year. Below are some of the highlights from this quarter's
financial activity.
Revenue Analysis
This revenue analysis pertains to the revenue reports, Revenues by Fund and Revenues by
Type, on pages 4-6. In these two reports, the actual revenues would ideally be near 50% of
budget since we have completed one-half of the fiscal year; however, due to accruals back to
the previous year and quarter, many of these percentages are below 50%.
Funds with budget anomalies on page 4 worth noting: the Transit fund has actual revenues at
32% due to the timing of receipt for the federal operating grant; and the Risk Management fund
has actual revenues at 98.3% due to the timing of the entries made for loss reserve payments to
intra -city charges. Additionally, the Governmental Projects fund has revenues of 2.1% and the
Enterprise Projects funds have revenues of 3.2% due to the timing of funding for CIP projects
through grants and bond sales.
On page 5, a few examples of revenues that are below the 50% mark due to accruals include
Hotel/Motel Taxes at 30.1 % and Utility Franchise Taxes at 31.1 % under Other City Taxes. Both
of these revenue sources are received quarterly, and each had the first receipt during the fiscal
year accrued back to last fiscal year. The report appears as if these revenues are behind
budget projections; however, these two revenue sources are in line with last year. The utility
enterprise fund service charges have a similar presentation.
Other revenues on page 5 that are either above or below the 50% mark due to timing the of
grants, 28E agreements or contributions receipts include State 28E Agreements at 119.5%,
Other State Grants at 7%, Local 28E Agreements at 14.3%, and Contributions & Donations at
12.6%. Additionally, under Charges for Fees and Services, Building & Development revenues
are at 196% of budgeted amounts due to an unbudgeted receipt for a Fee in Lieu of Affordable
Housing payment. Police Services are also already at 170.6% due to higher than normal
utilization of the Department by the University of Iowa.
The combined total actual revenues for all budgetary funds through December are $75,943,851
or 44.0% of budget. Overall, the City's revenues are not substantially different than projected,
and the anomalies and budget variances can be explained.
Expenditure Analysis
This expenditure analysis pertains to the expenditure reports, Expenditures by Fund and
Expenditures by Fund by Department on pages 7-9. The analysis of the City's expenditures for
fiscal year 2019 through December is similar to the analysis for the City's revenues. We
generally expect the actual expenditure levels to be around 50% of budget at this time of year.
Some of the funds have expenditure activity through the second quarter that differs significantly
from the 50% mark. The following funds have a significant expenditure variance above or below
50%:
• Other Shared Revenue fund is at 5.8% due to the timing of projects.
• Debt Service Fund expenditures are at 33.9%, because the general obligation bond
principal payments are not due until June 1.
• Wastewater fund is at 72.7% due to bond principal and interest payments paid in July.
• Water fund is at 58.6% due to bond principal and interest payments paid in July.
• Governmental Projects expenditures are at 24.2% and Enterprise Projects expenditures
are at 18.0% because many of the capital projects are scheduled for construction this
spring.
• Central Services fund is at 28.7% due to the timing of equipment purchases and
replacements.
Overall, the combined total actual expenditures for all budgetary funds through December are
$88,546,225 or 37.6% of budget. Overall, the City's expenditures through the second quarter
have a few major anomalies; however, these can be explained and are not unusual.
Conclusion
Generally, there are no major concerns to report with the City's fund balances at December 31.
One fund is presented (on page 3) with negative fund balance, the Community Development
Block Grant fund at -$69,172. 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 December 31, 2018
Debt Service Fund
Beginning
Ending
Restricted,
Unassigned
5*** Debt Service
Fund
Year -to -Date
Transfers
Year -to -Date
Transfers
Fund
Committed,
Fund
Enterprise Funds
Balance
Revenues
In
Expenditures
Out
Balance
Assigned
Balance
Budaetary Funds
12,222,373
3,312,000
550,410
2,003,037
821,644
13,260,102
5,812,440
7,447,662
General Fund
6,159,101
1,449,270
1,789,067
3,278,799
-
6,118,639
777,476
5,341,163
10** General Fund
$ 36,401,765
$ 29,263,872
$ 5,346,466
$ 27,362,993
$ 2,244,151
$ 41,404,959
$ 6,898,526
$ 34,506,433
Special Revenue Funds
11,938,239
4,554,707
913,523
4,920,492
837,458
11,648,519
2,721,342
8,927,178
2100 Community Dev Block Grant
(25,935)
290,014
2,700
301,217
34,734
(69,172)
-
(69,172)
2110 HOME
191,819
379,669
366,974
435,909
49,752
85,827
25,139,377
85,827
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
3,893,384
4,242,908
225,773
3,043,524
1,437,670
3,880,870
100,000
3,880,870
2300 Other Shared Revenue
3,968
3,279
678
2,786
-
4,461
-
4,461
2350 Metro Planning Org of J.C.
262,063
142,092
166,514
282,825
-
287,844
3,169,408
287,844
2400 Employee Benefits
2,847,078
6,757,695
-
562,716
5,472,121
3,569,935
3,569,935
2500 Affordable Housing Fund
1,208,851
405,982
1,817,305
500,000
-
1,114,833
-
1,114,833
2510 Peninsula Apartments
166,019
36,361
-
20,897
-
181,483
-
181,483
26** Tax Increment Financing
1,525,592
1,312,703
101,257
53,475
$13,441,961
2,886,078
841,803
2,044,275
2820 SSMID-Downtown District
-
199,267
-
110,012
89,255
-
89,255
Debt Service Fund
5*** Debt Service
8,135,315
6,375,228
-
4,655,678
-
9,854,865
1,294,909
8,559,956
Enterprise Funds
710* Parking
12,222,373
3,312,000
550,410
2,003,037
821,644
13,260,102
5,812,440
7,447,662
715* Mass Transit
6,159,101
1,449,270
1,789,067
3,278,799
-
6,118,639
777,476
5,341,163
720* Wastewater
20,759,108
5,812,361
1,465,978
9,651,540
2,135,717
16,250,191
4,780,318
11,469,873
730* Water
11,938,239
4,554,707
913,523
4,920,492
837,458
11,648,519
2,721,342
8,927,178
7400 Refuse Collection
1,281,369
1,622,421
3,598
1,676,038
-
1,231,350
-
1,231,350
750* Landfill
26,940,545
3,360,767
366,974
2,430,421
245,740
27,992,125
25,139,377
2,852,747
7600 Airport
216,770
178,758
50,000
206,583
238,945
100,000
138,945
7700 Storm Water
795,950
687,231
678
221,467
139,000
1,123,392
-
1,123,392
79** Housing Authority
7,017,559
5,026,110
49,752
5,627,920
23,975
6,441,526
3,169,408
3,272,118
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects
41,854,944
411,966
1,817,305
18,021,119
-
26,063,097
-
26,063,097
Enterprise Projects
9,623,259
119,189
591,967
3,176,776
-
7,157,639
-
7,157,639
Total Budgetary Funds
$ 193,419,135
$ 75,943,851
$13,441,961
$ 88,546,225
$13,441,961
$180,816,762
$ 51,535,598
$ 129,281,163
Non-Budaetary Funds
Internal Service Funds
810* Equipment
$ 13,604,405
$ 3,479,612
$
$ 2,549,703
$
$ 14,534,314
$ 13,114,599
$ 1,419,715
8200 Risk Management
3,563,234
1,568,934
715,250
4,416,918
-
4,416,918
830* Information Technology
2,799,530
1,570,963
897,547
3,472,946
330,741
3,142,205
8400 Central Services
725,692
118,748
55,544
788,896
-
788,896
8500 Health Insurance Reserves
11,374,744
4,348,922
4,382,111
11,341,555
7,589,740
3,751,815
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves
190,915
205,008
169,447
226,476
-
226,476
Total Non -Budgetary Funds
$ 32,258,521
$ 11,292,187
$ -
$ 8,769,602
$ -
$ 34,781,105
$ 21,035,080
$ 13,746,026
Total All Funds
$225,677,656
$ 87,236,038
$13,441,961
$ 97,315,827
$13,441,961
$215,597,867
$ 72,570,678
$143,027,189
3
City of Iowa City
Revenues by Fund
Fiscal Year 2019 through December 31, 2018
Enterprise Funds
2018
2019
2019
2019
Actual
Budget
Revised
Actual
Variance
Percent
Budgetary Fund Revenues
55.2%
715* Mass Transit
8,276,309
4,524,070
4,524,070
General Fund
(3,074,800)
32.0%
720* Wastewater
13,115,285
12,636,588
10** General Fund
$ 51,880,377
$ 53,148,922
$ 55,320,453
$ 29,263,872
$ (26,056,581)
52.9%
Special Revenue Funds
9,856,522
4,554,707
(5,301,815)
46.2%
7400 Refuse Collection
2100 Community Dev Block Grant
658,178
906,507
1,218,413
290,014
(928,399)
23.8%
2110 HOME
666,926
534,166
1,012,382
379,669
(632,713)
37.5%
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
8,539,943
8,744,810
8,744,810
4,242,908
(4,501,902)
48.5%
2300 Other Shared Revenue
270,089
-
48,260
3,279
(44,981)
6.8%
2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co
320,459
365,748
365,748
142,092
(223,656)
38.8%
2400 Employee Benefits
11,668,231
12,908,880
12,908,880
6,757,695
(6,151,185)
52.3%
2500 Affordable Housing Fund
415,749
-
405,982
405,982
0.0%
2510 Peninsula Apartments
73,278
77,510
77,510
36,361
(41,149)
46.9%
26** Tax Increment Financing
2,473,728
2,631,772
2,631,772
1,312,703
(1,319,069)
49.9%
2820 SSMID-Downtown District
354,385
400,124
400,124
199,267
(200,857)
49.8%
Debt Service Fund
5*** Debt Service
13,288,394
12,611,282
12,611,282
6,375,228
(6,236,054)
50.6%
Enterprise Funds
710" Parking
8,486,558
6,003,966
6,003,966
3,312,000
(2,691,966)
55.2%
715* Mass Transit
8,276,309
4,524,070
4,524,070
1,449,270
(3,074,800)
32.0%
720* Wastewater
13,115,285
12,636,588
12,636,588
5,812,361
(6,824,227)
46.0%
730* Water
9,827,060
9,856,522
9,856,522
4,554,707
(5,301,815)
46.2%
7400 Refuse Collection
3,521,446
3,490,210
3,490,210
1,622,421
(1,867,789)
46.5%
750* Landfill
7,028,785
6,929,796
6,929,796
3,360,767
(3,569,029)
48.5%
7600 Airport
385,582
361,500
361,500
178,758
(182,742)
49.4%
7700 Storm Water
1,589,311
1,529,350
1,529,350
687,231
(842,119)
44.9%
79** Housing Authority
9,620,510
8,921,473
8,921,473
5,026,110
(3,895,363)
56.3%
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects
12,981,814
14,023,000
19,339,380
411,966
(18,927,414)
2.1%
Enterprise Projects
1,919,909
3,056,708
3,701,492
119,189
(3,582,303)
3.2%
Total Budgetary Revenues
$
167,362,305
$ 163,662,904
$172,633,981
$ 75,943,851
$ (96,690,130)
44.0%
Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues
Internal Service Funds
810* Equipment
$
6,910,467
$ 6,559,773
$ 6,559,773
$ 3,479,612
$ (3,080,161)
53.0%
8200 Risk Management
1,707,274
1,596,490
1,596,490
1,568,934
(27,556)
98.3%
830* Information Technology
2,294,690
2,348,876
2,348,876
1,570,963
(777,913)
66.9%
8400 Central Services
228,890
213,912
213,912
118,748
(95,164)
55.5%
8500 Health Insurance Reserves
8,401,738
8,700,966
8,700,966
4,348,922
(4,352,044)
50.0%
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves
407,695
424,330
424,330
205,008
(219,322)
48.3%
Total Non -Budgetary Revenues
$
19,950,754
$ 19,844,347
$ 19,844,347
$ 11,292,187
$ (8,552,160)
56.9%
Total Revenues - All Funds
$
187,313,059
$ 183,507,251
$192,478,328
$ 87,236,038
$(105,242,290)
45.3%
4
City of Iowa City
Revenues by Type
Fiscal Year 2019 through December 31, 2018
Charges For Fees And Services:
2018
2019
2019
2019
Building & Development
Actual
Budget
Revised
Actual
Variance
Percent
Budgetary Fund Revenues
127,496
56,530
56,530
96,443
39,913
170.6%
Property Taxes
$ 56,525,799
$ 59,173,825
$ 59,173,825
$ 30,450,629
$ (28,723,196)
51.5%
Other City Taxes:
7,632
10,370
10,370
3,360
(7,010)
32.4%
TIF Revenues
2,459,216
2,621,772
2,621,772
1,304,255
(1,317,517)
49.7%
Gas/Electric Excise Taxes
684,299
676,411
676,411
334,015
(342,396)
49.4%
Mobile Home Taxes
61,182
65,150
65,150
37,078
(28,072)
56.9%
Hotel/Motel Taxes
1,045,696
1,251,720
1,251,720
376,187
(875,533)
30.1%
Utility Franchise Tax
976,060
939,400
939,400
292,355
(647,045)
31.1%
Subtotal
5,226,452
5,554,453
5,554,453
2,343,890
(3,210,563)
42.2%
Licenses, Permits, & Fees:
5,933,293
6,168,980
6,168,980
2,928,011
(3,240,969)
47.5%
General Use Permits
71,654
100,920
100,920
19,009
(81,912)
18.8%
Food & Liquor Licenses
110,377
111,440
111,440
65,719
(45,721)
59.0%
Professional License
7,605
12,020
12,020
2,930
(9,090)
24.4%
Franchise Fees
662,448
512,750
512,750
148,958
(363,792)
29.1%
Construction Permits & Insp Fees
1,850,539
1,777,650
1,777,650
1,143,787
(633,863)
64.3%
Misc Lic & Permits
40,881
38,680
38,680
27,678
(11,002)
71.6%
Subtotal
2,743,504
2,553,460
2,553,460
1,408,080
(1,145,380)
55.1%
Intergovernmental:
890,423
369,620
768,950
96,804
(672,146)
12.6%
Fed Intergovemment Revenue
13,152,242
11,664,896
15,128,902
5,217,076
(9,911,826)
34.5%
Property Tax Credits
1,554,683
1,727,320
1,727,320
783,198
(944,122)
45.3%
Road Use Tax
8,426,502
8,672,280
8,672,280
4,150,061
(4,522,219)
47.9%
State 28E Agreements
2,003,939
1,724,430
1,724,430
2,060,750
336,320
119.5%
Operating Grants
73,825
82,690
82,690
69,584
(13,106)
84.2%
Disaster Assistance
110,085
-
-
-
-
0.0%
Other State Grants
5,483,837
3,094,020
5,160,636
362,604
(4,798,032)
7.0%
Local 28E Agreements
1,151,557
5,182,453
5,182,453
741,255
(4,441,198)
14.3%
Subtotal
31,956,672
32,148,089
37,678,711
13,384,528
(24,294,183)
35.5%
Charges For Fees And Services:
Building & Development
908,376
411,120
411,120
805,998
394,878
196.0%
Police Services
127,496
56,530
56,530
96,443
39,913
170.6%
Animal Care Services
10,775
11,540
11,540
6,540
(5,000)
56.7%
Fire Services
7,632
10,370
10,370
3,360
(7,010)
32.4%
Transit Fees
1,226,643
1,261,820
1,261,820
525,140
(736,680)
41.6%
Culture & Recreation
774,778
790,848
790,848
305,491
(485,357)
38.6%
Misc Charges For Services
69,449
79,217
79,217
37,070
(42,147)
46.8%
Water Charges
9,475,186
9,743,172
9,743,172
4,488,945
(5,254,227)
46.1%
Wastewater Charges
12,621,036
12,276,650
12,276,650
5,727,513
(6,549,137)
46.7%
Refuse Charges
4,010,218
3,909,630
3,909,630
1,821,334
(2,088,296)
46.6%
Landfill Charges
5,933,293
6,168,980
6,168,980
2,928,011
(3,240,969)
47.5%
Storm Water Charges
1,551,384
1,522,290
1,522,290
687,550
(834,740)
45.2%
Parking Charges
6,331,040
6,477,470
6,477,470
3,725,399
(2,752,071)
57.5%
Subtotal
43,047,304
42,719,637
42,719,637
21,158,794
(21,560,843)
49.5%
Miscellaneous:
Code Enforcement
232,315
222,633
222,633
120,075
(102,558)
53.9%
Parking Fines
475,356
578,720
578,720
285,480
(293,240)
49.3%
Library Fines & Fees
143,285
154,420
154,420
68,604
(85,816)
44.4%
Contributions & Donations
890,423
369,620
768,950
96,804
(672,146)
12.6%
Printed Materials
42,374
41,900
41,900
28,992
(12,908)
69.2%
Animal Adoption
12,955
12,020
12,020
26,040
14,020
216.6%
Misc Merchandise
55,901
54,770
54,770
34,995
(19,775)
63.9%
Intra -City Charges
3,962,198
4,277,635
4,277,635
2,163,702
(2,113,933)
50.6%
Other Misc Revenue
908,993
933,261
1,195,261
332,192
(863,069)
27.8%
Special Assessments
808
1,090
1,090
46
(1,044)
4.2%
Subtotal
$ 6,724,608
$ 6,646,069 $
7,307,399
$ 3,156,930
$ (4,150,469)
43.2%
5
City of Iowa City
Revenues by Type
Fiscal Year 2019 through December 31, 2018
6
2018
2019
2019
2019
Actual
Budget
Revised
Actual
Variance
Percent
Use Of Money And Property:
Interest Revenues
$ 2,879,005
$ 1,071,871
$ 1,071,872
$
621,580
$ (450,292)
58.0%
Rents
1,385,468
1,367,800
1,367,800
639,851
(727,949)
46.8%
Royalties & Commissions
108,843
136,080
136,080
51,767
(84,313)
38.0%
Subtotal
4,373,315
2,575,751
2,575,752
1,313,198
(1,262,554)
51.0%
Other Financial Sources:
Debt Sales
12,174,462
10,623,000
10,623,000
-
(10,623,000)
0.0%
Sale Of Assets
3,633,506
703,393
3,107,518
1,322,739
(1,784,779)
42.6%
Insurance Recoveries
-
-
-
279,874
279,874
0.0%
Loans
956,682
965,226
1,340,226
1,125,188
(215,038)
84.0%
Subtotal
16,764,651
12,291,619
15,070,744
2,727,802
(12,342,943)
18.1%
Total Budgetary Revenues
$ 167,362,305
$ 163,662,903
$ 172,633,981
$
75,943,851
(96,690,130)
44.0%
Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues
Internal Service Funds
$ 19,950,754
$ 19,844,347
$ 19,844,347
$
11,292,187
$ (8,552,160)
56.9%
Total Non -Budgetary Revenues
$ 19,950,754
$ 19,844,347
$ 19,844,347
$
11,292,187
$ (8,552,160)
56.9%
Total Revenues - All Funds
$ 187,313,059
$ 183,507,250
$192,478,328
$
87,236,038
$(105,242,290)
45.3%
6
City of Iowa City
Expenditures by Fund
Fiscal Year 2019 through December 31, 2018
Debt Service Fund
2018
2019
2019
2019
Actual
Budget
Revised
Actual
Variance
Percent
Budaetary Fund Expenditures
33.9%
Enterprise Funds
General Fund
720* Wastewater
15,738,755
13,284,732
10** General Fund
$ 52,714,597
$ 58,159,421
$ 60,911,822 $
27,362,993
$ 33,548,829
44.9%
Special Revenue Funds
8,393,774
4,920,492
3,473,282
58.6%
7400 Refuse Collection
2100 Community Dev Block Grant
592,163
596,507
908,413
301,217
607,196
33.2%
2110 HOME
558,825
546,166
1,024,382
435,909
588,473
42.6%
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
6,059,424
6,165,809
6,432,985
3,043,524
3,389,461
47.3%
2300 Other Shared Revenue
333,421
-
48,260
2,786
45,474
5.8%
2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co.
591,338
708,554
708,554
282,825
425,729
39.9%
2400 Employee Benefits
967,457
1,283,417
1,283,417
562,716
720,701
43.8%
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
20,897
38,981
34.9%
26** Tax Increment Financing
392,130
505,193
505,193
53,475
451,718
10.6%
2820 SSMID-Downtown District
354,385
400,124
400,124
110,012
290,112
27.5%
Debt Service Fund
5*"* Debt Service
13,469,600
13,722,450
13,722,450
4,655,678
9,066,772
33.9%
Enterprise Funds
720* Wastewater
15,738,755
13,284,732
13,284,732
9,651,540
3,633,192
72.7%
730* Water
14,382,141
8,388,774
8,393,774
4,920,492
3,473,282
58.6%
7400 Refuse Collection
3,106,776
3,433,507
3,491,007
1,676,038
1,814,969
48.0%
750* Landfill
4,940,648
5,035,196
5,035,196
2,430,421
2,604,775
48.3%
7600 Airport
468,122
357,309
357,309
206,583
150,726
57.8%
7700 Storm Water
497,954
537,865
537,865
221,467
316,398
41.2%
79** Housing Authority
9,342,128
10,952,156
10,952,156
5,627,920
5,324,236
51.4%
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects
32,499,396
23,580,970
74,415,110
18,021,119
56,393,991
24.2%
Enterprise Projects
9,353,681
.5,040,308
17,660,204
3,176,776
14,483,428
18.0%
Total Budgetary Expenditures
$
185,175,387
$ 167,570,307
$235,213,971
$ 88,546,225
$146,667,746
37.6%
Non-Budnetary Funds Expenditures
Internal Service Funds
810* Equipment
$
5,041,436
$ 4,468,094
$ 4,764,743
$ 2,549,703
$ 2,215,040
53.5%
8200 Risk Management
1,947,564
1,440,328
1,440,328
715,250
725,078
49.7%
830* Information Technology
2,034,623
2,160,935
2,160,935
897,547
1,263,388
41.5%
8400 Central Services
188,468
193,387
193,387
55,544
137,843
28.7%
8500 Health Insurance Reserves
7,848,190
8,381,923
8,381,923
4,382,111
3,999,812
52.3%
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves
364,128
409,442
409,442
169,447
239,995
41.4%
Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures
$
17,424,410
$ 17,054,109
$ 17,350,758
$ 8,769,602
$ 8,581,156
50.5%
Total Expenditures - All Funds
$
202,599,797
$ 184,624,416
$252,564,729
$ 97,315,827
$155,248,902
38.5%
7
City of Iowa City
Expenditures by Fund by Department
Fiscal Year 2019 through December 31, 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 $
60,881
$ 59,510
50.6%
City Clerk
491,517
533,577
533,577
279,642
253,935
52.4%
City Attorney
765,417
780,796
780,796
361,014
419,782
46.2%
City Manager
3,056,803
4,248,266
4,378,266
1,742,422
2,635,844
39.8%
Finance
3,805,542
4,345,045
4,848,045
2,438,245
2,409,800
50.3%
Police
13,809,546
14,419,896
14,763,762
6,642,258
8,121,504
45.0%
Fire
8,030,716
8,262,751
8,278,847
3,960,975
4,317,872
47.8%
Parks & Recreation
7,993,287
8,826,119
8,841,119
3,948,993
4,892,126
44.7%
Library
6,400,495
6,671,933
6,671,933
3,033,463
3,638,470
45.5%
Senior Center
888,544
974,355
986,855
388,216
598,639
39.3%
Neighborhood & Development Services
4,965,448
5,824,548
7,556,487
3,207,794
4,348,693
42.5%
Public Works
1,909,621
2,554,182
2,554,182
1,004,168
1,550,014
39.3%
Transportation & Resource Management
488,203
597,562
597,562
294,922
302,640
49.4%
Total General Fund
52,714,597
58,159,421
60,911,822
27,362,993
33,548,829
44.9%
Special Revenue Funds
2100 Community Dev Block Grant
Neighborhood & Development Services
592,163
596,507
908,413
301,217
607,196
33.2%
2110 HOME
Neighborhood & Development Services
558,825
546,166
1,024,382
435,909
588,473
42.6%
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
Public Works
6,059,424
6,165,809
6,432,985
3,043,524
3,389,461
47.3%
2300 Other Shared Revenue
Neighborhood & Development Services
333,421
-
48,260
2,786
45,474
5.8%
2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co
Neighborhood & Development Services
591,338
708,554
708,554
282,825
425,729
39.9%
2400 Employee Benefits
Finance
967,457
1,283,417
1,283,417
562,716
720,701
43.8%
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
20,897
38,981
34.9%
26** Tax Increment Financing
Finance
392,130
505,193
505,193
53,475
451,718
10.6%
2820 SSMID-Downtown District
Finance
354,385
400,124
400,124
110,012
290,112
27.5%
Total Special Revenue Funds
10,224,785
11,015,648
12,371,206
5,313,363
7,057,843
42.9%
Debt Service Fund
5*** Debt Service
Finance
13,469,600
13,722,450
13,722,450
4,655,678
9,066,772
33.9%
Total Debt Service Fund
13,469,600
13,722,450
13,722,450
4,655,678
9,066,772
33.9%
8
City of Iowa City
Expenditures by Fund by Department
Fiscal Year 2019 through December 31, 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
$ 2,003,037
$ 4,628,224
30.2%
715* Mass Transit
Transportation & Resource Management
11,920,706
7,449,879
7,449,879
3,278,799
4,171,080
44.0%
720* Wastewater
Public Works
15,738,755
13,284,732
13,284,732
9,651,540
3,633,192
72.7%
730* Water
Public Works
14,382,141
8,388,774
8,393,774
4,920,492
3,473,282
58.6%
7400 Refuse Collection
Transportation & Resource Management
3,106,776
3,433,507
3,491,007
1,676,038
1,814,969
48.0%
750* Landfill
Transportation & Resource Management
4,940,648
5,035,196
5,035,196
2,430,421
2,604,775
48.3%
7600 Airport
Airport Operations
468,122
357,309
357,309
206,583
150,726
57.8%
7700 Storm Water
Public Works
497,954
537,865
537,865
221,467
316,398
41.2%
79** Housing Authority
Neighborhood & Development Services
9,342,128
10,952,156
10,952,156
5,627,920
5,324,236
51.4%
Total Enterprise Funds
66,913,328
56,051,510
56,133,179
30,016,296
26,116,883
53.5%
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects
32,499,396
23,580,970
74,415,110
18,021,119
56,393,991
24.2%
Enterprise Projects
9,353,681
5,040,308
17,660,204
3,176,776
14,483,428
18.0%
Total Capital Project Funds
41,853,076
28,621,278
92,075,314
21,197,895
70,877,419
23.0%
Total Budgetary Expenditures
$ 185,175,387
$ 167,570,307
$235,213,971
$ 88,546,225
$146,667,746
37.6%
Non -Budgetary Funds Expenditures
Internal Service Funds
810* Equipment
Public Works
$ 5,041,436
$ 4,468,094
$ 4,764,743
$ 2,549,703
$ 2,215,040
53.5%
8200 Risk Management
Finance
1,947,564
1,440,328
1,440,328
715,250
725,078
49.7%
830* Information Technology
Finance
2,034,623
2,160,935
2,160,935
897,547
1,263,388
41.5%
8400 Central Services
Finance
188,468
193,387
193,387
55,544
137,843
28.7%
8500 Health Insurance Reserves
Finance
7,848,190
8,381,923
8,381,923
4,382,111
3,999,812
52.3%
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves
Finance
364,128
409,442
409,442
169,447
239,995
41.4%
Total Internal Service Funds
17,424,410
17,054,109
17,350,758
8,769,602
8,581,156
50.5%
Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures
$ 17,424,410
$ 17,054,109
$ 17,350,758
$ 8,769,602
$ 8,581,156
50.5%
Total Expenditures - All Funds
$ 202,599,797
$ 184,624,416
$252,564,729
$ 97,315,827
$155,248,902
38.5%
9
Item Number: 13.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Johnson County Board of Supervisors: 2019 Legislative Priorities and
Issues
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Johnson County Board of Supervisors: 2019 Legislative Priorities and Issues
Johnson
County
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Lisa Green -Douglass, Chairperson Pat Heiden
Rod Sullivan, Vice Chairperson Royceann Porter
Janelle Rettig
2019 Legislative Priorities and Issues
Funding for crisis intervention facilities and operations
Fully fund backfill of commercial and residential cuts
Increase the minimum wage and create a plan to adjust to a livable wage
Funding for courthouse security, maintenance, and improvements
Other issues affecting Johnson County:
a. Collective bargaining rights
b. Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
c. County Attorney salary cap
d. County home rule, spending, and local governance
e. Decategorization programs
f. Disclosure of sale prices of real estate included in the sale of LLCs
g. Early Childhood Iowa
h. Election modernization
i. Emergency medical services (EMS) as an essential service
j. Gender balance and gender identity on boards and commissions
k. Housing State offices at local taxpayer expense
I. Independent boards operating under county authority
m. Iowa Public Employees Retirement System
n. Local Public Health Services Grant
o. Maintain jurisdiction of children in juvenile court
p. Marijuana reform
q. Medical examiner
r. Mental health funding and children's mental health programs
s. Project labor agreements
t. Recreation and conservation
u. Renewable energy
v. Retroactive Medicaid
w. State funding for the State Medical Examiner and DCI Criminalistics Laboratory
x. State Noxious Weed Law
y. State tobacco tax
z. Veterans
State Legislative Priorities 20191/16/2019 1 Johnson County Board of Supervisors
As elected officials of Johnson County, the Board of Supervisors believes that we are best able to represent the
interests of our constituents regarding matters of local concern. We are accountable for the use of property
taxes, for the efficiency of our services, and the effectiveness of our programs. We urge legislators to honor
Iowa's long history of "home rule" and keep decision making at the local level whenever possible.
In addition, the Board of Supervisors wants legislators to know that cuts to State funding and programming that
assists our most vulnerable residents ultimately strains local budgets and results in higher property taxes
because services of last resort—law enforcement, jails, hospitals, public health and emergency service
providers—deal with people in crisis.
1) Funding for crisis intervention facilities and operations
Johnson County and our area partners have trained more than 190 law enforcement and service providers in
crisis intervention techniques. We are also exploring how to provide facilities and programs that help people
with mental illness and substance abuse obtain treatment and avoid spending time in jail or in the emergency
room. This is a unique, collaborative effort that has a great deal of community support.
Johnson County is taking the lead in spearheading this regional effort. Communities that have implemented
similar programs have seen reductions in the number of jail inmates over time, as well as a reduction in
emergency room visits. While long-term cost savings may be realized, these efforts require initial resources to
develop facilities and programs. Johnson County is working to identify the most efficient means of funding this
important effort.
The means by which counties may generate revenue, whether by property taxes or user fees, is strictly
controlled by State statute. We ask the legislature to define crisis intervention facilities and operations as an
essential county purpose, thereby allowing counties to use the debt levy for capital needs and the
supplemental levy for operational expenses.
2) Fully fund backfill of commercial and residential cuts
Johnson County joins many other counties and cities with deep concerns about the overall impact of commercial
property tax reform adopted in the 2013 legislative session. A growing percentage of the cost of government has
shifted to residential property tax payers as a result of State action. This trend will continue and will be
compounded if the State fails to honor its commitments. We expect the State to honor their promise to
maintain the backfill schedule to which they had agreed. We ask the legislature to do no more harm to local
government.
3) Increase the minimum wage and create a plan to adjust to a livable wage
Iowa's minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour. The State minimum wage has not been increased since 2008.
In the meantime, five of the six states bordering Iowa have raised their minimum wage. Johnson County is the
most expensive place to live in Iowa, where a single person would have to earn $13.04 per hour just to afford
necessary expenses of life. Low-wage workers have to work multiple jobs, live in substandard housing, and rely
on public assistance to survive.
In 2015, Johnson County enacted a minimum wage ordinance to address these issues in our area. Pursuant to
that ordinance, the minimum wage in Johnson County increased to $10.10 per hour on January 1, 2017 and to
$10.27 per hour on July 1, 2018. In 2016, four other counties also enacted their own ordinances. At least 10,000
low-wage workers in Johnson County benefitted from the minimum wage increase. In 2017, the legislature took
away local control on this issue, which may have resulted in a wage cut for many of these workers.
The Johnson County Board of Supervisors asks the legislature to address the needs of low-income workers in
State Legislative Priorities 20191/16/2019 2 Johnson County Board of Supervisors
Iowa while also respecting the authority of local governments to address local conditions. Johnson County urges
legislators to:
• Raise the state-wide minimum wage to $10.27.
• Provide indexing so that future increases are not dependent on legislative action.
• Restore local control to local governments who are in a better position to respond to local economic
conditions and constituent demands.
4) Funding for courthouse security, maintenance, and improvements
The State requires counties to furnish and maintain a facility that serves the justice system and provides a
workplace for State employees who work for the courts. Legislators are well aware of the steps that the Board of
Supervisors has taken to address the fact that Johnson County's 116 -year-old courthouse is woefully inadequate
to meet the current needs of Johnson County. While additional space is a serious need, the Board is faced with
an even more critical dilemma in just making the building secure for all who use it, including the State and
County employees who work there every day. State law provides significant limitations on the options available
to the Board to address these needs. There are several things the legislature could do to address these issues:
Under current law, bonds issued for public buildings are authorized as "essential county purpose" bonds if
the cost of the building project does not exceed dollar amounts specified in the Code of Iowa. For Johnson
County, the amount is $1.2 million. This amount is inadequate to address the significant space, security, and
safety needs of many of Iowa's historic courthouses. At a minimum, the statute should be amended so that
the maximum bonding amount is not also the cost of the project, allowing counties to bond for a portion of
more expensive projects. Johnson County urges legislators to raise the capped amount of essential county
purpose bonds to at least $5 million.
• Johnson County would like the legislature to classify the costs of courthouse maintenance and upgrades
as an "essential county purpose," allowing counties to tax for the costs within the General Supplemental
Fund of the budget.
• We ask the legislature to work with counties to explore and allow other options to meet the State mandate.
The State should adequately fund court services.
5) Other issues affecting Johnson County
a. Collective bargaining rights
Our county employees provide top-notch services to the people of Johnson County, often in difficult or even
dangerous situations. Their dedication and persistence should be afforded the respect it deserves. The
Board of Supervisors calls for the reversal of recent Chapter 20 changes and the full restoration of
collective bargaining rights to government employees.
b. Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
In 2016, Johnson County received Manure Management Plans that indicated intent to construct two new
CAFO facilities that were to house 996 animal units (2,490 hogs). Both facilities would have been four animal
units short of meeting the more stringent DNR guidelines regulated via the Master Matrix process that
allows for county review and public comment. In both instances, the proposed facilities were less than 1,500
feet from existing facilities that appear to be owned and operated by family members of the applicants, but
that were listed as separate business entities to avoid the DNR's separation distance requirements.
These requests illustrate a very disturbing trend in confinement development, not just in Johnson County
but across the state—producers are capitalizing on legal ambiguity to site multiple non -permitted buildings
within the minimum separation distance without being subject to more stringent separation and design
State Legislative Priorities 20191/16/2019 3 Johnson County Board of Supervisors
standards, county review, or public comment. The impacts of CAFOs are highly localized, and we believe
approval of these facilities is a local issue that should be approved at the local level.
As CAFOs continue to proliferate, and to aid in future confinement construction proposal review, the
Johnson County Board of Supervisors supports the following legislative changes.
• A moratorium on any new CAFOs until these loopholes are closed and local government control is
restored.
• Modify the Master Matrix to allow county boards of supervisors to have an equal say in approval or
denial of construction permits related to animal feeding operations.
• Reduce the 1,000 animal -unit threshold for permitted facilities to allow counties to have input and
more local control on a broader range of applications.
• Clarify what is required for facilities to be considered separate; increase the minimum separation
distance required for all structures (not just separate operations) to prevent densities in development
that threaten the health, safety, and welfare of the general public.
c. County Attorney salary cap
Iowa Code caps the annual salary of full-time county attorneys in counties having a population of less than
200,000, which is every county in Iowa except for Polk and Linn. The code caps the salary to between 45 and
100 percent of the annual salary received by a district court judge. The salary cap needs to be removed so
that County Attorneys can earn a fair wage based on the county in which they work.
d. County home rule, spending, and local governance
Johnson County seeks to preserve local decision-making authority, encourages state assistance of funding of
state services and opposes state initiatives that limit a county's ability to make governance and spending
decisions at the local level.
Unfunded mandates. The State sets many requirements for services to be provided without a means of
compensation. We encourage the legislature to periodically review these requirements and determine if
there are requirements that are outdated or could be taken over by the State rather than funded by local
taxpayers. Two examples include:
• Publishing costs. Local governments are required to spend thousands of dollars to publish notices and
minutes despite the fact that all of this information is available online. We request that the legislature
amend the Code of Iowa to allow local governments to publish meeting and legal notices online only.
Housing state offices at local taxpayer expense. Currently some counties are forced to house a variety of
state agencies (DHS and the Courts, for example) and receive little or no reimbursement from the State.
In addition, the counties are forced to pay for expenses such as postage and office supplies at local
taxpayers' expense. We request that the State no longer require that counties subsidize state
agencies' local office expenses.
Underfunded mandates. Currently the fee structure for many user -based services and the issuance of
licenses and permits on behalf of the State do not cover the cost of providing the service. As a result, these
fees have been subsidized by property taxes for many years. Examples include:
• Marriage license fees. According to a study by the Iowa County Recorders Association, the actual cost to
counties to provide a marriage license is slightly over $13. Currently, $4 of the $35 fee is retained by
counties and the remainder is returned to the State. Johnson County supports an increase of the
marriage license fee to cover the actual cost.
State Legislative Priorities 20191/16/2019 4 Johnson County Board of Supervisors
e. Decategorization programs
Funding for the Decat Boards is appropriated via: 1) legislative allocation, 2) transfer of Child Welfare funds
from the DHS Service Area Manager, and 3) transfer of funds from the Chief Juvenile Court Officer. In fiscal
year 2018, the Decat Boards did not receive the roughly $5 million transfer of DHS Child Welfare funds. This
resulted in a nearly 80% decrease in funding for some Decat Boards, and the elimination of many critical
programs that help prevent children and family involvement in the child welfare and juvenile justice
systems.
We urge the legislature to:
Fund and implement a functional statewide Child Mental Health system
Maintain the Decat line item allocation in the DHS budget in order to fund local services that prevent
child and family involvement in child welfare and juvenile justice systems
Support annual transfer of funds to Decat Boards in order to support critical local systems that reduce
the use of out -of -home care.
f. Disclosure of sale prices of real estate included in the sale of LLCs
Investors have begun transferring ownership interest in real estate without disclosure of the sale details to
the public through the use of Limited Liability Corporations (LLCs). The investor places ownership of the
property in the LLC's name and sells the LLC and its assets. No ownership change to the real estate occurs.
Iowa's Assessors believe that in virtually all instances, the only assets of the specific LLC is the real estate
being sold. This lack of transparency affects other buyers, sellers, and lenders in the marketplace, as well as
the general public, who have no way of knowing what is actually occurring in the real estate market. The
State should require the sale of an LLC to disclose the value of the real estate included in the transaction.
g. Early Childhood Iowa
The Johnson County Board of Supervisors requests the following.
• Increase investment in early childhood care and education programs. Studies show that there is a 13%
return on investment in high-quality, birth -to -five early education through better outcomes in health,
crime, income, schooling, and the increase in a mother's income after returning to work due to
childcare. Only 48% of children in poverty are ready for school at age five, compared to 75% of children
from families with moderate and high income.
• Ensure that discussion on Iowa's education priorities includes Early Education (birth -to -five years)
along with K-12. There are 2,000 days between birth and the first day of kindergarten, which have a
profound and lifelong impact on physical and emotional wellbeing, readiness to learn and succeed, and
ability to become a productive citizen.
• Support policies that reduce the child care "cliff effect" and increase access to quality and affordable
child care assistance
• Base child care assistance reimbursement rate on the average local or regional rate rather than the
statewide average.
h. Election modernization
Election costs. Allow for technology costs of upgrading and updating computers to be charged
back to cities and schools for their respective elections. Currently Johnson County is restricted on
which costs can be charged in a city or school election.
• Party balance. The Code of Iowa currently states "the top two parties" when it comes to allowing
party balance at the polls. We request that the Code of Iowa section be changed to "any party
represented on the ballot should be considered for party balance at a polling site." We further
support recognizing "no party" as a party for purposes of party balance.
• Absentee voting window. We request the absentee voting window be extended to 45 days to
State Legislative Priorities 20191/16/2019 5 Johnson County Board of Supervisors
match the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) standards. If we are
mailing ballots out 45 days before a general election to overseas voters, then it should be
uniformed. The 45 -day window is currently federal law; Iowa law should be in sync.
Continue to support the Iowa Secretary of State in their quest to update the /Voters system. The current
system has not seen substantial updates since its inception. Proposed enhancements would allow for
efficiencies and reduce the possibility of errors.
i. Emergency medical services (EMS) as an essential service
Public safety is a core function of government. Emergency medical services should be an essential service
provided by all levels of local government, similar to police and fire services. This ensures that all people
receive the EMS services they need, regardless of where they live. Johnson County supports changing
Iowa law to recognize that cities, counties, and townships must provide EMS protection to their
citizens.
j. Gender balance and gender identity on boards and commissions
Reform Iowa Code 69.16A as appropriate to encourage public service among all gender identities, including
persons whose gender identity is neither male nor female, while remaining consistent with the objective of
Iowa's gender balance law to increase participation in local government of traditionally underrepresented
groups.
k. Housing State offices at local taxpayer expense
Currently some counties are forced to house a variety of state agencies (DHS and the Courts, for example)
and receive little or no reimbursement from the State. In addition, counties are forced to pay for expenses
such as postage and office supplies at local taxpayer's expense. We request that the State no longer require
that counties subsidize the local office expenses of state agencies. We would encourage the legislature to
pay particular attention to the document storage requirements of the Department of Human Services.
I. Independent boards operating under county authority
Pursuant to the Code of Iowa, there are three independent boards that operate under the auspices of
county government. They are the Conservation Board, Board of Health, and the Veterans Affairs
Commission. The Board of Supervisors approves the budgets for these departments and appoints the citizen
representatives to these boards. Thereafter, the three boards have the autonomy to set policy, hire their
respective directors, approve contracts, and oversee spending. These departments utilize county resources
and are representing the community as an arm of county government.
The knowledge and experience these board members bring to their duties is invaluable in assisting their
respective departments, but the board members are unelected and therefore not directly accountable to
taxpayers. The Board of Supervisors is supportive of the important public services provided by these
departments and appreciates the contribution of the volunteer board members and commissioners.
However, due to issues of liability and accountability, Johnson County asks the legislature to appoint an
interim committee to examine the governance structure of these independent boards and the related
risks to county government of their activities.
m. Iowa Public Employees Retirement System
Iowa has the most solvent and well -funded public retirement systems in the United States. It has maintained
that status with conservative investment policies and conservative growth projection. IPERS is an important
and effective recruiting tool to help government agencies attract talented workers. We would encourage the
legislature to carefully consider the long-term implications to that viability before any changes are made to
the current system.
State Legislative Priorities 20191/16/2019 6 Johnson County Board of Supervisors
n. Local Public Health Services Grant
Local Public Health Services Grant (LPHSG) funds are directed by the local Board of Health to address
community needs that can range from skilled nursing or home care aide services to communicable disease
follow-up and environmental investigations of health threats. Programs supported by the grants have a
priority to serve vulnerable populations. Since 2006, State funding for the LPHSG has decreased from $10.6
million to less than $8.2 million in fiscal year 2018, a 22.6 percent decrease, while the needs continue to
increase as the population increases and ages and chronic diseases put a strain on our health care systems.
The Local Public Health Services Grant should be restored to the 2007 funding level (adjusted for inflation)
of at least $13.06 million.
o. Maintain jurisdiction of children in juvenile court
All children deserve to have their cases served in juvenile court systems, where they can have their
individual needs and the specifics of their case considered. To achieve this (Code of Iowa 232.8) the law
should be changed to ban the placement of children in adult jails and to remove "statutory exclusion" which
automatically transfers children accused of certain offenses to adult court, thereby removing the discretion
of juvenile court judges to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. On any given day, we do not know how many
juveniles are in adult jail statewide. The Johnson County Board of Supervisors requests the following:
Collect, analyze and publish data on all youth in adult courts, jails, and prisons. Include information on
age, gender, race, county offense, sentence, length of stay in jail and the services received while in adult
facilities
p. Marijuana reform
The Johnson County Board of Supervisors requests that marijuana laws be reformed as follows.
• Industrial hemp has many uses and was grown in this country until the 1950s. There are significant
economic development opportunities for this crop. We ask that agricultural producers be allowed to
farm industrial hemp as an agricultural commodity.
• Allow medical cannabis and its constituent cannabinoids as medical therapy for the treatment of disease
or the alleviation of symptoms.
• Johnson County requests legalization of marijuana.
• The Johnson County Board of Supervisors supports the reclassification of marijuana from a Schedule I to
a Schedule II drug, and supports clinical research and development of cannabinoid -based medicines
following scientifically -established protocols.
q. Medical examiner
The fee for cremation permits is set by Iowa Code, Section 331.805(3)(b). The fee was last increased in 2002
The Johnson County Medical Examiner Department has seen a nearly 65 percent increase in the demand for
cremation permits from 2011 to 2018. The Department issued 1,046 permits in 2018. This rapidly increasing
demand for cremation permits is one of the driving factors requiring the department to maintain 24/7
staffing. The legislature should amend Iowa Code, Section 331.805(3)(b) to increase the cremation permit
from $75 to $100.
r. Mental health funding and children's mental health programs
Mental health regions are working, but their success is predicated on an Iowa Medicaid program that works.
The many problems with Iowa Medicaid must be addressed, or the county -funded system will fail as well.
The State must end Medicaid privatization. We strongly oppose any transfer of additional responsibilities
from the State to regions without the commitment to provide additional resources. Without this
commitment, the State would be placing an additional burden on local property taxes. The State must
State Legislative Priorities 20191/16/2019 7 Johnson County Board of Supervisors
provide the necessary number of psychiatric beds to address acute care needs. The State must address
the severe lack of mental health professionals in Iowa, especially those professionals that accept
Medicaid.
s. Project labor agreements
Johnson County has successfully used Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) to ensure:
• adequate pay
• insurance
• safety
• training
Local government should have the power to enter into local contracts to negotiate the construction of
public projects. Johnson County requests the authority to use Project Labor Agreements for public projects.
t. Recreation and conservation
The Johnson County Board of Supervisors requests the following reforms.
• Funding for the Lake Restoration Program, administered by the IDNR, at a minimum amount of $8.7
million annually.
• Funding for the Rivers and Dam Safety Program, administered by the IDNR, at a minimum of $2 million
annually.
• Fully funding Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) at the $25 million level.
• Funding the State Recreational Trails program to at least $10 million annually.
• Establishing the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund, also known as the Iowa Water
and Land Legacy (IWILL) program, by funding the program formula as approved by 63% of Iowa voters in
2010.
• Funding a meaningful and evidence -based strategy to improve water quality based upon measureable
progress and timelines.
u. Renewable energy
The Johnson County Board of Supervisors supports the following reforms.
Tax incentives: Iowa has used tax policy to help grow its solar market. Iowa established an Investment
Tax Credit (ITC) in 2012 that matches 50% of the federal ITC (or 15% of the upfront cost of a solar
project). There are currently project -specific caps and an annual aggregate cap of funds available for the
tax credits of $5 million. Iowa regularly has a waiting list for this program. We recommend increasing
the annual program cap to $10 million.
Iowa has offered a $0.015/kWh Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind and a variety of other renewables
since 2005, with caps on capacity eligible for different renewable energy resources. In 2015, the Iowa
Legislature added 10 MW as a set-aside for solar, with additional solar projects accessing unrestricted
capacity. The 10 MW is primarily supporting rural electric cooperative and municipal utility projects
(community and utility scale). This additional capacity has already been used. We ask that an additional
30 MW of capacity is set-aside for solar.
Net metering: The Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) has led a wide-ranging inquiry on Distributed Generation
(DG) for several years and has issued an order for the investor-owned utilities to establish a pilot on net
metering that preserves the existing framework and provides a limited expansion of net metering. We
State Legislative Priorities 20191/16/2019 8 Johnson County Board of Supervisors
ask that the legislature refrain from making any changes to net metering while the pilot tariffs are in
place in order to allow the IUB to collect data on the impacts of the pilot tariffs and net metering.
Interconnection standards: One focus of the IUB DG inquiry has been interconnection standards. Iowa
previously adopted Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) standards and has been a leading
state on interconnection standards. We recommend the Iowa Utilities Board move forward with the
rulemaking, and we encourage rural electrical cooperatives and municipal utilities to adopt the same
interconnection standards so best practices are applied throughout Iowa.
v. Retroactive Medicaid
The General Assembly eliminated retroactive Medicaid for most individuals. Retroactive Medicaid allows
coverage of health services provided three months prior to an individual being approved for Medicaid.
Retroactive Medicaid provides financial security to vulnerable individuals, particularly the elderly, disabled,
and those in need of long-term care services. It is a safety net that helps prevent medical bankruptcy.
Elimination of retroactive eligibility for Medicaid creates economic hardships for families who are unable to
pay for medical services. In addition, health care providers are negatively impacted because the care they
provide will be largely uncompensated. Johnson County supports the restoration of retroactive Medicaid.
w. State funding for the State Medical Examiner and DCI Criminalistics Laboratory
Johnson County knows that funding at all levels of public safety is at an all-time low. Autopsies and other
investigative information needed for local cases are taking longer than ever before. These specialized
services support local law enforcement in critical ways that cannot be done by most local agencies. Johnson
County supports priority be given to the full funding of the Iowa Office of the State Medical Examiner, DPS
Criminalistics Laboratory, and computer forensic examiners.
x. State Noxious Weed Law
During the 2018 Legislative Session, the Iowa Weed Law, Iowa Code chapter 317, was modified, allowing the
Iowa Department of Agriculture to establish priorities from the list of noxious weeds listed in statute. The
threat of invasive plant species is a quickly growing problem across all of Iowa. Legislative action and
appropriate funding is critical to modernize and update the State Noxious Weed Law, including bringing
together multiple partners and stakeholders such as Farm Bureau, Iowa Department of Natural Resources,
IDALS, Iowa Weed Commissioners Association, and private landowners for input to more effectively and
efficiently manage the threat of existing noxious weeds and invasive species. Johnson County supports the
latest moves to modify the law and wants to ensure that the law is updated and new rules are adopted.
y. State tobacco tax
It has been 11 years since the state tobacco tax was increased. Iowa's current rate, at $1.36 per pack, is
below the national average of $1.78 per pack. Studies have established that increases in cigarette prices lead
to substantial reductions in smoking for both youth and adults. A $1.50 state tax increase, to $2.86 per pack
on cigarettes, would prevent 19,000 young people from smoking, help 22,000 adults quit, generate more
than $100 million in state tax revenue, help address the $1.2 billion that state spends each year on smoking-
related health care issues and add to the current state allocation of $4 million on tobacco prevention and
control, which is just 13.5 percent of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual spending
target. The state tax on tobacco products should be increased by an additional $1.50 per pack and the
State should consider yearly indexing of the State tobacco tax.
z. veterans
The Code of Iowa does not recognize the service of commissioned officers of the Public Health Service,
Environmental Science Services Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
State Legislative Priorities 20191/16/2019 9 Johnson County Board of Supervisors
Coast and Geodetic Survey Administration as veterans. They are not eligible for the same benefits as
veterans of Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard. Johnson County supports amending the
definition of veteran in Chapter 35 of the Code of Iowa to include commissioned officers of the Public
Health Service, Environmental Science Services Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and Coast and Geodetic Survey Administration.
State Legislative Priorities 20191/16/2019 10 Johnson County Board of Supervisors
JOHNSON COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICES
Ambulance, 319-356-6013
Fiona Johnson, Director
fjohnson@co.johnson.ia.us
Assessor—County, 319-356-6078
Tom Van Buer, County Assessor
tvanbuer@co.johnson.ia. us
Assessor—Iowa City, 319-356-6066
Brad Comer, City Assessor
bcomer@co.johnson.ia. us
Attorney, 319-339-6100
Janet Lyness, County Attorney
jlyness@co.johnson.ia. us
Auditor/Elections, 319-356-6004
Travis Weipert, County Auditor
tweipert@co.johnson.ia. us
Conservation, 319-645-2315
Larry Gullett, Director
Igullett@co.johnson.ia. us
Emergency Management, 319-356-6761
Dave Wilson, Coordinator
dave.wilson@jecc-ema.org
Finance, 319-688-8095
Dana Aschenbrenner, Director
daschenb@co.johnson.ia.us
Human Resources, 319-356-6003
Lora Shramek, Director
Ishramek@co.johnson.ia. us
Information Technology, 319-356-6080
Bill Horning, Director
bhorning@co.johnson.ia. us
Medical Examiner, 319-339-6197
Clayton Schuneman, Administrative Director
cschunem@co.johnson.ia.us
Mental Health and Disability Services
319-339-6169
Jan Shaw, Director
jshaw@co.johnson.ia.us
Physical Plant, 319-356-6073
Eldon Slaughter, Facilities Manager
eslaught@co.johnson.ia.us
Planning, Development and Sustainability
319-356-6083
Josh Busard, Director
jbusard@co.johnson.ia.us
Public Health, 319-356-6040
Dave Koch, Director
dkoch@co.johnson.ia.us
Recorder, 319-356-6093
Kim Painter, County Recorder
kpainter@co.johnson.ia.us
SEATS, 319-339-6128
Tom Brase, Director
tbrase@co.johnson.ia.us
Secondary Roads, 319-356-6046
Greg Parker, Director
gparker@co.johnson.ia.us
Sheriff, 319-356-6020
Lonny Pulkrabek, County Sheriff
1pu1krab@co.johnson.ia.us
Social Services, 319-356-6090
Lynette Jacoby, Director
Ijacoby@co.johnson.ia. us
Treasurer, 319-356-6091
Tom Kriz, County Treasurer
tkriz@co.johnson.ia.us
Veterans Affairs, 319-356-6049
Gary Boseneiler, Director
gbosenei@co.johnson.ia. us
State Legislative Priorities 20191/16/2019 11 Johnson County Board of Supervisors
Item Number: 14.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Iowa City Community School District: Legislative Priorities 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Iowa City Community School District: Legislative Priorities 2019
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT
2019
IOWA CITY
COMMUNITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Child -Centered: Future -Focused
Janet Godwin, President
Paul Roesler, Vice President
Student Population: 14,285
J.P. Claussen
(October 1, 2018 certified data)
Iowa City Community School District is the
Shawn Eyestone
51n largest school district in Iowa.
Phil Hemingway
School Sites
Ruthina Malone
17 preschool sites
Lori Roetlin
21 elementary schools
3 junior highs
3 high schools
1 alternative high school
Student Languages
DISTRICT
Approximately 80 different languages are spoken.
LEADERSHIP TEAM
English is the predominant language, followed
by Spanish, Arabic, Swahili, Chinese and French.
Stephen Murley
District Size
Superintendent
133 square miles
More than 100 buses transport 5,000 students daily
Matt Degner
Average District Class Size
Assistant Superintendent
20/1 at the elementary level (Grades K-2)
23/1 at the elementary level (Grades 3-6)
28/1 at the secondary level (Grades 7-12)
Craig Hansel
Chief Financial Officer
District Personnel
57% Certified Staff
40% Support Staff
Amy Kortemeyer
3% Administrators
Assistant Superintendent
Budget Percentage
Chace Ramey
84% personnel costs
16% operational costs
Chief Human Resources Officer
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT
2019
IOWA CITY
COMMUNITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Child -Centered: Future -Focused
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIE;
2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STATE AID MUST
SUPPORT ENGLISH LANGUA
BE ADEQUATE AND TIMELY.
LEARNER STUDENTS.
It should be set before all other budgetary
Extend weighted English Language
priorities. Timely and adequate funding for
Learner (ELL) funding from five yea
education is critical to responsible planning
seven years per pupil, in accordance
and budgeting for school districts. The ICCSD
evidence -based practice. The ICCSD
is currently averaging growth of over 300 new
seen a 300% increase in ELL student:
students per year, which makes it even more
the past four years and is now home
critical to know our budget well in advance.
nearly 1,400 ELL students.
EXTEND THE SAVE
RESTORATION OF
PENNY TAX BEYOND 2029.
CHAPTER 20
This one cent statewide sales tax
The state of Iowa should be leading th
allows districts to plan appropriately
country in attracting talent to our sch
for building and infrastructure needs.
districts. Restoring Chapter 20 will ho
direct impact on the recruitment and
of educators and morale within our sc
FULLY FUND 4 YEAR OLD
PRESCHOOL INSTRUCTION
NO VOUCHERS
FOR QUALIFYING STUDENTS.
Vouchers are a diversion of public edu
Children never get a second chance at a
funds to programs that do not have to
good start and students that complete
Department of Education rules. All scl
preschool are better prepared to become
receiving any federal or state dollars sh
successful students.
to ALL federal and state rules and regc
Item Number: 15.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Invitation: Houses into Homes fundraiser, January 26
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Invitation: houses into Homes fundraiser, January 26
Kellie Fruehling
From: Lucy Barker & Salina McCarty <housesintohomes319@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 7:49 PM
To: Council
Subject: Houses into Homes fundraiser
Attachments: HiH fundraiser flyer.pdf
To the Iowa City Councilors:
Join us for a Housewarming Fundraiser to celebrate our first year and help us meet our goals! No ticket necessary,
just stop by Urban Acres Real Estate at 250 Holiday Road in Coralville on Saturday, January 26th, from 6-9 pm to
enjoy Maggie's Farm Wood -Fired Pizza, desserts, and music from Kevin BF Burt. Learn more about Houses into
Homes—the work we are doing and our goals for the future.
What are our goals? Our number one goal is to be able to provide beds, furniture, and household items to as many
recipients in as short a time as we can. We want to make sure that every person who needs a bed has one. We want to
divert from the landfill as many beds, couches, tables, chairs, dressers, rugs, sheets, towels, blankets, and more as we
can.
Our Housewarming Fundraiser is not ticketed. Free-will donations are encouraged if you find the work we are doing in
the Iowa City community important and would like to see us continue and improve. We hope we see you there on
Saturday, January 26th!
Lucy Barker & Salina McCarty, Co -Directors
housesintohomes.org
face book. co Who usesintohomesiowacity
319-435-1075
HOUSEWARMING
r
4 it
iP m
%
INTO
HOMES
Celebrate our first year and help us meet -I"I"
our goals!
Saturday, Jail. 2616 to * PM
Urban Acres Real Estate, 250 Holiday
Road, Corak!Mp.
Food and drink provided.
Please RSVP at
housesi ntohomes319@ g ma i I .com
Item Number: 16.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Airport Commission: December 20
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Airport Commission: December 20
December 20, 2018
Page 1
MINUTES
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
DECEMBER 20,2018-6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: Warren Bishop, Christopher Lawrence, Robert Libby
Members Absent: Minnetta Gardinier, Derek LaBrie
Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Eric Goers, Michael Tharp
Others Present: Matt Wolford, David Hughes, Carl Byers, Melissa Underwood
DRAFT
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
DETERMINE QUORUM:
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes from the November 15, 2018, meeting were reviewed by Members. Lawrence
moved to accept the minutes of the November 15, 2018, meeting, as presented. Bishop
seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0, Gardinier and LaBrie absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Zoning Code Update — Tharp began the discussion by giving Members some
background history. He noted that in 2016 the Commission completed a master
plan update. He then spoke to some of the changes in this update, adding that
the zoning code updates are being done in order to reflect the above-mentioned
master plan updates. Tharp stated that a major change is the deletion of any
references to runway 18-36, which has been decommissioned for several years
now. Dulek then spoke to this issue, giving Members some background on how
matters like this proceed. She explained how a recommendation will go to the
City Council for approval, as well as to the Board of Supervisors with the County.
b. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM [David Hughes
L Obstruction Mitigation — Hughes stated that there are two Task Orders
on the agenda this evening. He added that on one of them they were
unable to get clarification from the FAA as to what they want for the
December 20, 2018
Page 2
I
11
approach procedure survey, so this one is being recommended to be
tabled. On the other one, Hughes noted that he and Tharp have worked
on this, and they just need to go back and clarify the scope. Tharp added
that Task Order No. 9 is the obstruction mitigation piece. He explained
how these types of contracts have to be handled and what they need to
do in order to move forward. He is recommending that the Commission
authorize the Chair to sign the contract based on his and Legal's approval
for Task Order No. 9. He further clarified that the changes encompass
the additional language to better define the scope and activities within it.
Goers further clarified what actions are being taken here.
1. Consider resolution approving Task Order No. 9 with AECOM
- Lawrence moved to approve Resolution #A18-14 as
discussed and amended. Bishop seconded the motion. The
motion carried 3-0, Gardinier and LaBrie absent.
2. Consider a resolution approving Task Order No. 10 with
AECOM - Lawrence moved to defer Resolution #A18-15
approving Task Order #10 with AECOM. Bishop seconded
the motion. The motion carried 3-0, Gardinier and LaBrie
absent.
Terminal Apron Rehab — Hughes stated that they have completed their
field work and have started on design plans. They hope to have these
ready for the Commission to review next month. Hughes added that he
met with Jet Air and Tharp to talk about phasing on this project, since it is
in front of the terminal building and will need to be kept open for
operations. Tharp spoke to the timeline, noting that they hope to be
approving the plans and specs at the February meeting, with bids coming
back for the March meeting. Construction could then begin as soon as
the weather is good.
FAA FY20 AIP Pre -Application — Tharp stated that this is basically back
for any final discussion and signatures, so that it can go back to the State
and FAA. Lawrence moved to authorize the Chair to sign the AIP
packet and submit it to the State. Bishop seconded the motion. The
motion carried 3-0, Gardinier and LaBrie absent.
C. FBO 1 Flight Training Reports
i. Jet Air — Matt Wolford shared the monthly maintenance reports with
Members, covering November and approximately half of December. The
large snowfall in November caused some delays due to equipment
issues. In December they rebuilt quite a few runway lights. This was due
to the wet snow that then froze, causing ice issues when clearing the
runway.
Speaking to Jet Air, Wolford stated that their maintenance has been
keeping busy and that the Airport has been staying busy overall.
d. Airport Operations
I. Management — Tharp reminded Members that the finalist interviews for
the engineering consultant will be next month. There are three finalists
for this.
ii. Events — Tharp was asked about the University's recent simulated Ebola
case event. Tharp shared with Members how the University Hospitals
December 20, 2018
Page 3
had contacted him several months ago, wanting to do their infectious
disease, highly -contagious disease drill. He then shared with Members
some background on those medical facilities that are involved in these
types of cases, and also how aviation is involved in transporting patients
to the necessary medical facilities for treatment. Tharp then responded to
Member questions regarding this drill.
iii. Budget — Tharp spoke briefly to the upcoming budget process, noting
that the City departments will do their individual budget reviews with the
Council on Saturday, January 5. The capital projects review will be in the
middle of January.
e. Commission Members' Reports — None.
f. Staff Report — Tharp noted that he will be out of the office between Christmas
and New Year's.
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR:
The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday, January 17,
2019, at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport Terminal Building.
ADJOURN:
Lawrence moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:32 P.M. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion
carried 3-0, Gardinier and LaBrie absent.
CHAIRPERSON DATE
December 20, 2018
Page 4
Airport Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018
Key:
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
TERM
o
0
0
o
O
O
o
0
0
0
.�
NAME
EXP.
�°
i
?
i
i
w
i
N
m
i
N
to
rn
rn
W
c`
o
i
i
i
Warren
06/30/22
N
N
N
N
N
N
O/
NM
NM
NM
NM
X
X
Bishop
M
M
M
M
M
M
E
Minnetta
07/01/19
O
Gardinier
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
E
E
E
Robert
07/01/20
O/E
X
X
X
E/
X
X
X
X
E/
E/
X
X
Libb Y
Christopher
07/01/21
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lawrence
Derek
07/01/22
N
N
N
O/
NM
NM
NM
NM
X
X
X
X
X
LaBrie
M
M
M
E
Jacob
06/30/18
O
O/
O/
O/
N
N
N
N
N
N
Odgaard
O/E
O/E
X
/
E
E
EE
M
M
M
M
M
M
Chris Ogren
06/30/18
N
N
N
N
N
N
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
M
M
M
M
M
M
Key:
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
December 20, 2018
Page 5
NM = Not a Member at this time
Item Number: 17.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Human Rights Commission: January 8
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Human Rights Uommission: January 8
Draft Minutes
Human Rights Commission
January 8, 2019
Procter and Gamble Room, Mercer Aquatic Center
Members Present: Jeff Falk, Cathy McGinnis, Bijou Maliabo, Jessica Ferdig, Barbara
Kutzko, Tahuanty Pena, Noemi Ford.
Members Absent: Adil Adams, Jonathon Munoz.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 5:31 PM.
Approval of November 21, 2018 Meeting Minutes: Kutzko moved to approve the
minutes; the motion was seconded by McGinnis. A vote was taken, and the motion
passed 6-0. (Maliabo not present).
Correspondence: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day will be celebrated on Monday,
January 21 from 9 a.m. -1 p.m. at Mercer Aquatic Center. Kutzko has been working with
City staff on planning the day's events. The event begins with a Unity March starting at
Eastdale Plaza, and ending at Mercer Park Aquatic Center. It then continues at Mercer
Park with family -friendly volunteer projects, children's activities, performances, and
more. Donations of outerwear apparel such as hats, gloves, mittens, scarves and socks
will be accepted to benefit area shelters. Kutzko is also moderating a panel at Oaknoll
that will discuss memories/takeaways residents have from the Civil Rights Movement.
Falk and Maliabo will do a presentation as part of Focus Day at Liberty High School in
North Liberty for the national holiday. It will center around Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s
oration at the Riverside Church on April 4, 1967. In addition, Maliabo will be providing
translation services throughout the day at this event.
2019 Commission Elections: Kutzko moved to elect Pena Chair, and Falk seconded.
A vote was taken, and the motion passed 7-0. Falk moved to elect Maliabo Vice Chair,
the motion was seconded by Kutzko. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 7-0.
Social Justice and Racial Equity Grant:
The discussion began with an overview of the grant process for fiscal year 2018. There
was also a discussion on the Council requirements for this funding period. They are:
1) the proposal should be a new program;
2) the organization must be principally and physically located in Iowa City;
3) the City cannot be a primary applicant;
4) there is no minimum or maximum amount that must be requested;
5) funding requests cannot be used for operational costs;
6) the grant is not intended to be a continual source of funding.
Draft Minutes
Human Rights Commission
January 8, 2019
Procter and Gamble Room, Mercer Aquatic Center
Commissioners next reported on any conflict of interest that they had with grant
applicants. Ford is involved in establishing the program at Iowa City Compassion that is
based on its grant proposal.
McGinnis is in the process of applying for the Board of Directors for the Iowa Harm
Reduction Coalition; she also assisted with the University of Iowa's Mood Disorder
proposal and may facilitate the program should it be funded.
It was decided per City policy that if a Commissioner has a conflict, that Commissioner
will not participate in any of the evaluation, discussion or decision making on grants.
Commissioners then went over the scoring rubric in terms of evaluating each
application.
The Commission also discussed whether to allow organizations to present their
proposals. It was decided that the Commission would not seek comment from
applicants. If a Commissioner has a question on an application that needs to be
clarified, staff will reach out to the organization and share the response with the
Commission.
The Commission also considered whether funding requests could be modified. For
example, if an applicant requested $6,000, could the Commission approve only $3000?
This will be discussed at the meeting scheduled for January 24 after rankings have
been completed.
Like in past years, the Commission will convert their numerical scores to a rank of 1-26
with 1 being the highest and 26 the lowest (26 grant submissions were received for
fiscal year 2019). The ranking would then be averaged among all Commissioners and
divided by the number of Commissioners participating in the process. Staff will send out
an editable worksheet for Commissioners to use for their scoring and ranking.
When the Commission rankings are completed there should be intentional thought on:
whether the top ranked proposals represent diversity within populations; whether the
proposal is a desire or wish as compared to a concrete plan; whether there is specific
data that supports the need for the proposal; and whether the proposal differs from what
the organization does as part of its daily activities.
The Commission decided not to meet on its regularly scheduled day of Tuesday,
January 15 and instead meet the week of January 21. At that meeting the Commission
will focus on the top tier scores, discuss specific funding, and allow for a Commissioner
to make a case for a proposal that scored low, if so inclined.
Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 6:35 PM.
K
O
T
N
T
O
T
T
LO
T
O
T
n
T
rn
0
N
00
cD
T
ti
co
T
CD
T
N
LO
CG
T
dam'
T
M
O
N
N
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
V
N
N
N
V
N
N
T
d
`
a
w
d
d
a-
w
d
d
T
T
T
O
O
O
N
N
N
E
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
X
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
(N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
L(
r W
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
�
L
O
-0
C
N
O
U)
E
C7
iG
N
�C
E
f0
O
L
LidQlili
xooz ;
Item Number: 18.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 17, 2019
Planning and Zoning Commission, January 3
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Planning ano Zoning Commission, January 3
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JAN UARY 3, 2019 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer. Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Jesi Lile, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Jamie Thelan, Alex Carrillo, Kelcey Patrick -Ferree, John Yapp
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 (Martin absent) the Commission recommends approval of SUB18-00016, an
application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC for a preliminary plat of Tegler Second, an 8.56
acre, 2 -lot residential subdivision with 1 outlot for future development located at 4643 Herbert
Hoover Highway, subject to the revisions.
By a vote of 6-0 (Martin absent) the Commission recommends approval of REZ18-
00024/SUB18-00017, an application submitted by Bedrock LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to
OPD/RS-5, OPD/RM-12, and OPD/P-1 and a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development
Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 20 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of
Gilbert Street subject to the following conditions:
1. The development be built as proposed in the preliminary plat, with one 36-plex building
located on Lot 2, 21 townhouse -style units built between Lots 2 and 3, and 15 detached
single family and two attached single-family housing units be built on Lots 4 — 20. The
development substantially conform to the elevations provided for the 36-plex multifamily
residential building and the townhouse style family multifamily buildings.
2. The final plat include details regarding the square footage and description of amenities for
designated private open space on Lot 2.
3. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection plan
prior to issuance of the final plat. This plan shall cover both plans to plant replacement trees
throughout the development and plans to protect and preserve healthy and mature trees in
or near the ravine from construction activity (to the greatest possible extent).
4. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains and
gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on Toby Circle.
5. Construction of a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the western frontage (east side of South Gilbert
Street) of the development prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6. Installation of curb ramps at the area where City Transportation Planning staff has
designated as appropriate to accommodate an uncontrolled crosswalk prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
7. Dedication of a landscape easement, with proposed tree plantings to be approved by the
City Forester, along the southern property boundary in Lot 1 at the time of final platting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 2of18
By a vote of 6-0 (Martin absent) the Commission recommends approval of REZ18-00022, an
application submitted by Allen Development, for a rezoning from ID -RP to CH -1 for
approximately 3.2 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and
Highway 1 subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, closure and removal of the access
road off of Highway 1.
2. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries and a
landscaping plan approved by the City Forester.
3. General conformance with the concept plan only in that a principal building must occupy
the corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 10 -foot wide sidewalk
along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and
pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (SUB18-00016):
Discussion of an application, submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC, for a preliminary plat of
Tegler Second, an 8.56 acre, 2 -lot residential subdivision with 1 outlot for future development
located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway.
Lile began the staff report noting the applicant, IC Housing Group, LLC is requesting approval of
the preliminary plat for Tegler Second Subdivision, a 2 -lot subdivision, which includes 2 multi-
family residential lots and 1 outlot for future development located at 4643 Herbert Hoover
Highway but the address will change to Rochester Avenue as the area is developed. The IC
Housing Group has a purchase agreement in place for the property. On December 4, 2018 the
City Council passed an ordinance to conditionally rezone the property to Low Density Multi -
Family Residential (RM -12) and Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20). The southern
portion of the property remains Interim Development — Single Family Residential (ID- RS). The
three conditions imposed by the conditional rezoning ordinance are:
1. City Council approval of a final plat that generally conforms to the street layout shown in the
concept plan
2. The owner agrees to construct a north/south street to City standards such and agrees to
dedicate this street to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit
3. A detailed landscaping plan must be approved by the City Forester to ensure noise and wind
buffering from Herbert Hoover Highway, and development must be done in accordance with
the approved plan.
Lile showed an overview of the three part project, in phase A there will be construction of an
affordable family apartment building with 36 units, they have been awarded funding from the
Iowa Finance Authority, in addition there is $700,000 from The Housing Trust Fund and
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 3 of 18
$200,000 from the City. Phase B will be an affordable senior housing project with 52 units
and phase C is for future development.
Lile showed the preliminary plat, it is divided into three lots, there will be the development of a
north/south public street (Nex Avenue) that will connect with Rochester Avenue (Herbert Hoover
Highway). Lot 1 is located south of Rochester Avenue and west of Nex Avenue, vehicular
access to this lot will be provided by Nex Avenue. Lot 1 also includes a temporary fire vehicle
turnaround as Nex Avenue is stubbed off at the start of Outlot A, there is also a dry bottom
detention basin at the south side of the property line. Lot 2 is located south of Rochester Avenue
and east of Nex Avenue, Nex Avenue will also provide vehicular access to lot 2. Outlot A
currently contains one single family home with driveway access off Rochester Avenue. There
are plans for a second dry bottom detention basin between outlot A and lot 2 on the east side of
the property. Nex Avenue will be stubbed off at the beginning of outlot A with a temporary fire
turnaround. With the eventual development of outlot A, Nex Avenue is planned to connect to the
east/west roads south of the property. The applicant has requested to temporarily keep the
residence on outlot A to be used as a rental property with plans to house their construction
manager during the project timeline. Currently the house is on well water and septic sewer. City
Staff is open to allowing the residence to remain subject to a few requirements:
Public Works staff must approve a phasing plan for how the applicant will provide safe
access to the house during construction. These plans must be submitted along with the
construction drawings at final platting. The construction plans must also identify access to the
structure after completion of the roadway, Nex Avenue.
2. At a set date to be finalized in the subdivider's agreement, the dwelling must be demolished
or connected to City water and sewer. This date will be set based on the anticipated
construction timeline and is expected to be in March 2020.
The Northeast District Plan encourages an interconnected transportation system, there are existing
8 foot sidewalks along Rochester Avenue and the preliminary plat shows 5 foot sidewalks on both
sides of Nex Avenue that will connect to the existing sidewalks on the south side of Rochester
Avenue. Lile noted there is also access to transit within a half mile of the proposed subdivision.
As per the conditional zoning agreement, the new street (Nex Avenue) will be built to City
standards. This development will not cause a significant increase in traffic in the area, Rochester
Avenue has the capacity to handle about 15,000 vehicles per day and is currently under 5,000.
The Northeast District Plan also calls for increasing neighborhood areas for open space, a
subdivision of this size requires the dedication of 0.40 acres of public open space or fees in lieu
of. The Parks and Recreation Department has determined that fees are appropriate in lieu of
neighborhood open space dedication. The fee will be equivalent to the fair market value of 0.40
acres of property. This requirement will need to be addressed in the legal papers for the final
plat.
The subject area includes 12,326 square feet of steep slopes and 1,754 square feet of critical
slopes in this subdivision, all of which, will be impacted during various phases of construction.
The critical slopes are located on Outlot A, but will be impacted by the development of the dry
bottom detention basin. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows for the development of storm
water management facilities within sensitive areas. The applicant has submitted a preliminary
stormwater management plan that proposed two dry bottom detention basins in order to deal
with storm runoff. In September 2018 the applicant held a good neighbor meeting where one
neighbor expressed concerns with construction site runoff and storm water management but
there has been no further correspondence since then.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 4 of 18
Lile noted in the staff report the Commission received, the sanitary sewer was listed as a
deficiency due to depth issues however these have been mostly resolved with the remaining
details to be worked out in the construction drawings.
The applicant also provided a concept plan for phase A and phase B, it is just a concept and
details will need to be refined in the site plan stage. The applicant also provided some updated
elevations from what was seen at the rezoning meeting, which are also subject to change during
the site plan stage.
Lile noted as per the conditional zoning agreement the applicant submitted a detailed
landscaping plan for approval by the City Forester, overall he liked the design and plant diversity
and composition, the one comment made was to replace red pine with something else (and he
gave suggestions for that) as red pine does not do well in hot and humid areas.
Staff recommends that SUB18-00016, an application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC for a
preliminary plat of Tegler Subdivision, a 2 -lot residential subdivision with an outlot identified for
future development located on 7.41 -acres of land at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway be approved.
Lile noted next steps will be upon approval of the proposed preliminary plat, the applicant will be
required to submit an application for a final plat to subdivide the land into lots. The final plat will
be reviewed and approved by City Council. After the subdivision stage, the applicant will submit
a site plan for staff review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Baker asked if this was the only review the Zoning Commission will have of this project. Hektoen
noted that the rezoning of the property came before the Commission. Baker questioned the
width of Nex Avenue at 20 feet. Russett noted she believes it is 28 feet, and the applicant can
clarify. Hensch noted the application says 26 foot road with apron. Baker asked if it can be
widened in the future. Lile said it just means it is a bit wider where Nex Avenue connects with
Rochester Avenue, but there is no turning lane. Baker shared concern once Nex Avenue is
connected to the roads to the south. Baker questioned the traffic counts on Rochester Avenue
and if it included the entire length of Rochester Avenue. Lile said the counts are for the area
where this development will be happening. Baker noted the language for the senior housing
states "most likely seniors" and wondered if that has been solidified into absolutely will be senior
housing. Lile stated the applicant is proposing senior housing. Russett noted the applicant is
submitting an application to the Iowa Finance Authority for funding to build an affordable housing
senior complex but the zoning on the site would allow senior or multi -family. Hektoen noted
senior housing is permitted in the RM -20 zone, Russett reiterated the applicant is looking for the
financing. Baker noted the neighbor concern about runoff was addressed but questioned if that
neighbor informed of improvement to the plan. Russett said the neighbor would have received a
letter in the mail. Signs noted that neighbor was at the previous Planning and Zoning meeting
where the rezoning of this property was discussed.
Dyer noted the senior housing building will be further from the city transit than the affordable
housing building.
Hensch noted his concern regarding stormwater runoff and if the City Engineer had signed off on
the plan. Lile noted they are working on a few final details of the plan.
Dyer asked when outlot A is developed in the future would it come back before the Commission
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 5 of 18
Hektoen noted it would because it would require a rezoning
Townsend asked about paying a fee -in -lieu for the neighborhood open space and noted with that
many residents, whether they are seniors or not, shouldn't there be some open space. Russett
noted the neighborhood open space requirements provide an option to either providing the public
open space on the site or the fee -in -lieu to go to the City's park system, so in this case the
money would go towards the public park systems. There will still be private open space in the
development, not public. The application is showing a private open space on property with
amenities for children, a playground area and benches for seating.
Parsons asked what the setback of the building on lot A from Rochester Avenue will be. Russett
replied it will be 40 feet.
Baker asked for clarification on the width of the road (Nex Avenue) as it connects to Rochester
Avenue and it will remain 26 feet wide, so what is a road apron of 70 feet will widen to allow for
sufficient traffic movement. Russett said Public Works and Transportation would have to answer
that question, she believes it is just the general design that is approved for a 26 foot wide road,
as it gets closer to the intersection it needs to be widened to make for easier turning movements.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jamie Thelan (3665 10th Avenue, Waite Park, MN) is the CEO of IC Housing Group, LLC and
wanted to give a little more detail about the development, they have been in business for about
27 years, they develop multifamily and commercial developments including hotels, their main
office is in Minnesota although they have properties Cedar Rapids, Coralville and Indianola.
They do developments and find their own sites for multifamily and hotels, do the construction,
they are their own general contractor, own architect and also manage their properties. As the
Staff reported there is Lot 1, Lot 2 and Outlot A, the first phase is a 36 unit proposed building, on
lot 2 is a proposed 52 unit senior housing development and outlot A is being held for future
development. With regards to building design on the first building they are pretty far along, they
have secured most of their funding for that building, and will start construction in March or April,
he showed a rendering of the building as well as some pictures of common areas that are typical
in these developments (fitness room, community room, and leasing office onsite), all the units will
have patios or decks, full appliance packages including washers and dryers, walk-in closets,
secure access and it will be an elevator building. Thelan noted this is an affordable housing
project with mixed income (some units will be market rate). There will be 6 one -bedroom units,
12 two-bedroom units and 18 three-bedroom units so it is really designed for families. There are
mixed income restrictions, some units at 30%, some at 40%, some at 60% and some at market
value. That equates to a rental range in each of the three types of units. Thelan showed
concepts of phase 1 and the open space areas including a children's playground area, grills, and
picnic tables.
Thelan noted the building concept for phase 2 is really just a concept at this time, they are
proposing a senior development and they are making an application to Iowa Finance Authority
for an affordable senior project, if that gets funded a senior affordable project is the plan. The
building design for the senior project will be similar to the multifamily building, it won't be exactly
the same but will try to match the design concepts and the amenities will be similar. The senior
building will all be two-bedroom units, each unit approximately 870 square feet, and a mix of 40%
and 60% and some market units. He noted in the senior building they opened in Coralville last
year they included a gazebo, elevated planting beds, and other outdoor areas and hope to add
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 6 of 18
those to this proposed concept as well.
Hensch asked if they do not get the funding for the senior housing development would it then
become a mixed income unit like the one on lot 1. Thelan said they would look at that, with the
senior project they get a density bonus so they would have to see the impact of that, but that is
likely although it would be less units than the 52 proposed for the senior development.
Hensch asked about the issues raised regarding stormwater runoff, Thelan noted they have
worked with MMS Consultants (their civil engineer) and all concerns have been addressed
though design and will meet the City requirements.
Dyer asked if there is any open green space that will not be concrete of children tile area.
Thelan said there is green space on Rochester Avenue, lawn space between the sidewalk and
the building, as well as some green space on the south side.
Baker asked if they do not get the funding for the senior housing and instead build a multifamily
would they change from all two-bedroom units to a mix of one, two and three. Thelan confirmed
if they went to a family housing development it would more mirror phase 1.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parson moved to recommend approval of SUB18-00016, an application submitted by IC
Housing Group, LLC for a preliminary plat of Tegler Second, an 8.56 acre, 2 -lot residential
subdivision with 1 outlot for future development located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway,
subject to the revisions.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Dyer shared a concern of all the space being used up by buildings and concrete, not much green
space and there is no nearby park space.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Martin absent).
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ18-00024/SUB18-00017):
Discussion of an application, submitted by Bedrock, LLC, for a rezoning ofapproximately
18.03 acres from Interim Development Multi -family Residential (ID -RM) zone to Planned
Development Overlay/Low Density Single-family Residential (OPD/RS-5) zone, Planned
Development Overlay/Low Density Multi -family Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and
Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone and a preliminary plat of Cherry Creek subdivision, a 20- lot,
18.03 acres subdivision located east of S. Gilbert Street and south of Waterfront Drive.
Heitner presented the staff report and noted an earlier version of this application was first
presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission in the spring, this is a second iteration of this
application. The application is submitted by Bedrock, LLC with the intention of creating a 20 -lot
residential subdivision with one lot being reserved for a future use of a City fire station. Heitner
showed aerial views of the subject property, the property is currently privately held however the City
does have a purchase agreement for Lot 1 of the subdivision with intent to construct a City fire
station at a later date. Heitner showed an overview of the proposed zoning, Lot 1 would be P-1, the
southeast area is proposed as OPD/RS-5, and the remainder of the area would be OPD/RM-12.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 7 of 18
Heitner stated at the meeting on the previous application, June 21, 2018, the Commission voted
6-1 to recommend the application to the City Council, with the following conditions:
1. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection
plan prior to issuance of the final plat.
2. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains and
gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on Toby
Circle.
3. That the applicant will contact with an archaeologist approved by the state to complete a
study or excavation plan prior to any additional grading on the property.
At the City Council's second hearing for the application on September 4th, 2018, the motion
recommending approval of the application failed due to a 3-3 vote from the Council. Dissenting
opinions included concerns about increased traffic and density to this neighborhood, and a
general lack of social infrastructure in the development.
The application now has been resubmitted with a few major changes and Staff is recommending
the original conditions from the first submission still stand with this new application. The current
iteration of the application includes a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan, in
addition to the request to rezone the land. The current application has made a few notable
changes. The second 36 dwelling -unit multi -family building, formerly located on Lot 1, has been
removed from this application. The City of Iowa City is a co -applicant on the rezoning application
for Lot 1 to be rezoned to Neighborhood Public (P-1). The current application has also removed
all structures from the Lot 1 area to make way for a grading plan that will make the lot relatively
flat and ready for future development.
Heitner stated the in terms of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, The South District Plan
encourages development of neighborhoods with a mix of housing types to allow for housing
options. The Plan indicates that property along the east side of Gilbert Street, south of the
railroad, may be appropriate for town -home or other small lot or duplex development. Additional
density may be considered for projects that add a unique housing element or that enhance
housing diversity for the South District or that otherwise contribute to the connectivity of
neighborhoods or enhance visibility and street access to public parks and other open space. It is
believed the extension of Cherry Avenue will provide an important east -west connection allowing
neighbors more direct access to Gilbert Street and the parks and trails located to the west of
Gilbert Street. The Plan also identifies this area as appropriate for planned overlay development
to protect the wooded slopes in the area, and the future land use map in the Comprehensive
Plan identifies this area as appropriate for residential density at a rate of 2-8 dwelling units per
acre.
Heitner next showed an overview of the subdivision layout, the proposed subdivision will connect
Cherry Avenue with the S. Gilbert St. A new street, Toby Circle, will be built with two points of
access off of Cherry Avenue. The subdivision will transition from the single family housing that
exists to east to gradually more dense multifamily, townhouse style along Cherry Avenue with
the 36-plex multifamily building to the very west of the development. Staff has reviewed all width
and frontage for all zones and all are compliant.
Heitner noted that because this is a planned development zone there are specific criteria outlined
in Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 8 of 18
1. Density and Design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy
of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in
harmony with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
With the issue of density, the Comprehensive Plan identifies this particular area as appropriate
for residential density 2-8 dwelling units per acre, both in the proposed RS -5 and RS -12 this
application is well within the 2-8 dwelling units per acre. With respect to land use, mass and
scale, Heitner showed renderings of the proposed buildings to show scale, the single family
homes, townhouses and the 36-plex. The design of the buildings conform to the City's design
standards. Concerning private open space, the applicant has dedicated 0.08 acres of private
open space to the west of the 36-plex building on Lot 2, the space will include some playground
equipment and outdoor dining space. The applicant will pay fees -in -lieu for public open space,
due to the steep slopes and woodlands it would be challenging to provide the public open space.
Heitner next discussed the traffic circulation, the extension of Cherry Avenue will improve
connectivity and a needed access point onto Gilbert Street. There was some concerns about
increased traffic along Cherry Avenue, both the intersections with Toby Avenue and Cherry
Circle will have traffic calming circles to help control traffic speeds, also street widths will be
tapered down to about 28 feet in width to help reduce speeds in that area. Concerning streets
and public utilities, Heitner stated Public Works Staff has confirmed existing water and sanitary
sewer structure has sufficient capacity to accommodate this development, onsite stormwater
management will be necessary for this development and two large detention basins located in
the ravine along the north property boundary will be created.
Concerning views, light and air, property values and privacy Staff does find the single family
homes to the west of the Pepperwood Subdivision will provide a sensible transition from the
singe family detached housing that exists there to gradually denser housing. The 36-plex
building on Lot 2 will be built down-slope from the existing Pepperwood Subdivision. Staff is
recommending as a condition of the rezoning the developer dedicate a 20 -foot wide landscaping
easement along the southwest corner of Lot 1 to help screen the future fire station from the
properties to the south. Regarding pedestrian facilities, Staff is recommending as a condition of
the rezoning the developer put in a 5 -foot wide sidewalk along the development's entire western
frontage (the east side of Gilbert Street). Staff is also recommending as a condition the
developer install curb ramps at the area where the City intends to put a crosswalk across South
Gilbert Street to connect to Napoleon Park. With respect to protected slopes, there will be
stormwater detention facilities located within the ravine along the north boundary line of the
property, the development will require some grading on protected slopes, however the
stormwater detention basins will be designed to correct current erosion taking place in the ravine
and prevent future erosion as well. Heitner noted the plan does call for removal of about 85% of
the non -buffered woodlands in the RS -5 area, because of this the applicant is being required to
plant 234 replacement trees in the area, and the applicant will meet the minimum woodland
retention requirement in the RM -12 area of 20%.
Heitner noted in the initial application it was discussed that the applicant pursue an archeological
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 9 of 18
study of the site, the applicant has worked with a firm recommended by the State Archaeologist
to conduct a supervised excavation of the site and that excavation and study determined there
were no human burials observed and no additional archeology work was necessary for this
development.
Heitner showed the preliminary landscape plan for the subdivision.
A second good neighbor meeting was held on the subdivision proposal on November 27, 2018,
there were about 15 area residents at the meeting and attendees addressed mix degrees of
support and opposition for the project. Some of the major areas of concern included general
concern over neighborhood density, a lack of usable open space, and safety concerns for
pedestrians using an uncontrolled crosswalk across South Gilbert Street. To this point Staff has
not received any correspondence from neighbors.
Next steps: Pending approval from this Commission it would go forth for City Council review and
approval, at the time of final platting a sensitive areas development plan would be reviewed by
City Staff as well as a major site plan review.
Staff recommends approval of REZ18-00024/SUB18-00017, an application submitted by
Bedrock LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5, OPD/RM-12, and OPD/P-1 and a
Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 20 -lot,
18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of Gilbert Street subject to the following
conditions:
1. The development be built as proposed in the preliminary plat, with one 36-plex building
located on Lot 2, 21 townhouse -style units built between Lots 2 and 3, and 15 detached
single family and two attached single-family housing units be built on Lots 4 — 20. The
development substantially conform to the elevations provided for the 36-plex multifamily
residential building and the townhouse style family multifamily buildings.
2. The final plat include details regarding the square footage and description of amenities for
designated private open space on Lot 2.
3. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection plan
prior to issuance of the final plat. This plan shall cover both plans to plant replacement trees
throughout the development and plans to protect and preserve healthy and mature trees in
or near the ravine from construction activity (to the greatest possible extent).
4. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains and
gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on Toby Circle.
5. Construction of a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the western frontage (east side of South Gilbert
Street) of the development prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6. Installation of curb ramps at the area where City Transportation Planning staff has
designated as appropriate to accommodate an uncontrolled crosswalk prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
7. Dedication of a landscape easement, with proposed tree plantings to be approved by the
City Forester, along the southern property boundary in Lot 1 at the time of final platting.
Hensch recalled when the Commission approved the last rezoning on this area that conditions 5
and 6 were discussed at length and happy to see those included again in the conditions.
Signs asked if Cherry Street will allow for street parking in front of the townhouses. Russett said
Staff would have to look into that and report back but thinks at least one side would allow street
parking. Signs noted if not allowed, then there isn't really any guest parking for the townhouses.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 10 of 18
Hektoen noted that in the first condition it is recommended the development being built as in the
preliminary plat but the pedestrian facilities mention building designs, visible doors and windows
and a variety of materials, is that by operation of Code or should that be added as a condition.
Does the Code require those design elements and should they be added to the condition of
rezoning. Right now there is nothing tying the developer to the proposed elevations so if needs
to be added this is the time. Russett said the first condition was clarified to state the condition is
related to the proposed plans in terms of the design of the layout of the lots but also tie it to the
elevations to the townhomes and multifamily building.
Parsons asked where the current nearest fire station is located. Hensch said likely Fire Station 1
downtown or the one by Sycamore Mall.
Baker noted this failed at the Council level last time and one of the concerns was a lack of social
infrastructure, what was the particular concern. Heitner said there were walkability concerns and
lack of communal gathering spaces and front porches. Baker asked when the proposal of a fire
station become a factor in this application. Russett noted it was not part of the original application
last spring nor what went before Council in September. Baker asked if Council approved that
location for a fire station prior to this current application coming before Planning & Zoning.
Hektoen replied that Council has approved a purchase agreement for that plot of land for a future
proposed fire station. The purchase agreement is contingent on the approval of the rezoning
and re -platting of this land. Baker noted the current application has removed all structures from
Lot 1 to make way for a grading plan that will make the lot relatively flat and ready for future
development, and if that lot was to be made relatively flat for future private development, would
there be any environmental issues raised, or is the fact the City is going to use that land remove
any environmental concerns. Heitner said any environmental review would be the same
regardless of if it is a public or private use.
Baker questioned the 234 replacement trees and if they were mandatory to be in that one area,
the RS -5 zone. Heitner confirmed that was correct, it is part of the Zoning Code that there be a
minimum woodland retention requirement that must be met. The RS -5 zone is 50% and since
the proposal is to remove 85% of the trees, the developer must replace them. Baker asked
when those trees would have to be planted. Heitner said it will take some time for the trees to
grow, but they will be planted at the time of development of the houses. Baker asked if there
was any discussion to allow the developer to use that number of trees to be place anywhere on
the entire development. Russett said that could be considered as part of the landscaping plan,
the current landscaping plan shows where they plan to plant all 234 trees and has been reviewed
by the City Forester and can be placed throughout the development.
Baker asked about the private shared open space on page 7 of the Staff Report "As shown in the
revised plat, the developer has identified 0.08 acres of private open space" and he noted that
seems like a very small space and wanted to know what the square footage of 0.08 acres is.
Parson replied it is 3850 square feet. Heitner noted that is also from the City Code and is
formula based on number of units in the zone, which is the minimum required. Baker asked if
the Commission is able to require more. Hektoen said the Commission can impose conditions to
satisfy public needs that are being directly created by the rezoning. One would have to articulate
a public need to require more private open space.
Signs noted there is a whole lot of sloped land outside of the area where the structures will be
that is open space.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 11 of 18
Hensch opened the public hearing
Alex Carrillo (373 Windmill Place) is the project coordinator for Bedrock, LLC. He first thanked
City Staff, Heitner and Russett, for working with them on this application. He touched on some of
the highlights, he noted the 36-plex on the south side of the original application was a point of
contention with City Councilors and some of the neighbors, so it seemed like the best place to
make a change. It was good to work with the City and identify a need for a future fire station
here. Removing that 36-plex from the plans is a significant reduction in the density of the
development. With regards to the open space, the 0.08 acre space is the space where they felt
they could add some amenities for the condominium building, but there will remain a couple
acres along the north side of the property that will be woodland forever, it is not usable space
because of the ravine and slope but it will be nice for the homes to overlook woodlands.
Additionally Napoleon Park is across the street for lots of open space, a safe identified crosswalk
is being constructed, which was again a concern from the first proposal. Carrillo next discussed
the scale of the 36-plex and they feel it is very appropriate sized building for this area due to the
fact of the slope of the land and will be an effective transition from Gilbert Street to the residential
neighborhood and Pepperwood Subdivision. Lastly he touched on some of the materials they
plan to use on the buildings plus the concept for a play structure by the 36-plex. They will use a
Rosetta stone for the retaining wall along the north side.
Dyer asked if there was any doorway from the back of the 36-plex building, Carrillo said there
was, so they can get right out to the open space.
Baker asked the number of bedrooms per unit in the 36-plex, Carrillo said there would be both
one -bedroom and two-bedroom units. Baker asked if there was an estimated time of completion.
Carrillo said they would like to start in the spring, first putting in the street and infrastructure, then
onto the single family homes and townhomes, it would likely be a couple years before the 36-
plex was built. Baker thanked Carrillo for his patience and willingness to work with the City and
neighbors on reconfiguring this project.
Kelcey Patrick -Ferree (652 Sandusky Drive) came forth to oppose this rezoning effort, her
husband spoke at the last meeting in opposition as well. She noted she is sad to be here
opposing this, the developers have been very nice, but she lives in this neighborhood and they
don't. She thought they would see substantial changes to the proposal after it was rejected by
the City Council, and adding the fire station does not meet the substantial changes she was
expecting to see. She does appreciate they held a second good neighbor meeting, it was a good
discussion but still no changes after the discussions. Patrick -Ferree said she does not feel the
City Council's objections were addressed nor were the neighborhood's objections addressed, it
is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and her neighborhood is getting negative attention
due to all the concentration of services in one small area. She doesn't feel the pedestrian
crossing at Gilbert Street is adequate, it goes north on Gilbert Street when all the things people
will want to get to will be south on Gilbert Street, the park, the animal shelter and overall the
protected crossing is in the wrong location. She also doesn't feel there is enough open space for
the 36 unit apartment building. She heard the earlier discussion on that and how the
Commission may not be able to do anything about that and she thinks there is an overall lack of
infrastructure in the area. She was at the City Council meeting and sidewalks were addressed,
crosswalks were addressed and open space was addressed and the changes made to this
proposal do not address any of those objections or concerns. One of the big impacts the
neighborhood was concerned about was the impact on the schools, the schools in this area are
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 12 of 18
all very high FRL (Free or Reduced Lunch), the School Board just recently redistricted to try to
address some of that and took her children's school from just over 70% FRL to just under 70%
FRL. Adding more low-income housing to this area will cause more problems. 36 unit apartment
buildings are low-income housing whether the developer intends them to be or not. The
developer is saying it will be condos but Patrick -Ferree is concerned the condos will be
purchased and rented out like apartments just like in other complexes. Low-income housing, the
average renter wage in Johnson County is $9.25 per hour and the mean renter household
income is $28,115. A family with two or more children quality for Free or Reduce Lunch at that
income level. It appears this development will be about 70% renter housing, the townhouse and
apartments will likely be rental housing, and she is concerned about the high potential of rental
housing in this area. Another concern she has about the Gilbert Street crossing is the University
of Iowa has been doing studies about the capability of children under the age of 14 to judge
traffic and an unprotected intersection is not going to adequately protect children who are going
to try to cross Gilbert Street. Her three-year old loves to go to Napoleon Park and the animal
shelter and she is concerned as he gets older and his ability to judge traffic to cross an
unprotected intersection. She is also skeptical of the claim that Sandusky Drive is not going to
see increased traffic, there have been traffic studies and she invites the Commission to postpone
their decision on this to look at those traffic studies. Patrick -Ferree said she believes this
proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, she read the Staff report and it quotes a
portion of the Comprehensive Plan that talks about having multifamily housing in this area, but
the specific multifamily housing the Comprehensive Plan calls for in this area is a small
apartment building of 3-10 units, not a 36 unit apartment building. She is frustrated the City is
ignoring its own inclusionary zoning efforts anytime a developer brings forth a proposal. As far
as the negative publicity goes, the Press -Citizen recently printed an article called "Cluster of
Social Services Providers call South East Iowa City Home". She drives by all these providers
every day, just as she drives by this proposed development site every day. She noted she does
have to go all the way around and the Cheery Creek extension will only save her about 4
minutes, so not very much. She is concerned about adding a fire station to this area and adding
even more services to a part of town already getting negative publicity. On Nextdoor.com the
comments about the nearby HyVee is disgusting. Therefore, for all of these reasons she very
strongly encourages the Commission to vote against recommending the rezoning of this project
to the City Council.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Hektoen noted they have seen two different sets of elevations (July and November) and need to
make sure which set of elevation drawings that should be used and are referred to in condition
number 1. Russett said it is the elevations included in the Staff report, the updated ones from
November.
Signs moved approval of REZ18-00024/SUB18-00017, an application submitted by
Bedrock LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5, OPD/RM-12, and OPD/P-1 and a
Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a
20 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of Gilbert Street subject to the
following conditions:
1. The development be built as proposed in the preliminary plat, with one 36-plex
building located on Lot 2, 21 townhouse -style units built between Lots 2 and 3, and
15 detached single family and two attached single-family housing units be built on
Lots 4 — 20. The development substantially conform to the elevations provided for
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 13 of 18
the 36-plex multifamily residential building and the townhouse style family
multifamily buildings.
2. The final plat include details regarding the square footage and description of
amenities for designated private open space on Lot 2.
3. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection
plan prior to issuance of the final plat. This plan shall cover both plans to plant
replacement trees throughout the development and plans to protect and preserve
healthy and mature trees in or near the ravine from construction activity (to the
greatest possible extent).
4. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains
and gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on
Toby Circle.
5. Construction of a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the western frontage (east side of South
Gilbert Street) of the development prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6. Installation of curb ramps at the area where City Transportation Planning staff has
designated as appropriate to accommodate an uncontrolled crosswalk prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
7. Dedication of a landscape easement, with proposed tree plantings to be approved by
the City Forester, along the southern property boundary in Lot 1 at the time of final
platting.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Baker asked for clarification on the Comprehensive Plan language and multifamily being in the 3-
10 unit range. Heitner said the Comprehensive Plan states a desire in this area to provide a
variety of housing types and a variety of density types and that was one of the main drivers for
Staff's initial approval of this proposal. There is a variety of housing types in this development as
well as a variety of density. Baker asked where the figure 3-10 shows up in the Comprehensive
Plan. Russett added the Comprehensive Plan also identifies a proposed density for this area.
She noted the Comprehensive Plan is a vision to guide development and the City uses their
zoning as a way to implement that vision and Staff feels the proposed development is consistent
with Comprehensive Plan due to proposed density which is in line with the Comprehensive Plan
as well as mix of housing types. Baker agrees the density of the project seems appropriate, he
is just confused about a specific figure being cited versus a more general goal being cited.
Russett said staff could look into the Plan to see if it specifically states 3-10 units, but noted the
Plan is not a regulatory document, it is a vision. Hektoen added this is a planned development
so it means concentrating density in one place so you can preserve an another area. Baker
acknowledged there has been a reduction with the elimination of the second 36-plex and he also
thinks a fires station in this area is a good thing.
Signs recalled at the first proposal of this the main concerns were density and view with
relationship to the property to the south, he feels the revised plan does a tremendous job of
addressing both those issues and he does get concerned when people bash low-income housing
and there is nothing in here that says this will be low-income, he is also concerned when there
are expectations of things staying the same. In the Pepperwood Subdivision area there are five
street stubs indicating those stubs will someday go through to an additional development. All the
plans (City, Comprehensive, District) reflect putting more development in this area. Signs noted
he was not against the first plan, but he feels this revised plan is even better in addressing a lot
of the concerns. With regards to the concerns of the schools, that should not be a concern that
drives their policy it is an issue the schools need to address.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 14 of 18
Parson agreed, the main issue from the previous application was the 36-plex on Lot 1 and now
that is gone so it has alleviated any concerns he had.
Baker is still uncomfortable with the crosswalk, he cannot think of a better location for it. Signs
feels they could do one where Cherry meets Gilbert just as easily as the one proposed 500 feet
north. Russett said Public Works and Transportation Staff looked at this and while that would be
an ideal location there is a significant drop off on the western side of Gilbert Street that cannot
been seen on the aerial.
Hensch believes this is a much improved proposal, the density issue has certainly been resolved
by the removal of the other 36-plex, the fire station will be a neighborhood good, rather than
negative, and as a resident of Pepper Drive since 1993 he understands the neighborhood really
well and notes because of the concentration of group homes and social services it is in some
regards a negative but in some regards a positive.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Martin absent)
REZONING ITEM (REZ18-00022):
Discussion of an application, submitted by Allen Development, for a rezoning of approximately
3.2 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 from
Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Highway Commercial (CH -1).
Russett presented the Staff report and began by showing an aerial map of the proposed project
site, located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1. She next showed the
current zoning designations of the project site and the areas around it. The property is currently
zoned Interim Development -Research Park which allows for nonurban development such as
agriculture and very low density single family. The applicant is proposing to rezone this to
Highway Commercial and the property can be rezoned at this time due to the availability of public
infrastructure. Russett noted that based on the Comprehensive Plan this area is designated as
Office Research Development Center, this area is envisioned for office park uses based on its
close proximity to Interstate 80. This area is home to a number of the City's major employers
and the proposed zoning to Highway Commercial is consistent with this vision in that it would
provide commercial support services in close proximity to major employers. Russett showed
some photographs of the project site. Based on data from FEMA the project site is located in the
100- year and 500 -year floodplain; however, in 2015 the property owner obtained permits from
the City to fill in the site and raise it above the 500 -year floodplain. Compliance with the City's
floodplain management standards will be required at the review of the site plan. In terms of
transportation the site is accessed via Moss Ridge Road, the area is also served by the North
Dodge bus route, the closet stop is within a 15 minute walk. The City's subdivision regulations
would require that sidewalks be installed along Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 on the
southern and eastern frontages of the project site.
Staff is recommending a couple of conditions related to transportation, first is the closure and
removal of the access road off of Highway 1 and therefore sole access to the site would be from
Moss Ridge Road. In addition Staff is recommending the applicant install a 10 -foot wide
sidewalk along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road to the
south and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 15 of 18
City will be responsible for installing pedestrian signal improvements. Russett showed a concept
plan of the site, and Staff recommends a condition that requires general conformance with the
concept plan in that a principal building must occupy the corner of Moss Ridge Road and
Highway 1. The concept also shows stormwater management detention facilities which would be
required at platting. Finally the concept plan shows proposed landscaping.
Staff recommends approval of REZ18-00022, an application submitted by Allen Development, for
a rezoning from ID -RP to CH -1 for approximately 3.2 acres of property located at the northwest
corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, closure and removal of the access
road off of Highway 1.
2. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries.
3. General conformance with the concept plan only in that a principal building must occupy
the corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 10 -foot wide sidewalk
along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and
pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road.
Hensch asked if this site was at the far north boundary of the city limits and Russett confirmed it
was. Hensch noted the report said landscaping would be addressed at the site plan review and
his concern is this is an entryway into the City and the Commission has stressed how important
landscaping is at these entry points and he is concerned a landscaping plan was not required to
be submitted at this stage. Baker suggested adding that a landscaping plan be submitted as well
to condition #2. Russett said they could add the condition that the landscaping plan be reviewed
by the City Forester, it would still be at site plan review, but adds a second layer of review. Dyer
shared concern that the Forester really focusses on the kinds of plantings and not design.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
John Yapp (920 4th Avenue) from Allen Development came forward to reiterate a few points and
then address the comments on landscaping. They are aware this is located on a major corridor
and commuter highway and close by to Interstate 80. The City constructed Moss Ridge Road
with a signalized intersection about three years ago with the intent of spurring office park
development to the west, that hasn't occurred yet. This particular property is isolated from the
office park to the west and to the rest of Mr. Sladek's property to the north due to Rapid Creek
and Rapid Creek Floodway. Yapp noted this development would serve the large employment
areas to the south, not just north of Interstate 80 but south of Interstate 80, which has thousands
and thousands of employees in total. The property is currently at the north boundary of the City,
however the City does have long range plans to construct Oakdale Boulevard to the north, which
would connect to Oakdale Boulevard in Coralville and open up more of that land to the north for
development. Regarding the landscaping plan, there are two more phases where that could be
reviewed, both the preliminary plat and the site plan review. The City's site plan process
includes the landscaping plans to be reviewed by City Engineering, City Forrester and City
Planning Staff, and they do not have any objection to that being a condition. Yapp noted they
also concur with the rest of the staff conditions.
Hensch asked how far the property is from Rapid Creek. Yapp believes it is about 100 feet from
the creek itself, the property does border the floodway of the creek. Hensch asked if the property
site was flooded in 1993 or 2008. Yapp noted that Mr. Sladek, who currently owns the property,
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 16 of 18
stated that before the property was filled it would likely have been flooded, but it has now been
filled.
Dyer noted this was the least developed concept plan she had seen in at least seven or eight
years and would like to know a little bit more about what is proposed for the site. Yapp said they
do not yet have any tenants for the development, they did the concept plan to show how two or
three different uses could fit on the property. Additionally they will be closing the direct access
off Highway 1 and making access from Moss Ridge Road. The types of uses they have been in
contact with include convenience store/gas station, office development and fast -casual
restaurants.
Hensch asked about the timeline for the development. Yapp said there is no specific timeline, it
will depend on attracting users to the property.
Baker asked if this rezoning would also allow for one large building as opposed to two or three
smaller buildings. Yapp said it could.
Dyer asked what the reason was from changing it from office to commercial. Yapp noted the
property is very small to be part of an office park and cut off by the rest of the larger area by
Rapid Creek, it also has highway frontage and access.
Hensch asked if the property is currently tilled. Yapp said it has been until recently, but is not
currently, not in the last five years.
Signs noted this is a pretty prominent piece of property to be seen as the entryway to the City
and was underwhelmed by the lack of green space and amount of buildings on this space. He
hopes some attention will be given to make it more open. Yapp agreed on the property itself, as
commercial property, it would not have a lot of dedicated greenspace, it would be landscaped of
course, just to the north is Rapid Creek and the Rapid Creek Corridor and it has a between a 200
and 300 foot floodway which cannot be developed so visually there will be a lot of green space
around the development.
Hensch asked about the topography on the parcel, Yapp noted it is relatively flat.
Baker discussed the landscaping plan and what the fellow Commissioners would like to see
above what the minimum is required for the site. Hensch said he just wants a review to make
sure it is not forgotten about. Townsend added that at this point they don't know what will be
built on the site so may be difficult to know what the landscaping will look like.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Baker moves to recommend approval of REZ18-00022, an application submitted by Allen
Development, for a rezoning from ID -RP to CH -1 for approximately 3.2 acres of property
located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, closure and removal of the
access road off of Highway 1.
2. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries.
3. General conformance with the concept plan only in that a principal building must
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 17 of 18
occupy the corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 10 -foot wide
sidewalk along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge
Road and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge
Road.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Baker suggested adding to condition 2 that a landscaping plan approved by the City
Forester.
Parsons seconded the amendment.
Hensch noted there is two water retention areas on the periphery of the property and the
developers know they cannot develop on those so there can be some landscaping decided upon
now for at least two sides of the property. He agrees not knowing what will be built can make it
difficult, but there can still be a plan for the periphery of the property.
Signs recognized the property is surrounded by a wide-open prairie and this development will
stick out like a sore thumb so if there is any way to minimize that transition to the development
from the prairie he feels that would be appropriate. He does agree that the use for the space is
probably exactly what it should be.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Martin absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 20, 2018
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of December 20, 2018.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION.
None.
Adjournment:
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Z
in
U❑
�O
OU
U o
Z W N
U
ZO Z co
N❑N
ad Z
W
Z~
F -
Ea
Z
a
J
CL
aL
aU
0
U-0
X
uj N
N <0
N -0Q Z
d Q 11 II
W „ 11 W y
Y x 0 0
X
X
:
X
D
X
X
X
CD
N
X
x
x
X
X
x
p
00
CD
xxxx
x
0
N
X
O
X
x
X
X
;
x
CD
wx
xx
x
x
T-
X
O
.
X
X
X
X
X
00
X
X
,
X
X
X
X
,
X
04
1
O
X
X
X
x
X
0
;
Xxxxxxx
X
X
x
x
x
x
X
;
LO
LO
X
w
O
X
X
X
X
X
;
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
U)W
;
xxxxxxx
�
DXxxxxx
xxxxxxx
MOXOXXXX
W
LV
LUZ
M
X
❑
ZYOQYom
_J
IL
a_j
z
-m
Lu
WCtLuU)
U4
�
U
Z
O
nU)
U)
z
`1
W
W
Z
Z
W
m❑LLX
iL
F-
aL
aU
0
U-0
X
uj N
N <0
N -0Q Z
d Q 11 II
W „ 11 W y
Y x 0 0