Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019-03-28 Info Packet
r '� .m ....Nimes® ��- CityCouncil Information Packet -iN.at� CITY OE' IOWA CITY March 28, 2019 www.icgov.org IP1. Council Tentative Meeting Schedule April 2 Work Session IP2. Agenda IP3. Memo from City Manager: Residential Infill Development Analysis IP4. Memo from City Manager: Northside Marketplace Form-Based Code Pending Work Session Topics [Distributed as Late handout 4/2] Miscellaneous IP5. Copy of report from City Manager: National League of Cities - Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability IP6. Memo from Sustainability Coordinator: Update on Climate Action Plan IP7. Memo from City Clerk: Joint Meeting Agenda Items for April 15 IP8. Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show IP9. Civil Service Entrance Examination: Senior Accounts Payable Clerk IP10. Invitation: Beyond shelter - Housing for survivors of domestic violence - March 29 IP11. Invitation: You're invited to Friday after Clinic -April 26 Draft Minutes IP12. Board of Adjustment: February 13 IP13. Board of Adjustment: March 13 1 44 Ai:pm 44.414 !► . ®'�; City Council Information Packet C I TI 'O 1 IOWA CITY March 28, 2019 www.Icgov.org IPI. Council Tentative Meeting Schedule April 2 Work Session IP2. Agenda IP3. Memo from City Manager: Residential Infill Development'Analysis IP4. Memo from City Manager: Northside Marketplace Form-Based Code Miscellaneous IP5. Copy of report from City Manager: National League of Cities - Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability IP6. Memo from Sustainability Coordinator: Update on Climate Action Plan IP7. Memo from City Clerk: Joint Meeting Agenda Items for April 15 IP8. Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio dhow IP9. Civil Service Entrance Examination:•'Seng Accounts Payable Clerk IP10. Invitation: Beyond shelter - Housing for Survivors of domestic violence - March 29 IP11. Invitation: You're invited to Friday after Clinic -April 26 Draft Minutes IP12. Board of Adjustment: February 13 IP13. Board of Adjustment: March 13 Item Number: 1. + r ., .®Oa • wln�r�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 28, 2019 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule ATTACHMENTS: Description Council Tentative Meeting Schedule r City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule M6011 AW Subject to change ,wr=IGQ ON March 28, 2019 CITY OF IOWA CITY Date Time Meeting Location 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 23, 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 Tuesday, June 4, 2019 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, June 18, 2019 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, July 2, 2019 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, July 16, 2019 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting + r ., .®Oa • wln�r�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 28, 2019 Agenda ATTACHMENTS: Description Agenda Item Number: 2. I r 1 GAMP-MM 0-4 "ffimll TIM CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356.5009 FAX www.icgov.org City Council Work Session Agenda Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall 5:00 PM • Discuss future City actions in response to the home at 101 Lusk [I P3] • Discuss Northside Marketplace Form Based Code [I P4] • Clarification of Agenda Items • Information Packet Discussion [March 14, March 21, March 28] Council Direction needed on the following items: 1. (3/14)1 P2: Email from Mayor: Proposed Bills -HF669 / SF583 (Solar Energy bills) 2. (3/14)1 P3: Email from Council member Thomas: Mann Elementary - Parent Drop-off on Fairchild St. • Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees Item Number: 3. + r • wln�r�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 28, 2019 Memo from City Manager: Residential Infill Development Analysis ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from City Manager: Residential I nfill Development Analysis Ir _Mw_ -4 I[[�1 4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 28, 2019 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Luke Foelsch, Planning Intern and Anne Russett, Senior Planner Re: Residential Infill Development Analysis Background At the City Council's work session on September 18, 2018, the Council discussed concerns related to out -of -scale residential infill development, particularly the home at 101 Lusk Avenue. The City Council requested that staff explore this issue further and prepare a memo to be discussed at a future work session. Since September, staff has conducted an analysis and some additional research. Specifically, staff has analyzed recent residential infill development and compared the scale of the infill development to adjacent properties. This memo outlines the results of this analysis, summarizes the findings of the analysis, and outlines some policy options moving forward. Overview of Analysis The analysis staff conducted compares the size, scale, and building bulk of recent residential infill developments to adjacent residences. The analysis provides an objective comparison between recent infill development and existing residences that helps to inform policy options. For the purposes of this analysis, infill development is considered development within established neighborhoods located in the core of the community. These include the communities that are adjacent or near adjacent to the downtown where buildings were generally built prior to 1960. Staff completed two analyses. The first examined 20 residential infill developments throughout the community. Duplexes were omitted and only newly constructed single-family dwellings in existing neighborhoods were included. Of the 20 single-family residential infill projects selected, none were built prior to 2010. All developments are located in either Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) or Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8) Zones. Table 1 lists the addresses examined and their corresponding reference numbers. March 28, 2019 Page 2 1 101 Lusk Ave 11 924 N Governor St 2 829 S 71" Ave 12 2014 Ridgeway Dr 3 1618 Muscatine Ave 13 1230 E Bloomington St 4 1605 Prairie Du Chien Rd 14 1603 Prairie Du Chien Rd 5 918 E Bloomington St 15 310 Lucon Dr 6 1221 2nd Ave 16 432 31d Ave 7 431 Pleasant St 17 1317 Rochester Ave 8 817 Spencer Dr 18 2 Wellesley Way 9 834 St Annes Dr 19 831 Orchard St 10 928 N Governor St j 20 j 423 Douglass Ct Table 1: City-wide Single -Family Infill Developments Included in Analysis The second analysis focused on the Manville Heights neighborhood. For this analysis, duplexes and additions to existing houses were included as well as newly constructed single-family residential infill projects. This analysis includes 10 infill projects (listed below in Table 2) in the Manville Heights neighborhood going back no earlier than 2005. 1 101 Lusk Ave 26 222 Lexington Ave 22 204 Lexington Ave / 624 Bayard St 27 228 Lexington Ave 23 347 Hutchinson Ave 28 201 Ferson Ave 24 351 Hutchinson Ave 29 901 Park Rd 25 216 Lexington Ave 30 255 North St Table 2: Manville Heights Infill Developments Included in Analysis Variables Measured in Analysis Four variables are included in the analysis, each of which is derived from information included on the Assessor's Report for each property: • Lot Coverage o Computed by summing the total building area of all buildings on the property, including both principal and accessory buildings, and dividing that by the total area of the lot. Footprints of unframed building components, such as patios and open decks, were omitted. • Total Living Area (TLA) o A measurement directly listed in the Assessor's Report that provides a total square footage estimate by multiplying the square footage of the finished rooms on the ground floor by the house's number of stories. • Building Width o Derived based on footprint sketch included in Assessor's Report. Width measured at widest point of the building footprint. • Building Height (Number of Stories) o Since actual building height was unavailable for analysis, number of stories was used as a proxy. Number of stories is listed directly in Assessor's Report. March 28, 2019 Page 3 1 g2l - Infill Property 4 ._2; O- Adjacent Comparative Properties Figure 1: Selection Method of Comparative Residences These four metrics were recorded for each infill project as well as all properties adjacent to each infill project; Figure 1 demonstrates how adjacent properties were selected for analysis. The variables for each of the adjacent properties were averaged to provide a benchmark value for each variable to which the infill property could then be compared. The comparison of each infill property to the average of its surrounding properties allows for the variability between neighborhoods to be controlled — an infill development in a neighborhood of smaller houses is evaluated within the context of those smaller houses and an infill development in a neighborhood of larger houses is evaluated within the context of those larger houses. Results of Analysis Lot Coverage Lot coverage refers to the percentage of a lot that is covered by buildings. All infill properties examined are located in either RS -5 or RS -8 zones, both of which have a maximum allowable building coverage of 45%. March 28, 2019 Page 4 Results of each variable will be presented in the same way as Figure 2 below. Each numbered dot represents a specific infill development as listed in Tables 1 and 2. The percentages shown in Figure 2 are the difference in the infill project's lot coverage compared to the average lot coverage of that infill project's neighbors. For example, the first dot, labeled with a 1, does not have a lot coverage of 31% but has a lot coverage that is 31% higher than the average lot coverage of its neighbors. The dot labeled with a 6 does not have a negative 3% lot coverage but has a lot coverage that is 3% lower than the average of its neighbors. Each variable will be presented in this same way. Infill Lot Coverage Compatibility Comparison 35% o 300 � °10 25% 0 4-- 20% W aA � } 15°lo tj 0 > 10 0 °10 a� 5% V C q f 0%,, Iowa City Infill Projects Figure 2: Lot Coverage of Infill Properties Compared to their Specific Neighborhoods Staff's lot coverage analysis concluded the following (see Figure 2): Infill developments are being built, on average, with 9.72% greater lot coverage than their adjacent neighbors 17 of the 20 infill developments have a lot coverage of no more than 15% greater than their adjacent neighbors 0 4 of the 20 have a lot coverage that is equal to or less than that of their neighbors 0 6 of the 20 have a lot coverage between 0% and 10% greater than that of their neighbors 0 7 of the 20 have a lot coverage between 10% and 15% greater than that of their neighbors There are 2 infill developments, 101 Lusk Ave (#1) at +31% and 1317 Rochester Ave (#17) at +25%, that qualify as outliers o Both of these developments met the maximum lot coverage requirement of 45% 0 1317 Rochester Ave's high lot coverage is due to an abnormally small lot size rather than an abnormally large building footprint March 28, 2019 Page 5 C (U U C QJ M Inf 35% 30% 0 25% 2G°% 23 15% 10% 5% Manville Heights Lot Coverage Comparison nod. Manville Heights Infill Projects Figure 3: Lot Coverage of Manville Heights Infill Properties Compared to their Specific Neighborhoods For the Manville Heights lot coverage analysis, staff concluded the following (see Figure 3): Manville Heights infill developments are being built, on average, with 9.12% greater lot coverage than their adjacent neighbors o This is a pattern similar to that of infill developments in the rest of the city 8 of the 10 infill developments have a lot coverage of no more than 15% greater than their adjacent neighbors 0 4 of the 10 have a lot coverage between 0% and 5% greater than that of their neighbors 0 3 of the 10 have a lot coverage between 5% and 10% greater than that of their neighbors 0 1 of the 10 has a lot coverage between 10% and 15% greater than that of their neighbors There is 1 infill development, 101 Lusk Ave (#1), that qualifies as an outlier within the Manville Heights analysis as well. Total Living Area (TLA) Total Living Area is an estimate of livable square footage within a house. It's used in this analysis as another measure of structure size. A residential structure's square footage is not regulated in the code. When total living area is regulated, municipalities often require a larger total living area in an attempt to restrict smaller home sizes and increase tax value. This has become an issue for some municipalities where a market demand for tiny houses exists. Some municipalities regulate total living area in an attempt to restrict smaller homes Figure 4 shows the results of the TLA analysis, presented in the same way as the previous lot coverage figures but with square feet as the y-axis unit rather than lot coverage percentage. March 28, 2019 Page 6 Infill Total Living Area (TLA) Compatibility Comparison (sq. ft.) 0 5,000.0 4 CL 4,000.0 U 0 V 3,000.0 0 � o � 0 m 2,000.0 `0 OA 1,000.0 a c �� � a� 0.0 Ask V C i GJ -1,000.0 M Iowa City Infill Projects Figure 4: Total Living Area of Infill Properties Compared to their Specific Neighborhoods Staff's TLA analysis concluded the following (see Figure 4): • Infill developments are being built, on average, with 668.21 more square feet of TLA than their adjacent neighbors • 18 of the 20 infill developments are built no more than 1,500 square feet larger than their adjacent neighbors 0 4 of the 20 developments have less square footage than their neighbors 0 9 of the 20 have between 0 and 500 more square feet than their neighbors 0 5 of the 20 have between 500 and 1,500 more square feet than their neighbors • There are 2 infill developments, 101 Lusk Ave (#1) at +4,411.5 sq. ft. and 2014 Ridgeway Dr (#12) at +3,303.5 sq. ft., that qualify as outliers March 28, 2019 Page 7 Manville Heights Infill Total Living Area (TLA) Comparison (sq. ft.) 5U 5,000.0 c� a 0 4,000.0 a� aA a� r� aA o 3,000.0 M �0 2,000.0 c 1,000.0 0 c +� 0.0 -.. c a� -1,000.0 r2 Manville Heights Infill Pn-j Figure 5: Total Living Area of Manville Heights Infill Properties Compared to their Specific Neighborhoods For the Manville Heights TLA analysis, staff concluded the following (see Figure 5): Manville Heights infill developments are being built, on average, with 1,409.3 more square feet of TLA than their adjacent neighbors. o Compared to the city-wide average of +668.21 square feet of TLA, infill developments in Manville Heights are being built much larger than their adjacent neighbors. This is not surprising since the existing housing stock in Manville Heights includes larger homes than other Iowa City neighborhoods. The average TLA of the homes adjacent to infill residential in Manville Heights is 1,911 square feet. For the citywide analysis the average is 1,481 square feet. 6 of the 10 infill developments are built no more than 1,500 square feet larger than their adjacent neighbors 0 2 of the 10 developments have less square footage than their neighbors 0 2 of the 10 have between 0 and 1,000 more square feet than their neighbors 0 2 of the 10 have between 1,000 and 1,500 more square feet than their neighbors 9 of the 10 infill developments are built no more than 2,500 square feet larger than their adjacent neighbors 101 Lusk Ave (#1), while not a statistical outlier within Manville Heights' infill TLA values, is still the most out of scale compared to its neighbors in terms of TLA. Building Width For this analysis, building width was measured at the building's widest point. The code regulates minimum building width but has no limits on maximum width. Figure 6 demonstrates the results of the building width analysis, with the y-axis variable in this case being the width of infill developments in feet compared to their adjacent neighbors. March 28, 2019 Page 8 Infill Building Width Compatibility Comparison (ft.) 30.0 D 0 40.0 v 30,0 0 u ov L 20.0 3 � °p 10,0 `p 0 c L 0.0 C C -10.0 v O O 00 m v _20.0 -30.0 Ir)wa City Infill Figure 6: Building Width of Infill Properties Compared to their Specific Neighborhoods Staff's building width analysis concluded the following (see Figure 6): • Most infill developments (14/20) are built narrower than their adjacent neighbors, although the overall average is 0.88 feet wider. This is likely due to a difference in architectural style as many of the residential infill developments are located next to ranch -style homes. • 18 of the 20 infill developments are built no more than 20 feet wider than their adjacent neighbors 0 14 of the 20 developments are built narrower than their neighbors 0 2 of the 20 are between 0 and 10 feet wider than their neighbors 0 2 of the 20 are between 10 and 20 feet wider than their neighbors • 101 Lusk Ave (#1) qualifies as an outlier at 46 feet wider than the average of their neighbors March 28, 2019 Page 9 Manville Heights Infill Building Width Comparison (ft.) S 30.0 20.0 � Lv � 10.0 7 0.0 a� V a -10.0 L -20,0 Manville Heights Infill Prnject= Figure 7: Building Width of Manville Heights Infill Properties Compared to their Specific Neighborhoods For the Manville Heights building width analysis, staff concluded the following (see Figure 7): • Manville Heights infill developments are being built, on average, 14.2 feet wider than their adjacent neighbors. Many of the infill developments are located next to more traditional style 1.5 to 2 story homes, which are not as wide as the more recent infill development. Furthermore, 4 infill developments are over 20 feet wider than their neighbors, which brought up the average. o Compared to the city-wide average of +0.88 feet, infill developments in Manville Heights are being built much wider than their adjacent neighbors • 2 of the 10 developments are narrower than their neighbors • 3 of the 10 are between 0 and 10 feet wider than their neighbors • 4 of the 10 are over 20 feet wider than their neighbors • Because of the high values present, no infill project qualifies as a statistical outlier. The two highest values, 101 Lusk Ave (#1) and 901 Park Rd (#29), are both over 40 feet wider than the average of their adjacent neighbors Height (Number of Stories) Since information on building height (in feet) was unavailable for analysis, number of stories was used as a proxy. Due to the imprecise nature of this measurement (all values were either 1, 1.5, or 2), the results cannot account for the variations in height that are present within buildings of the same number of stories. While the city code places no maximum directly on number of stories allowed, all single-family residential zones have a maximum building height limit of 35 feet which acts to limit number of stories to about 3. Figure 8 shows the results of the height analysis. March 28, 2019 Page 10 Infill Building Stories Compatibility Comparison 1 0 0.8 � 0.6 4 o © riL� U 04 47 pp i�`a+ VI 7 0.2 O � Ask O � t 0 1 � a c a 0.4 0 a`r p -0.6 0 !i -0.8 Iowa City Infill Projects Figure 8: Infill Properties' Number of Stories Compared to their Specific Neighborhoods Staff's building height analysis concluded the following (see Figure 8): • The number of stories of infill developments average out to be almost exactly at the same scale as their adjacent neighbor averages (infill has +0.09 more stories) • 7 out of the 20 developments have less stories than the average of their surrounding neighbors • 4 of the 20 have an equivalent number of stories compared to their neighborhood average • 9 out of the 20 have more stories compared to their neighborhood average • The most incompatible development in terms of number of stories is 2 Wellesley Way (#18) which is almost a full story taller than the average of its adjacent neighbors. March 28, 2019 Page 11 Manville Heights Infill Building Stories Comparison 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 !�► 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Manville Heights Infill Projects F30 Figure 9: Manville Heights Infill Properties Number of Stories Compared to their Specific Neighborhoods For the Manville Heights building height analysis, staff concluded the following (see Figure 9): • Manville Heights infill developments show a similar pattern to the city-wide developments o On average, infill developments in Manville Heights are being built with an equal number of stories as their adjacent neighbors • 4 of the 10 developments have fewer stories than their neighbors • 1 of the 10 has an equivalent number of stories as their adjacent neighbors • 5 of the 10 have more stories than their adjacent neighbors Summary of Findings The general conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis are as follows: • Recent residential infill developments are being built at a larger scale than the existing neighborhoods in which they are being constructed in terms of lot coverage and Total Living Area (TLA) square footage • Manville Heights infill developments are being built at a larger scale in terms of TLA and building width than infill developments in the rest of the city • Infill developments outside of Manville Heights are mostly being built narrower than the existing buildings in their neighborhoods, while Manville Heights infill projects are predominantly built wider than neighboring properties • 1317 Rochester Ave provides an example of why a simple maximum limit on lot coverage based on surrounding neighbors may not work for all situations. This house has an March 28, 2019 Page 12 abnormally high lot coverage percentage because it is built on an abnormally small lot — it is well below its neighbor averages in all other variables (TLA, width, and height) Policy Options Currently there is no design review for residential infill construction in any area of the city other than Historic or Conservation Districts. New residential infill construction is bound by the same bulk requirements as residential greenfield development in a new subdivision on the edge of town. The zoning code provides maximum limits for lot coverage and building height, and a minimum limit for building width. While setback and open space requirements also indirectly play a role in dictating bulk of residential buildings, there is no language in the code that requires consideration of the character, scale, or bulk of neighboring houses when constructing infill developments. There are some options for regulating infill development, such as maximum heights or additional landscaping/open space requirements. The City did recently increase the open space requirements, partially in response to the 101 Lusk Avenue house. Another option is to tailor requirements to the surrounding neighborhood. For example, new construction cannot be more than 20% taller or wider than the average of the block. Best practice research recommends targeting these policies to areas where teardowns are most likely to occur. It is important to note that Iowa City is not currently experiencing a high volume of single-family infill construction. This analysis found around forty such cases from 2010-2018. With one exception, there was little to no neighborhood objections raised. However, staff went ahead and completed an analysis identifying the areas of the city that may be at risk of teardowns due to proportionally higher land values. The map below identifies the areas most at risk (in red), which includes Manville Heights, Bel Air, City High/Towncrest, Mark Twain, and Shimek, to name a few communities. March 28, 2019 Page 13 Gi* Hot Spot Analysis and Boundaries of Historic Preservation and Conservation Districts v� AF k R Land Value ® Cald Spot - 9@% Cwfide Cold Spot • 95% Confidence Cold Spot - W% Cwfidence Nat siumhr nt Hot Spot - 90% Canf deuce Hat'SPo - 95% CanTWe x* - Hol Spot - g^ COWW.W Next Steps U 0.325 0.6S 1.3 L95 26 Mitic At the City Council's work session on April 2, 2019, staff will present the results of this analysis and also share images of the infill development compared to the existing residential context. At this meeting staff would like some feedback from the City Council on what constitutes out -of -scale infill development; what variables (e.g. lot coverage, building width) are of most concern, and whether there are specific neighborhoods of highest priority. Furthermore, the City recently contracted with Opticos Design Inc to develop form -based zoning regulations for an area in the South District. The scope of work for this project also includes an examination of the zoning code and policy recommendations to address concerns related to over- sized single-family infill development. Staff will share this analysis with Opticos and work with them on the development of policy recommendations for City Council's review. Item Number: 4. + r • wln�r�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 28, 2019 Memo from City Manager: Northside Marketplace Form -Based Code ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from Crty Manager: Northside Marketplace Form -Based Code Ir _Mw_ -4 I[[�1 4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 28, 2019 To: City Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Northside Marketplace Form -Based Code At the January 22, 2019 City Council Meeting, staff was directed to schedule a work session to discuss the possibility of initiating a form -based code for the Northside Marketplace. The City Council may recall that a form -based code feasibility study for the South District and the greater Northside neighborhood was completed by Opticos Design, Inc in 2017. After that study, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the development of the form -based code for the South District. That project is under contract and will formally kick-off in April. On March 51", City staff, the Mayor, and Councilmember Thomas teleconferenced with representatives of Opticos to discuss what steps would be needed to move from the feasibility study to the development of form -based regulations for the Northside Marketplace (Map 1). Map 1. Area Considered for Form -Based FPI :.".r IyI:"r.. J=1j� . ulations 1 :. 01�41o f" . I March 28, 2019 Page 2 After the March 5 discussion, Opticos contacted City staff and provided the following information and cost estimates on their recommended scenario: • Opticos is proposing to use around 80 percent of the work they will be doing for the South District for regulations that would apply to the Northside Marketplace. They would need to create two or more new zone districts for the urban context. The new zone districts created could be applied to other areas of the city. • Opticos's services would cost around $120,000. This includes a three-day charrette. The cost of the charrette is around $42,000. • Due to concerns related to parking, Opticos recommends subcontracting with a parking expert. The parking analysis would cost $45,000 with a contingency between $10,000 and $50,000. The contingency would be used if the subconsultant needed to collect more data (e.g. parking counts). Furthermore, the parking study would extend beyond the boundary outlined in Map 1. • The total estimated project cost is between $165,000 and $175,000. The scope and cost of Opticos's recommended proposal could be adjusted. For example, the charrette could be removed or revised and a less intensive outreach process could be pursued. Prior to producing a full scope of work, Opticos requested feedback on their proposal. Topics for Council Considerations There are several topics Council should consider when determining how to proceed on this issue: Cost: The proposed cost of $175,000 is significant, particularly given the limited geographic scope of the Northside Marketplace. As a reminder, the South District form -based code development agreement, which includes a couple of external areas of study, is approximately $280,000. Opticos is one of the premiere form -based code consultants in the country. Their expertise is highly sought and as a result their fees are likely to be notably higher than other firms that offer similar consulting services. There are no funds budgeted for this project. The Council will need to commit unallocated reserve funds or use budgeted contingency dollars if we move forward. Scope of Contract: In order to reduce costs, one option would be to conduct a public visioning session and stop short of developing the new form -based code districts. In addition to being less expensive, the visioning would be less time consuming for staff and also ensure that the public can effectively develop a shared common vision for this commercial district. The result of the visioning process will help us determine whether the form -based code is the most appropriate tool for achieving the community's goals for this commercial district. After the visioning is complete the Council could then decide whether or not to move forward with the form -based code contract. This would also give us time to evaluate the quality of work performed by Opticos on the South district process. March 28, 2019 Page 3 Geographic Scope of the Study Area: Council should consider its long-term goals for Iowa City's zoning code. There has been past discussion about expanding the product from the South District form based code to other parts of the community. While we hope this will be a relatively easy transition, it will take some time and study. Further, there has been discussion about a form -based code for the downtown. After developing a form -based code for several individual districts, there will come a time when the entire zoning code will need to be updated and converted over to a form -based model. Staff sees this need coming in the next 3-7 years. If we pursue the northside form -based code we should be thinking about our next step. This could be another individual area like the downtown or a more comprehensive review of the entire zoning code. Current Demands on Planning Staff: The majority of our Urban Planning staff in NDS have been hired within the last year. They are still learning the Iowa City zoning code, our comprehensive plans, as well as the history of many neighborhoods. In addition, they are working through a higher than average slate of development review cases. Other current commitments in the division include: • South District form -based code (Opticos) • Review of Riverfront Crossings form -based code (Opticos) • Review of single-family infill policies (Opticos) • New regulation in response to State preemption of rental caps • Downtown National Historic District implementation (possible local district in the future) • Redrafting of the Fringe Area Agreement with Johnson County • Implementation of the new permitting software • Review of the land development process and expectations for Council and P&Z • Review of the zoning code for the affordable housing plan • Planning and hosting the October 2019 American Planning Association Iowa Chapter Conference in downtown Iowa City Staff has also begun to review our various district plans and will be identifying what updates are needed in the next 3-5 years as we anticipate strong demand to grow our corporate limits. Updates of district plans or the creation of new long-range plans will take 8-10 months per plan. Staff will make sure Council priorities are addressed, however completion schedules of these items as well as future planning efforts will need to be adjusted accordingly. Recommendation If the Council determines that there is urgency to initiating planning work in the Northside Marketplace, then I suggest that such scope be limited to community visioning. This will limit cost and staff time, and help ensure that a unified vision is achieved and that the City remains satisfied with the form -based code work that Opticos is performing in the South District. If the City Council wants to move forward then staff will seek input from the Iowa City Downtown District and nearby neighborhood associations on the appropriate visioning process. We can then work with Opticos to refine the scope and return to Council with an agreement. Late Handouts Distributed ti;,;m .�s- -,..�- l y. Imo\\ CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE (Date) PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS April 2, 2019 April 23, 2019 1. 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. Strategic 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 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. Review of staff's growth boundary analysis (Johnson County Fringe Area Agreement Update) 6. Discuss the Development Review Process (Tentative for May) Item Number: 5. + r .®Oa • wln�r�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 28, 2019 Copy of report from City Manager: National League of Cities - Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability ATTACHMENTS: Description Copy of report from City Manager: National League of Cities - Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability NLCNATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CENTER FOR CITY SOLUTIONS FPWW-WWF. IN, P -p". NLCNATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CENTER FOR CITY SOLUTIONS About the National League of Cities The National League of Cities (NLC) is the nation's leading advocacy organization devoted to strengthening and promoting cities as centers of opportunity, leadership and governance. Through its membership and partnerships with state municipal leagues, NLC serves as a resource and advocate for more than 19,000 cities and towns and more than 218 million Americans. NLC's Center for City Solutions provides research and analysis on key topics and trends important to cities and creative solutions to improve the quality of life in communities. Authors Christiana K. McFarland, Research Director of NLC's Center for City Solutions Kyle Funk, Research Assistant for Urban Innovation, Center for City Solutions Rose Kim, Research Associate, Center for City Solutions Domenick Lasorsa, Associate for Housing, Veterans and Special Needs, Center for City Solutions Brenna Rivett, Principal Research Associate, Center for City Solutions About the Report This report is the fifth project outcome of a research collaborative between NLC and the state municipal leagues. We are grateful for the guidance, data verification and housing affordability narratives they provided. 2019 @National League of Cities All photo credited to Getty Images, 2019. Table of Contents 3 Foreword 5 Introduction 9 Inclusionary Housing Policy 13 Rent Control Policy 17 Housing Vouchers as Source of Income 21 Local Housing Trust Funds 25 State Affordable Housing Tax Incentives 27 Conclusion 29 References Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis Foreword here is a simple truth that connects every person in every city, town and village across America: They want a safe, affordable place to call home. A place to raise their families, enjoy meals with friends and rest their heads at night. But for too many people across the country, that vision of home is not accessible, affordable, or in many cases, available. That is why the National League of Cities (NLC) has made it a priority to support local leaders' efforts to identify and implement local housing solutions. Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis is an important part of that work. Developed and published in collaboration with the 49 state municipal leagues, the report provides an in-depth look at the interplay of state policies and local housing markets. While no two communities face the exact same set of challenges, we can see the varied impact of policies through this research. This report complements NLC's broad focus on housing, which includes the development of resources and best practices, on -the - ground technical assistance, and advocacy at the federal level. In late 2018, NLC further expanded its housing work through the creation of a national housing task force comprised of mayors and councilmembers from 20 states as well as two state municipal league leaders. The task force will publish recommendations to help communities respond to the growing challenges of housing availability, affordability, investment and quality in June 2019. Local leaders are unified in their call to improve housing opportunities for all — because every person not only wants a place to call home, they deserve it. I look forward to NLC's continued partnership with the state leagues to provide in-depth research, uplift effective solutions, and build a stronger America from the ground up. Clarence E. Anthony CEO and Executive Director, NLC if Local leaders are unified in their call to improve housing opportunities for all because every person not only wants a place to call home, they deserve it. Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis Introduction early all communities in the United States struggle with housing affordability, no matter their size, level of prosperity or growth pressures. Some cities seek to provide enough housing for all incomes by preserving existing affordable housing units and creating new ones. Others focus on preventing poor housing conditions and housing displacement. Still others concentrate on helping households access and afford private -market housing or connecting housing strategies to employment, mobility and health initiatives. Given the diverse landscape of housing af- fordability, cities must build and maintain the proper tools and flexibility to meet the needs of their residents. To that end, cities have implemented solutions such as inclusionary housing, rent control, fair housing and hous- ing trust funds. They have also leveraged pro- grams like their states' tax incentive programs to expand housing affordability and access. This report explores how states and cities interact in each of these policy areas, and details cities' implementation authority. We collected data for each policy from exist- ing research, state legislation and relevant court decisions. State municipal leagues then confirmed the data for their states to ensure timeliness and accuracy. In summary, our assessment of all 50 states and the District of Columbia finds that: ■ Cities in 20 states and the District of Columbia are expressly permitted or face no legal barri- ers to inclusionary housing ■ Cities in 13 states and the District of Columbia are permitted, have some barriers, or have lim- ited control to implement rent control ■ Cities in 25 states and the District of Columbia have either state law protections or local pro- tections for those using housing vouchers as a source of income ■ Cities in 35 states and the District of Columbia have established housing trust funds Several key factors have influenced the city- state relationship in housing policy, including Dillon's Rule vs. Home Rule status and emerging issues over local control, which are discussed below. Dillon's Rule vs. Home Rule The U.S. Constitution does not mention local governments. Instead, the 10th Amendment provides authority -giving powers to the states. The fact that states decide the level of power their local governments have has led to a great deal of diversity in state -local relations between and within states. States take on one of two approaches, providing either narrow (Dillon's Rule) or broad (home rule) govern- ing authority, defined in the state constitution and/or by statute enacted by the legislature. Cities in Dillon's Rule states do not have authority to control their local government structures or their methods of financing ac- tivities or procedures. These cities must also defer to the state to make and implement policy, unless it is expressly authorized. Cities with home rule, on the other hand, have much more autonomy. The state interferes in local Local Housing Affordability Tools by State This radial graphic shows city authority to implement common housing strategies* 77 A Inclusionary Rent Vouchers as City Housing State Tax Housing Control Source of Income Trust Funds Incentives Permitted or Permitted Permitted or Permitted State Protection Established with Limitation with Limitation or Permitted Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis affairs only on a limited basis. Home rule states often delegate power to cities, but that power can be limited to specific fields and subject to constant judicial interpretation. In this report, we parse out the impact of Dillon's Rule vs. Home Rule on cities' ability to establish housing policies. For example, we identify what happens when cities face legal barriers to inclusionary housing policy due to Dillon's Rule status when no state statue exists to authorize local inclusionary housing measures. Local Control Greater local control is often at the heart of policies that accelerate progress, expand rights, build strong economies and promote innovation. However, there are examples, particularly in the affordable housing policy arena, in which state policy is needed to make progress for everyone. In some cases, significant community backlash against proposals to increase the supply of affordable housing has led to a standstill on the issue. This has prompted states to limit, or preempt, cities' decision- making powers related to land use and housing. This dynamic has played out most recently in California on mandates for cities to increase density around transit stations, and currently in Washington state on acces- sory dwelling units. Given the scale of the housing problem and the need to incorporate local strategies that work best for particular circumstances, some states have established a minimum set of flexible requirements for cities, also known as "floors."' For example, this year, cities in the state of Utah worked with the state legislature and state Commission on Housing Affordability on Senate Bill 34 (SB 34). The purpose of this bill is to increase housing options for a broad spec- trum of income levels in high population growth areas and to promote regional integration of housing and transportation.' SB 34 leverages the most powerful housing affordability key that cities hold — planning, and mandates that cities include a moderate income housing component in local general plans in order to be eligible for state transportation dollars. Informed by cities across the state, the bill pro- vides a menu of 22 options for how cities can approach the mandate in ways that allow for local flexibility. According to the Utah League of Cities and Towns, the bill ensures that policy leaders "think regionally, act locally" when addressing pressing housing needs in the state. Another example of a floor preemption is local fair housing laws. Federal government and many state governments have established laws to protect individuals and families from housing discrimination. These laws identify a minimum set, or "floor," of protected groups defined by race, gender, disability and other characteris- tics. Many states also permit their cities to en- act local fair housing laws to protect additional classes, such as those on public assistance. Throughout the country, the tools available to cities to ensure a diverse mix of housing options vary. This report helps city and state leaders better understand their housing policy context in relation to others and illumi- nates opportunities for expanding the policy tools available for leadership to improve housing availability for all residents. if Given the diverse landscape of housing affordability, cities must build and maintain the proper tools and flexibility to meet the needs of their residents. Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis nclusionary housing policies, often referred to as "inclusionary zoning," are programs at the state and municipal level that require or incentivize the development of affordable housing alongside market -rate units. These policies can either be voluntary or manda- tory, based on the state or city. Mandatory inclusionary housing programs require developers to include affordable units in their building plans in order to obtain development rights. In voluntary programs, developers earn incentives like tax breaks and density bonuses, in exchange for including units for sale or rent below-market rate. State and local governments have employed inclusionary housing policies since the 1970s, creating and expanding the availability of below-market rate units and a variety of pro- grams in more than 800 U.S. cities .3 Evidence suggests that mandatory inclusionary zoning programs generate greater benefits, like 9 expanding the supply of affordable hous- ing. Evidence also suggests that voluntary programs only work if they offer substantial subsidies to developers .4 Given the significance and breadth of inclusionary housing policies, we assessed city -level authority to implement these policies based on the related legal framwork developed by the National Low - Income Housing Coalition and Grounded Solutions Network: ■ Permitted (20 states and the District of Columbia): Cities in these states are either expressly permitted to create all forms of inclusionary housing policy or have home rule with no state restrictions on local inclusive housing. ■ Limited (22 states): These states impose either limitations on city inclusionary hous- ing policies or legal barriers to implementing ,f f expanding the supply of affordable hous- ing. Evidence also suggests that voluntary programs only work if they offer substantial subsidies to developers .4 Given the significance and breadth of inclusionary housing policies, we assessed city -level authority to implement these policies based on the related legal framwork developed by the National Low - Income Housing Coalition and Grounded Solutions Network: ■ Permitted (20 states and the District of Columbia): Cities in these states are either expressly permitted to create all forms of inclusionary housing policy or have home rule with no state restrictions on local inclusive housing. ■ Limited (22 states): These states impose either limitations on city inclusionary hous- ing policies or legal barriers to implementing Inclusionary Housing Source: National League of Cities inclusionary housing policies, particularly mandatory programs. ■ Preempted (8states): Cities in these states are expressly prohibited from enacting local inclu- sionary housing measures.5 Of the 20 cities in "permitted" states, 10 are explicitly permitted or mandated by legislation to adopt some form of inclusionary housing (California, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hamp- shire, Oregon, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia). In each of these cases, all forms of inclusionary housing policy are allowed at the municipal level. In California, cities can "require, as a condition of the development of residential rental units, that the development include a certain per- centage of residential rental units affordable Permitted Limited Preempted to, and occupied by households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for moderate -in- come, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income .116 This allows for cities to then choose to implement inclusionary zoning policy as they see fit. For example, Davis, CA has a straightforward mandatory zoning policy. The program requires that developers set aside between 25 and 35 percent of any new rental development and between 10 and 25 percent of owner -occupied development. The income thresholds for rental units are 80 percent and below area median income and 120 percent and below for owner occupied.' They have also created two alternatives to building units: a fee in -lieu of unit creation or land dedication. Cities in 10 of the "permitted" states face no legal barriers to inclusionary housing. These include Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Mon- tana, New Jersey New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania 10 Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis and West Virginia. Cities in these states have home rule authority, which grants them the power to pass laws and govern themselves. In these states, at least one city has implemented a mandatory inclusionary housing policy. Cities in 22 states are "limited" in their ability to create inclusionary housing policy due to legal barriers. Cities in limited states are either governed by Dillon's Rule with no state stat- ute expressly authorizing inclusionary housing measures, or state law prohibits rent control. In rent control cases, courts have interpreted prohibition on rent control as a de facto ban on inclusionary housing programs that require the development of affordable rental units. Mandatory inclusionary housing forces a rental price on units for developers, thus breaching the prohibition on rent control. For example, North Carolina has a state prohibition on rent control that has made it difficult for cities to enact mandatory inclusionary policies for rental housing. Three North Carolina cities have enacted mandatory programs, but all have been sued and settled before going to trial." On the other hand, there are instances in which states have a legal barrier, like rent control preemption, but make allowances to let cities circumvent the limitation in order to implement inclusionary housing under certain circumstances. For example, the state 11 of Minnesota prohibits cities from enacting rent control policies but allows cities to estab- lish sales prices or rents for affordable housing for low- and moderate -income households. It also includes equity sharing to maintain the long-term affordability of the affordable units.9 These provisions make it possible for inclu- sionary housing policy but limit it to projects receiving public subsidy or a zoning change. Eight states (Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin) fall into the category of "preempting" cities from enacting inclusionary housing, where at least some form of inclusionary housing is strictly prohibited for both ownership and rental housing, either by statute or by court decision. Many preempt mandatory local inclusionary housing policies but allow volun- tary programs. In Indiana, the state prohibits municipalities from requiring developers to follow any requirement that would control rental or purchase prices, and they may not establish it in lieu of a fee.10 Some states permit cities to establish voluntary policies where developers can be incentivized to create more affordable housing. For exam- ple, the city of Austin, Tex., offers developers waivers, density bonuses, tax breaks and development agreements if they set aside affordable rental and ownership housing for low and moderate -income households.'' if In rent control cases, courts have interpreted prohibition on rent control as a de facto ban on inclusionary housing programs that require the development of affordable rental units. Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis Rent Control Policy MW L -3 r ome cities with competitive real estate markets have implemented rent control to combat rapidly increasing rent burdens. Rent control ordinances limit the amount a landlord can charge tenants. They can also regulate the frequency and timing of rent increases. There are strong disagreements about the impact of rent control on housing affordabil- ity. Those in favor of rent control argue that this policy helps existing residents remain in their dwellings, stabilizes neighborhoods and reduces gentrification .12 Opponents say rent control dissuades developers from 13 building new housing or improving existing stock .13 A 2018 Stanford University study discovered that rent control tends to accel- erate gentrification because it incentivizes landlords to convert rental housing into higher -end condominiums and coopera- tives.14 On the other hand, as reported by The New York Times, "The study also con- cluded however, that rent control lived up to its promise of reducing the displacement of lower-income tenants and older people."15 Economists tend to view rent control as a short-term fix that has the potential to dis- tort housing markets. They advocate instead for increased housing supply. Rent Control Source: National League of Cities Nonetheless, rent control policies provide municipalities the ability to regulate increases in residential rent prices. This analysis assesses states based on the authority they grant cities to implement rent control. These include: ■ Permitted (9 states and the District of Columbia): These cities are in states that permit local rent control with minimal restrictions, or are in home rule states with no state restrictions on local rent control policies. ■ Limited (4 states): These cities are in states that permit local rent control with restric- - Permitted Limited Preempted Mandated tions or specific implementation criteria, including requiring state approval, permit- ting rent control only for public housing, or establishing a ceiling or rate of increase for local policies. Preempted (36 states): These cities are in Dillon's Rule states with no statute express- ly authorizing local rent control, or are in states that expressly prohibit local rent control. ■ Mandated (1 state): Cities in this state must adhere to the statewide rent control laws and are preempted from passing their own rent control laws. 14 Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis Cities in only nine states and the District of Columbia are permitted to implement rent control with no state restrictions. In seven of these states (Montana, Nebraska, West Virginia, Ohio, Hawaii, Pennsylvania and Maine), there are simply no state -level laws limiting how local governments can create rent policy. Interestingly, even though these states allow cities to create rent control policies, no one has done so yet. The Dis- trict of Columbia, Maryland and New Jersey, however, permit rent control and have cities with policies on the books. For example, in New Jersey, over 100 municipalities have rent control ordinances in varying degrees based on what they cover or how rents can be adjusted .16 Cities in four states (Arizona, Delaware, California and New York) have "limited" ability to enact rent control policy. It's worth point- ing out that Arizona and Delaware have a unique approach to rent control policy. Arizona does not allow any private residen- tial housing unit to be subject to rent con- trol. Cities, charter cities and towns may not impose rent control on these units in their jurisdictions. However, publicly -owned resi- dential property, or property that is financed or insured by Arizona's state or local govern- ments, can be subject to a rent control la W.17 In 2013, Delaware created a rent justification law that applies to manufactured homes.18 These homes, unlike traditional mobile homes, are typically built into the ground. They are owned by the dwellers, like mobile homes, the land is rented.19 California preempts cities from implementing rent control in all but 15 cities. These 15 cities 15 had a form of rent control before the state decided what municipalities could or could not do regarding rent control policy. Local rent control was grandfathered in, but face state restrictions about how it is applied. New York has a centralized rent regulation framework, which includes an Office of Rent Administration, and two types of rent policy programs. The first is rent control, which gen- erally applies to buildings constructed before 1947, and the second is a rent stabilization program that covers buildings constructed between then and 1974. New York City is administered separately from other areas within the state under these programs.20 There are 36 states that preempt cities from establishing a rent control policy. Cities are either in Dillon's rule states, like Nevada, Vermont and Rhode Island, with no state stat- ute allowing for local rent control, or in states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida that expressly preempt cities from rent control pol- icies regardless of Dillon's or home rule status. In February 2019, Oregon became the first state in the U.S. to enact mandatory state- wide rent control .21 Cities in Oregon must adhere to the statewide rent control laws and are preempted from passing their own rent control laws. The law limits rental price increases to once per year and a maximum of seven percent plus the yearly change in the consumer price index. Any property built within the past 15 years is exempt from rental control. Landowners who give reduced rent from federal, state or local government subsi- dies or programs are also exempt. The legisla- tion also prohibits no -cause evictions, except for the first year of tenancy. if There are strong disagreements about the impact of rent control on housing affordability. Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis Housing Vouchers as Source of Income IMMPIMMM� WWOMWW"-, k he federal government enacted the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to protect citizens from discrimination. The law prohibits property owners, real estate companies, municipalities, banks and other lending and insurance institutions from discriminating on the basis of seven classes (race, religion, national origin, sex, disability and family status) in the sale, rental and financing of housing.22 FHA provides minimum specifications of protected classes, or a "floor preemption," but permits states to implement their own fair housing laws that extend housing protections to other groups excluded from the federal protections. Since families that use housing vouchers to help pay their rent are excluded from federal protections, they increasingly face housing 17 M discrimination. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) is a federal assistance program creat- ed to help citizens obtain affordable housing in the private market. In most cases, however, laws do not require direct housing providers to accept housing vouchers. Accepting housing vouchers requires providers to work directly with housing agencies for rental payments, a hurdle many providers prefer to avoid. This hurdle, as well as a bias by some providers that voucher holders are less responsible renters, has caused an increase in a growing number of discriminatory housing practices against voucher holders .23 Some states and localities have responded by specifying hous- ing voucher holders as a protected class under source of income statutes in fair housing laws (other sources of income can include alimony and disability benefits). Vouchers as Fair Housing Source: National League of Cities This additional protection means that hous- ing providers may not legally refuse to rent based solely on a renter's source of income when that source of income is tied to hous- ing vouchers. A 2018 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development study found that voucher non-discrimination laws are associated with substantial reductions in the share of property ownersthat refuse to accept vouchers.24 This has led to greater affordability in more opportunity -rich areas. In our assessment of the states, we classify whether state fair housing laws address housing voucher holders as a protected class, and the extent to which cities are permitted to protect vouchers as a source of income: - State Law Protections Permitted Policy Vacuum Preempted ■ State law protections (11 states and the District of Columbia): Housing voucher holders are a protected class under state fair housing law. ■ Permitted (14 states): Cities are permitted to extend protections to voucher holders via local fair housing ordinances. ■ Policy vacuum (23 states): Cities in states with neither state nor local protections but have no restrictions on local fair housing. ■ Preempted (2 states): Cities in states that expressly prohibit local fair housing .25 18 Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis According to the Poverty and Race Research Council, the District of Columbia and 11 states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington) explicitly include housing vouchers as a protected class under source of income in the state fair housing Iaw.26 Three other states, California, Minnesota and Wisconsin, have source of income protections in their state fair housing law, but do not include housing voucher holders among those protected classes. Localities in 14 states (California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Case Study: rair riuubiig in Washington State Washington is the most recent state to enact source of income protections after House Bill 2578 went into effect in September 2oi8.z8 These protections include "housing vouchers, emergency rental assistance, veterans benefits, social security, supplemental security income or other retirement programs and other programs administered by any federal, state, local, or nonprofit entity."29 Landlords may be penalized up to 4.5 times a unit's monthly rent and be responsible for court costs and attorneys' fees if they discriminate against a current or pro- spective tenant based on source of income 3° In addition to protections, the state of Washington established a landlord mitigation program to incentivize landlords to rent to voucher holders. Funded by existing document recording fees from county auditors, HB 2578 covers a landlord's cost of repairs from $500 up to $1,000 for any prospective tenant protected based on source of income.31 Furthermore, the program offers re- imbursement of up to $5,000 to landlords for lost rental income and/or damages that result from renting to low-income tenant with a subsidy. 32 19 Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Wisconsin) are permitted to extend voucher holder protec- tions. Three states (California, Minnesota and Wisconsin) have statewide source of income laws but have excluded housing vouchers as a protected class while 11 states (Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee) do not have statewide source of income laws and therefore, they have no state- wide housing voucher protections. However, localities in all of these 14 states have enacted local ordinances to protect voucher holders. Twenty-three states have policy vacuums on housing voucher source of income pro- tections because there are neither state law protections nor local protections. These states include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming. There are several reasons for this policy vac- uum. In some cases, cities have fair housing laws but choose not to include include hous- ing voucher holders as a protected class. In other cases, cities are in states that follow Dillon's Rule and have no statute expressly authorizing local fair housing policies. Cities in two states (Texas and Indiana) are preempted from implementing housing voucher protections. When cities in Texas and Indiana passed local ordinances including housing vouchers as a protected class under source of income, both states passed laws in 2015 preventing local governments from implementing any form of voucher protections .27 Deep Dive: State Fair Housing Laws According to the Policy Surveillance Program at the Temple University Beasley School of Law, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted their own statewide fair hous- ing laws.33 Mississippi is the only state that hasn't. Most states permit cities to expand fair housing laws locally to address housing discrimination not covered by state and federal fair housing protections. Each state's fair housing law is different in terms of which classes and/or types of discriminatory actions are regulated under law. For example, states often add protected classes including age, an- cestry, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, military status, domestic violence victims, source of income, genetic information, pregnancy and HIV/AIDS. Six states (Washington, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island) also include fair housing protections for individuals based on their military status. In addition to protected classes, other types of discriminatory actions are addressed under state fair housing laws. For instance, refusing to provide municipal services is a type of discriminatory practice under fair housing laws in five states (Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Virginia and Maryland). Seven states (Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, New York and Pennsylvania) authorize fines, prison sentences or misdemeanors as potential penalties for violations of fair housing laws. 20 Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis Local Housing Trust Funds ousing trust funds are established, ongoing, public funding sources for low-income housing development. They can be established by legislation or ordinance .34 Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia have state -level housing trust funds in place to bolster development of affordable housing. Of these, Alabama, Idaho and Rhode Island have yet to identify ongoing, defined sources of revenue for their programs and do not have any money in their trust funds. The only states that do 21 not have state -level housing trust funds are Mississippi, Wyoming and Alaska. States, however, are not the only source of housing trust fund dollars for cities. Local gov- ernments across the country have established their own local -level funds. One hundred and nine cities in 34 states and the District of Colum- bia have established housing trust funds, which collected over $1 billion in 2018.35 Wyoming is the only state without any housing trust funds at the state or local level, creating a policy vacuum. City and State Housing Trust Funds Source: National League of Cities Housing trust funds are a policy area on which state and city governments agree. There are no laws on the 14 states that don't require city -level housing trust funds that prevent local governments from establishing them. There are also several states where the state funds are the sole source of funding as cities have not established their own funds. These states tend to either have low popula- tions or very robust state -level funds, thereby decreasing the need for additional funding at the local level. I State and City using Trust Funds to Housing Trust Fund only V Housing Trust Funds only State or City Housing ist Funds State and local housing trust fund dynamics fall into one of four categories: ■ The state has a housing trust fund and cities within that state also have funds (33 states and the District of Columbia) ■ The state has a housing trust fund, but the cities do not (14 states) ■ The state does not have a housing trust fund, but cities do (2 states) ■ Neither the state nor cities within the state have housing trust funds (1 state) 22 Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis In the absence of state funds, Jackson, Miss., and Juneau, Alaska, have established local trust funds. 36, 37 According to Jackson city staff, the funds intended for the housing trust fund were spent on unexpected city needs. As a result, the city has yet to put money into the trust fund but is currently ex- ploring new funding sources. Juneau estab- lished its housing trust fund in 2010 and be- gan the disbursement of funds in 2011. Some common sources of funding for city -level housing trust funds include developer im- pact fees, inclusionary in -lieu fees, property and housing excise taxes and construction excise taxes. Housing trust funds provide vital funding for increasing the stock of affordable housing in cities and towns across the country. City -level housing trust funds, as shown by cities like Juneau, create revenue when a state lacks funds. They can also cater to the specific needs of the population. State- and city -level trust funds are, in many cases, complemen- tary funds that increase the development of affordable housing (see page 24). Case Study: State Housing Trust Funds In 2o18, individual states collected a total of $1.6 billion for housing trust fund money. State governments relied on a variety of income sources, including real estate transfer taxes, interest on real estate escrow taxes, general fund revenues, document recording fees and appropriation budget allocations 38 A few states have turned to less conventional methods to build revenue for their funds. Pennsylvania creates revenue through the Marcellus Shale impact fee, a tax levied on natural gas companies, as a source of revenue 39 New Jersey collects revenue for its housing trust fund from those fined for unsafe driving.41 Indiana earns revenue through the Smokeless Tobacco Tax, among other source, for its state housing trust fund .41 23 11110911111111111 1011151 loll 111■1 100110111111 NI 1111 Case Study: ,uneau, Alaska Established in 2010, the Juneau Affordable Housing fund serves as Alaska's only housing trust fund. No such fund exists at the state government level. Managed by the city and borough of Juneau, the trust fund is fed by the city's general fund and state capital budget 42 The trust fund helps low-income residents tackle the challenge of finding affordable housing. Non-profit, for-profit and public housing authority entities can all apply for low or zero percent interest loans to build affordable housing units for residents at 120 percent area median income or below, with amounts not to exceed $150,000 43 The fund seeks to expand: Use of capital to develop housing units One -bedroom rental units for low-income residents Long-term affordability Sustainability of the trust fund`*`* Juneau determined that 85 percent of its residents made less than $35,000 and that, in 2010, approximately 1,20o households were rent -burdened. Many of the residents in this category were found to be youth, special needs residents, veterans and seniors.45 These groups typically need both single and multi -family housing, both of which the fund can address. With over $400,000 in the fund and two -years' worth of operating expenses held in reserve, Juneau is working to combat the lack of accessible and affordable housing, one unit at a time. 24 Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis State Affordable HousinE Tax Incentives he most common source of low-income housing tax credits is the federal Low - Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, which "gives state and local LIHTC- allocating agencies the equivalent of nearly $8 billion in annual budget authority to issue tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation or new construction of rental housing targeted to lower-income households."46 Some states, however, supplement these federal funds with dollars from their own budgets to further increase development of affordable housing. Common state policies include tax-exempt housing bonds, tax credits distributed to owners with properties reserved all or in part for low-income 25 residents, and income tax liability reduction for developers. While cities do not have direct control over how these funds are allocated, the program encourages private developers to increase the supply of affordable housing resulting in substantial affordable housing development in urban centers.47 Currently, 2.5 million units in 6,286 cities have been financed through the LIHTC program.48 Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have state -level tax incentives for new construction and/or rehabilitation of existing low-income housing. Of this group, 14 states State Tax Incentives Source: National League of Cities tie these tax -incentive dollars to federal LIHTC funding. In most cases, states require applicants to indicate that they will be apply- ing for state funding on the federal applica- tion. Sometimes, this state funding is bound to the federal funding in the form of a dollar -for -dollar match or percentage of federal funds. Since states distribute these federal funds, overlap sometime occurs in how the funds are awarded. In some cases, the programs are combined. States often leverage their low-income housing tax credits to maximize the impact. Connecticut, for example, allocates up to $10 million in tax credits every year for non-profit -State Tax Incentives for New Construction or Rehab No State Tax Incentives developers building housing for low or very low-income residents .49 Illinois encourages private investment in affordable housing by offering qualified donors a one-time state income tax credit equal to 50 percent of the donation." The District of Columbia and five states (New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin) do not require applicants to first apply for federal funding. They also have their own separate applications. While many of these programs mirror the federal program in terms of the eligibility for benefits and types of tax credits offered, these funds are not tied to federal funding applications. 26 Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis conciusion he local housing context varies not only by regional housing market types, but also by the tools available to cities, towns and villages to address the needs of their communities. Based on our assessment of inclusionary housing, rent control, housing voucher holder protections, housing trust funds and state tax incentive programs, cities in New York and California and the District of Columbia have more tools to address housing affordability than others. Cities in Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Texas and Virginia have fewer. In addition to the number of tools available to cities, the way these policies play out locally varies significantly by state. For example, in some states with local inclusionary housing, rent control restrictions limit the authority of cities to implement mandatory programs, whereas in other states, this is not the case. Despite these variations, one thing is crystal clear: The significant housing problem facing our country is compelling cities and states to rethink how they address the issue, and to adapt the relationship they have with each other to meet the scale of the challenge. Cities can take a number of steps to achieve the careful balance of local flexibility and mutual housing affordability goals, including: ■ Review, strengthen and update low -hanging fruit tools. Nearly all cities have control over local planning, zoning and development regulations 27 and can carefully examine these tools to improve housing options across income levels. For example, cities can relax density requirements in areas designated as single family, modify parking requirements and streamline development processes for projects with an affordability component. ■ Fill a policy vacuum. Cities in 23 states do not have state or local sources of income protections for housing voucher holders. These states also do not have explicit restrictions on local fair housing, meaning that many cities have the opportunity to create policies to limit discrimination and help extend housing options to those using housing vouchers. ■ Proactively engage state partners. For example, cities in the state of Utah have been working with the state legislature and state Commission on Housing Affordability to craft a bill that not only accelerates affordability in regional housing markets across the state, but also offers cities flexibility to do so in ways that meet their unique needs. ■ Leverage State Programs for Local Investment Leverage state programs for local investment, such as state tax credits and state housing trust funds. No matter the solution, the plan or the type of city, a productive local -state relationship is at the heart of providing housing opportunities for people across the income spectrum. After all, ensuring everyone has a place to call home is a priority for all cities and states. if The significant housing problem facing our country is compelling cities and states to rethink how they address the issue, and to adapt the relationship they have with each other to meet the scale of the challenge. Local Tools to Address Housing Affordability: A State -by -State Analysis References 'As opposed to ceiling preemption, which prohibits cities from requiring anything more than or different from what the state law requires. Ceiling preemption can also completely prohibit lower -level governments from passing any kind of law regulating the topic or area in question. This can result in a regulatory vacuum if there is no state or federal regulation in place at all. httr)s://www.r)ublichealthlawcenter.org/sites/ defau It/files/resources/nplan-fs-fundamentals-2010. pdf 2 A the time of this writing, SB34 is making its way through the state legislature. 3King, Rebecca. "Inclusionary Housing Policies," National Low -Income Housing Coalition, 2018. 4 Pinedo, Victor J. "Embracing the Excluded: Using Mandato- ry Inclusionary Zoning to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in St. Louis" Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 26, no. 2, 2018, pp. 420-436. Winter 2016, doi:10.31228/osf. io/68tvb. 5"Inclusionary Housing Database," Grounded Solutions Net- work. 2018. httr)s://gsn.mar)s.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ index.htm I?id=33lf8a985a244e8fb6e6a2ad23731179. 6California (State). Legislature. Assembly. An act to amend Section 65850 of, and to add Section 65850.01 to, the Govern- ment Code, relating to land use. Approved by Governor Sep- tember 29, 2017. Filed with Secretary of State. 29 Septem- ber 2017. California State Assembly. Web. 20 February 2019. "The City of Davis Affordable Housing Program." Planning and Zoning / City of Davis, CA, City of Davis, 2019, www.citvofdavis- org/residents/affordable- housi nq- program. 'Hartman, Matt. "Eight Years Ago, Chapel Hill Enacted the Most Progressive Affordable Housing Policy in the Triangle. Here's How It Failed" INDY Week, INDY Week, 22 Aug. 2018, i ndyweek.com/news/eight-yea rs-ago-cha r)el-hil I-enact- ed-progressive-affordable-housinq-policy-triangle.-failed./. 92018 Minnesota Statutes, Official Controls: Subdivision, Regulation; Dedication, Chapter 462 Section 462.358. httr)s://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/462.358. 10 Indiana (State). Legislature. Assembly. AN act to amend the Indiana Code concerning property. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana. 17 July 2017. Indi- ana State Assembly. Web. 20 February 2019. ""Development Incentives and Agreements" Neighborhood Housing and Community Development, City of Austin, 2018, www.a usti ntexas.qov/page/development-incentives-a nd- agreements. 12 Diamond, R. "What does economic evidence tell us about the effects of rent control?" Brookings Institute, Washington DC. 2018. httr)s://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does- econom ic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/. 29 13 Kenton, W. "Rent Control". Investopedia. 2018. httr)s://www.investor)edia.com/terms/r/rent-control.asr). 14Dougherty C. "Why Rent Control is a Lighting Rod". The New York Times. 2018. httr)s://www.nvtimes.com/2018/l0/12 bus iness/economv/rent-control-exDlained.htmI 6001: '8 "2009 Rent Control Survey". New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (2009). httr)s://www.ni.gov/dca/divisions/ codes/publications/pdf Iti/rnt cntrl srvv 2009.Ddf. "Arizona State Legislature 33-1329. httr)s://www.azleg. qov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ ars/33/01329.htm 1879 Del. Laws, 304 (2019). httD://delcode.delaware.gov/ title25/c070/sc03/i ndex.s htm I. 19"Governor Markell Signs Rent Justification Law". Office ofthe Governor, Delaware Government (2013). https://news.delaware. qov/2013/06/30/markell-signs- rent- justification -law/. 21 Office of Rent Administration Operations and Services (2018). New York State Government. httr)://www.nyshcr.org Rent/about.htm. 21 Lazo, Alejandro. "Oregon Governor Signs First Statewide Rent Control Measure." The Wall Street Journal. February 28, 2019. httr)s://www.wsi.com/articles/oregon-governor-set-to- sig n-first-statewide-rent-control-measu re -11551365696. 22"The Fair Housing Act," The United States Department of Justice, last updated December 21, 2017, httr)s://www.iustice. qov/crt/fair-housing-act-1. 23 Alison Bell, et al. "Prohibiting Discrimination Against Renters Using Housing Vouchers Improves Results." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, last updated December 20, 2018, https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/ fi les/10-10-18hous. pdf. 24 Mary Cunningham et al., "A Pilot Study of Landlord Ac- ceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers," U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, September 2018, htt s: www.hudusergov/Dortal//Dortal/sites/default/files/Ddf/ Landlord-Acceptance-of-Housing-Choice-Vouchers.Ddf 21 Peter Kye et al. "Expanding Choice: Practical Strategies for Building a Successful Housing Mobility Program." Poverty & Race Research Council, last updated January 30, 2019, httr)s://r)rrac.org/pdf/AppendixB.r)df. 26Ibid. 2'J. Rosie Tighe, "Source of Income Discrimination and Fair Housing Policy." Journal of Planning Literature, last updated 2017, httr)s://jou rnals.sager)u b.com/doi/Ddf/l0.1177/0885412216670603. 28 H.B. Bill 2578, Sess. Of 2018 (Wash. 2016), httD://Iawfi lesext.Ieg.wa.goy/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bi IIs/ Session%20Laws/House/2578-S2.SL.pdf. 29 Laura Crandall. "HB 2578 Prohibits Source of Income Discrimination." Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC), last updated December 3, 2018, httr)://mrsc.org/ Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/December-2018 HB-2578-Prohibits-Source-of-Income-Discrimination.aspx. 30Ibid. 31 Laura Crandall. "HB 2578 Prohibits Source of Income Discrimination." Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC), last updated December 3, 2018, httr)://mrsc.org/ Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/December-2018 HB-2578-Prohibits-Source-of-Income-Discrimination.aspx. 32Ibid 33 "The Policy Surveillance Program: State Fair Housing Protections," Temple University Beasley School of Law, last updated August 1, 2017, http://lawatlas.org/datasets/ state -fair -housing -protections -1498143743. 34 Brooks, Mary E. et al. "State and Local Housing Trust Funds" The Center for Community Change. 2017 Advocates' Guide. 31 "City Housing Trust Funds" Housing Trust Fund Project. httr)s://housingtrustfundproiect.orq/housing-trust-funds/ city -housing -trust -funds/. 31 "State of Mississippi National Housing Trust Fund 2016 Allocation Plan" National Low -Income Housing Coalition. 2016. https://nlihc.orq/sites/default/files/MS-HUD- approved2016 HTF-Allocation-Plan.pdf. 4' "Other Tobacco Products Tax" State of Indiana Department of Revenue. July 1, 2016. httr)s://www.in.gov/dor/reference/ files/cd43.Ddf. 42 "City Housing Trust Fund Revenues 2019." Housing Trust Fund Project. 2019. httr)://housingtrustfundr)roiect.org/ wp-content/u ploads/2019/01/City-htfu nd-revenue-sou rces- 2019.pdf. 43 Anderson, Michael. "Juneau Begins Implementation of Its Affordable Housing Trust Fund." Housing Trust Fund Project. 2011. httr)s://housingtrustfundproiect.orq/ouneau-begins- imDlementation-of-its-affordable-housing-trust-fund/. 44 "Juneau Affordable Housing Fund Program Description & Application Guidelines." Lands & Resources Department City & Borough of Juneau. https://3tb2gc2mxpvu3uwt0120t- bhg-wr)engine.netdna-ssl.com/wr)-content/u Dloads/2017/10/ JAHF Program DescrigtionaAndGuidelines.pdf. 4s Ibid 48 "Low -Income Housing Tax Credits" HUD User. June 2018. httr)s://www.huduser.goy/portal/datasets/lihtc.html. 47 Hefferren, Neal. "A Complete Guide to the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit Program" June 13, 2017. https://www. r)ror)ertymetrics.com/blog/2017/06/13/a-complete-gu ide- to-the-low-income-housing-tax-credit-program/. 48 Data downloaded from the Department of Housing and Urban Development database accessible at https://lihtc.huduser.gov/ 49 "State Housing Tax Credit Contribution (HTCC) Program." CHFA. httr)s://www.chfa.org/developers/ tax -c red it- p ro q ra m /htcc/. 37"Affordable Housing Trust Fund Strategies." City and 51 "Illinois Affordable Housing Tax Credit." IHDA. Bureau of Juneau. August 28, 2009. httr)s://www.iuneau.org httr)://www.ihda.orq/developers/tax-credits/illinois- beta transfer/clerk/boards/Affordable Housing Commission/ affordable- housing -tax -credit/. Agendas -M inutes-Packets/documents/AHTFstrategies.pdf. 38"State Housing Trust Funds." Housing Trust Fund Project. httr)s://housingtrustfundproiect.orq/housing-trust-funds/ state -housing -trust -funds /. 39"Pennsylvania's Impact Fee: Benefiting Communities All Across the Commonwealth." Marcellus Coalition. 2018. htt : marcelluscoalition.orq/wr)-content/uploads/2018/06/2018- I m pact-Fee-Fact-Sheet-062118.pdf. 41 "State Housing Trust Fund Revenues 2019" Housing Trust Fund Project. 2019. httr)s://housingtrustfundr)roiect.org wp-content/uploads/2019/01/State-htfu nd-revenue- sources-2019.pdf. 30 NLCNATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CENTER FOR CITY SOLUTIONS Item Number: 6. + r .®Oa • wln�r�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 28, 2019 Memo from Sustainability Coordinator: Update on Climate Action Plan ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from Sustainability Coordinator: Update on Climate Action Plan r CITY OF IOWA CITY NO MEMORANDUM Date: March 20, 2019 To: Ashley Monroe, Assistant City Manager From: Brenda Nations, Sustainability Coordinator Re: Update on Climate Action Plan The City Council adopted the Iowa City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan in September 2018 which includes 35 actions for the community and municipality to undertake to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These high impact actions were identified and quantified so when implemented, Iowa City can achieve the 2025 and 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets set by City Council. This memo outlines the progress that City staff has made towards these goals since the adoption of the Plan. The Sustainability Coordinator has attended the monthly community -driven Climate Action Advisory Board meetings and also attends their Communications, Equity, and Transportation Working Group meetings as described in the Advisory Board Quarterly Report (included in the March 7 Information Packet). These meetings are going well and allow communication and coordination between the City and the Advisory Board on the implementation of the Plan. The meetings have been well organized and run by the Advisory Board members, who have been diligently working as a group to move forward the implementation of the Plan. City staff have also been collaborating across departments to implement the municipal actions within the Plan. Staff progress over the last six months is outlined in key areas below, organized by a general update and then by Climate Action Plan section titles. General Updates Staff Climate Action Group A group of 22 staff members representing all departments has been meeting every other month to capture ideas and improve daily operations to reduce municipal emissions. This group has created a list of simple and complex actions that City employees can undertake and become more involved in steps towards climate action so that climate awareness can become institutionalized within our organization. In April, the group will prioritize actions such as composting in City facilities, polling City employees about commuting options and incentives, and reducing paper usage. They will assemble the ideas the group has generated into a workable plan for the upcoming year. Climate Grant The application period for another round of the Community Climate Action Grant closed March 1, 2019. The staff committee will meet next week to review applications to award funding from FY2019 and FY2020 ($25,000 each year). A broad selection of applications was received this round. The grant award committee has criteria to evaluate proposals and seeks to award March 26, 2019 Page 2 funding for projects addressing a spectrum of Climate Plan objectives. This grant funding has been a positive method to engage the community, support climate work, and fund worthwhile projects in Iowa City that will reduce our emissions. Equity Fellow Iowa City was one of seven communities nationally chosen to host an Equity and Diversity Fellow this summer. The Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN) awarded grant funding to a selection of member applicants to hire a full-time fellow over the summer to further equity and sustainability work within their cities. The scope of work in Iowa City will focus on outreach and getting a better sense of the needs of underserved and under -represented communities who may be disproportionally impacted by climate change. Equity and sustainability staff will collaborate on mentoring the fellow over the 12 -week period this summer. The job opportunity will be posted next week both nationally through USDN as well as locally. Applications will be received through the end of April and selection for the position will be in May. We will be looking for applicants who have an interest in both sustainability and equity, as well as experience with working or living with under -represented communities. The fellow will also receive free attendance at the October 2019 USDN annual meeting to present on the work accomplished in Iowa City. Climate Festival Planning Staff has been in contact with event planning faculty at the University of Iowa and other stakeholders to assist in planning for a Climate Festival we plan to hold in September 2020. The University faculty agrees that it will be a beneficial partnership for students and has suggested that they could supply student help in the way of internships and volunteers for the festival. Tracking and Annual Reporting In addition to memos such as this, City staff plans on updating the community annually on the progress of the Climate Action Plan. The update will include an annual community -wide greenhouse gas inventory, which is done by City staff for every calendar year to quantify greenhouse gas reductions and analyze trends. Progress on all thirty-five actions in the Plan will be evaluated and annual materials will be generated for public awareness. Because data collection and analysis for both the inventory and the actions will take several months, reporting for the 2018 calendar year has already begun in order to create the annual report expected to be completed this fall. Buildings Tracking Municipal Utilities City staff have been tracking municipal utility data (natural gas and electricity) for the past 10 years. A more effective software program was recently purchased to analyze the facility data with the intent of prioritizing energy efficiency improvements. The software also allows the City to more easily track and quantify building emissions from energy use in City facilities. A sustainability intern has been managing the integration of our data with the new software and the project is substantially complete. We now look forward to bringing on the budget -approved Assistant Facility Manager in the new fiscal year to more actively monitor and manage our utility March 26, 2019 Page 3 usage. The addition of this position will also allow staff to more quickly implement energy efficiency projects on City facilities. Energy Efficiency Improvements in Municipal Facilities Several improvements have been implemented in City facilities. A Building Automation System (BAS) was installed for Robert A. Lee and at Mercer along with a new boiler system and HVAC work. A BAS, now in ten of our facilities, allows staff to monitor and optimally operate the building HVAC systems with the intent of lowering energy use and costs. A comprehensive BAS at City Hall is the next planned installation. Quite a few energy efficient lighting improvement projects have been completed, converting over 2,000 bulbs to LED lights in the last six months. These projects include many parking ramp stairwells, several areas of the Transit building, the household hazardous waste room at the Landfill, Cable TV offices, an IT server room, Equipment shop, and the Refuse building. Several other lighting replacements are planned at Parks buildings, the MPO offices in City Hall, and outdoor lighting at Mercer. Staff is working hard to take advantage of lighting rebates available from MidAmerican Energy through the end of March. Solar Projects Staff worked with consultants who completed a solar feasibility study for a selection of City facilities. Resulting from the study and direction from Council, staff is pursuing two solar array projects. The Public Works facility under construction will have a rooftop solar installation; the design will be underway shortly. The Terry Trueblood Recreation Area will also see a smaller solar installation project later this year. On a related note, the City Manager's Office and Sustainability staff have met with both MidAmerican Energy and Eastern Iowa Light and Power, to talk about partnering on potential opportunities for solar or other energy saving projects. Discussions are still underway. Efficiency Opportunities for Owner -Occupied Rehab Projects As of February 1, 2019, participants in the City's owner -occupied housing rehabilitation program will receive an energy audit by the City's affiliated Green Iowa AmeriCorps (GIA). To date, two projects are scheduled for audits to increase the home's energy efficiency. Participant homes will also receive weatherization to improve energy efficiency and lower energy costs. The City typically performs work on 20-25 housing rehab projects per year. Additionally, City staff also sent letters to past program participants at the end of January 2019 to let them know about the free energy audits. Green Iowa AmeriCorps have had 10 people sign up through our partnership. As of this writing, eight households have completed their audits. GIA have also completed additional weatherization for one household and another is signed up. Building Inspection for Energy Efficiency Building Inspection staff ensures that all new dwelling units and additions meet the specific insulation and thermal values for walls, floors, ceilings, windows and doors according to Energy Code. Staff must have verification by one of three paths of compliance: 1) a prescriptive method, in which plans have to show that the building is designed to the minimum values stated March 26, 2019 Page 4 in the code before staff issues a building permit, 2) a performance method, where data can be supplied using software called ResCheck, in which information such as insulation values, window and door thermal values and others are entered and a report shows if the building meets energy code requirements as it was designed, or 3) a "HERS Rating", which is an in- depth energy performance assessment provided by a certified third -party rater. On final inspection, staff are looking for the required tag at electrical panel. The tag at the electrical panel needs to include the following information: duct leakage and blower door test results, window and door U -values, insulation R -values and equipment efficiencies. Transportation Electric Vehicles and Charging Stations Two more electric vehicles will be soon to be added to the City fleet, which currently includes two electric cars, three electric utility vehicles, and three hybrid vehicles. Public charging stations for electric vehicles were recently added in the Capitol St, Dubuque St. and Chauncey Swan parking ramps. These are additions to the public charging station at Harrison St. ramp and fleet charging station in Chauncey Swan ramp. EV (Electric Vehicle) Readiness Planning Staff applied for funds from The Iowa Economic Development Authority to create a local readiness plan for electric vehicles. Codes and policy changes, as well as incentives would be evaluated as practices that cities could undertake that would promote the integration of electric vehicles in our community. While the idea of a plan was well received, the IEDA suggested that we increase the scope of the plan to be an Eastern Iowa regional plan. Staff has reached out to communities and MPOs in the region, all who have been interested in cooperating in the creation of a plan. Staff plans to gather letters of interest and updating the application to reapply next month. If awarded funds, a consultant would be jointly hired to create the regional plan. During the process of creating the plan, City staff will be able to asses which practices would be most valuable to adopt locally and set a timeline for implementation. Sustainability staff was just informed that they will be one of seven national representatives for the USDN electric vehicle planning group. Increase in Bike Lanes One bike lane on 1 I Ave. (Bradford to Hwy 6) was added last year, but there are plans for six more lanes to be striped this construction year in the following locations: 1) Dodge and Governor Streets (Burlington to Summit) 2) Mormon Trek Blvd. (Hwy 6 to Melrose) 3) Clinton (Benton to Church) 4) Madison St. (Burlington to Market) 5) Foster Rd. (Dubuque to Prairie Du Chien) March 26, 2019 Page 5 6) McCollister Rd. (Gilbert to Sycamore) Council will be updated on project progress through the fall. Waste Container Rollouts The bulk of approximately 13,000 95 -gallon recycling carts were distributed from December 10- 22, 2018. The bulk of the 95 -gallon organics carts requested by residents followed after the bulk recycling cart distribution (December/January). So far, 4,145 total, or just over 25% of our customers have been delivered. About 30 customers sign up online daily and at this point we're delivering within a day or two. Refuse's first organics compost load will be ready for the public on April 9. From an outreach perspective, carts have inspired increased communications with residents. During the distribution of carts and for the month following, staff was getting a lot of great questions from residents and had conversations with residents about recycling, some of which we feel like we had not before engaged. Staff plans to track the first months of participation and analyze data this spring, so we could have more information to share in May. Community Education Efforts Although the waste sector is a small percentage (2%) of community -wide emissions, it has become an increasingly large percentage (54%) of the municipal emissions (see page 9 of Iowa City Municipal Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update). Because the City owns and operates the Iowa City Landfill, which receives waste from all of Johnson County, the emissions from the landfill must be reported as a sector within the municipal greenhouse gas inventory. Staff recently met to ensure that all actions in the Waste section of the Plan are in progress and on track. Work on an education campaign for diversion of construction materials is in progress. Recycling and reuse workshops headed by the Resource Management Division have been held early in 2019. Staff is examining needed compost pad improvements and preparing for a methane -capture study for the Landfill and Waste Water Treatment Facility. An RFP for consultant work on this project is anticipated in the next few months. Also, a pilot composting program is rolling out at City Hall at the end of March. Staff at other City facilities have expressed interest in starting their own onsite compost programs. Local Food Initiatives Community garden plots are currently available for reservation, starting on March 8 with online reservations for those who rented space last year, and in-person reservation, beginning on April 1. This year, the City will have over 220 plots for rent in varying sizes. Next year, Creekside Park will add a community orchard of approximately 26 fruit -bearing plantings (6 trees; 20 bushes), Walden Pond will add 10-15 plots, and Chadek Green will be reconfigured to include varying sizes and additional pathways. March 26, 2019 Page 6 In addition to increasing community gardens and gardening programs, staff is working on an agreement to support local food initiatives. A significant portion of budgeted local food funding has remained unspent. More information will be brought to Council prior to finalizing the agreement. Route Changes for Refuse Operations Refuse and Engineering staff worked with the City's GIS platform to devise a revised plan for refuse truck routing. Solid Waste, Recycling, and Organics pickup have had standard routes for years, adding streets to routes as streets were built out throughout Iowa City. Drivers would occasionally need to skip over parts of town to go assist another route, especially if route stops were imbalanced. Staff modified all routes to keep all resident pickups on the same day of the week, rebalance the number of stops, and reduce excess vehicle miles traveled. It is still too recent to observe considerable fuel savings but staff is monitoring impacts of this change. Adaptation Tree Plantings In addition to the 1,500 trees that have been planted in the past three years, approximately 75 trees will be planted this year to buffer the railroad along 420th St. By expanding our tree canopy, these trees will assist in eliminating CO2 from the air, reducing stormwater runoff, removing air pollutants and providing shade for years to come. Stormwater Position Changes The FY2020 budget also includes a new Stormwater Technician position. This person will assist the Stormwater Engineer facilitate neighborhood stormwater projects and residential stormwater management assistant programs. The budget allows for the City to hire the position in summer. Natural Areas Management Staffing changes were made in the Parks Division to establish an Assistant Parks Superintendent position. The Assistant Superintendent will be able to support management of natural areas maintenance contracts. The City -owned natural areas, like Riverfront Crossings Park, sequester carbon, reduce runoff, and can help control flooding. We have made progress in maintaining these areas and will continue to have better support, with recent position hire. Conclusion In the six months since the plan was adopted, much work has been accomplished by City staff. We will continue to provide periodic updates throughout the year and look forward to putting together our first annual progress report for the Council and the community this fall. If you have any questions, please contact me at brenda-nations(cDiowa-citv.ora CC: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director Item Number: 7. + r • wln�r�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 28, 2019 Memo from City Clerk: Joint Meeting Agenda Items for April 15 ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from City Clerk: Joint Meeting Agenda Items forApril 15 I ar CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 26, 2019 To: Mayor and City Council From: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Re: Joint Meeting Agenda Items for April 15 The next joint meeting with City Councils of Johnson County municipalities, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, the Iowa City School District and neighboring school districts will be held on Monday, April 15, 2019. The meeting will be hosted by the Iowa City School District. Please come prepared to discuss agenda items you would like to include on that agenda at the next Council work session on April 2. A complete agenda and meeting date confirmation will be available in your packet preceding the April 15th joint meeting. Item Number: 8. + r • wln�r�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 28, 2019 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show r A.® CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 27, 2019 To: Mayor and City Council From: Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk Re: KXIC Radio Show KXIC offers a City show at 8:20 AM every Wednesday morning. In the past Council has volunteered for dates, and staff filled in as necessary. Please take a look at your calendars and come prepared to help fill in the schedule at your work session on April 2. Wednesday April 3 — Teague April 10 — Thomas April 17 — April 24 — May 1 — May 8 — May 15 — May 22 — May 29 — June 5 — June 12 - ** Please remember that KXIC is very flexible with taping the sessions ahead of the show. SLIk/Council KXIC Radio Schedule/radioshowasking.doc Item Number: 9. + r • wln�r�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 28, 2019 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Senior Accounts Payable Clerk ATTACHMENTS: Description Civil Service Entrance Examination: SeniorAccounts Payable Clerk � r �W ! "m wiw®� a lab .. L ., CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (3 19) 356-5009 FAX wWw.icgov.org March 20, 2019 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Senior Accounts Payable Clerk Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Senior Accounts Payable Clerk. Michael Brenneman IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Ric Wk [Rick Chair Item Number: 10. + r ., .®Oa • wln�r�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 28, 2019 Invitation: Beyond shelter - Housing for survivors of domestic violence - March 29 ATTACHMENTS: Description Invitation: Beyond shelter - Housing for survivors of domestic violence - March 29 Kellie Fruehlin From: Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition <jcaffordablehousing@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 11:36 AM To: Council Subject: Beyond shelter: Housing for survivors of domestic violence I March community meeting News and Updates from the Johnson County Affordable Is this email not displaying correctly? Housing Coalition! View it in your browser. JOHNSON COUNTY Affordable Housing C Ation FRIDAY AT NOON! We're looking forward to hearing from you at this month's community meeting. Friday, March 29 Noon -1:00 pm Johnson County Administration Building Betty Sass Conference Room, first floor (913 S. Dubuque St., Iowa City) **Note the change from our usual meeting place** Our presenters will be Bronis Perteit and Alesha Packer with the Domestic Violence Intervention Program. They'll be discussing the work DVIP does alongside service users to find safe, affordable, permanent housing --along with the challenges survivors face during this transition. Come to learn more about this important work, how the community can help, and to review some other affordable housing updates. See you at noon on Friday! All are welcome. A few housing highlights from the month of March: Changes to the Iowa City FY20 budget reflect some great advocacy wins for affordable housing! A full house for our forum about financing affordable rental projects, cosponsored by the Chamber of Commerce Groundbreaking for Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity's Interfaith Builds. Two families will become homeowners! Volunteer teams are needed; visit https://www.iowavalleyhabitat.org/ to learn more. BOOK SALE UturftSunday, March 31March 30 A & S ► s erhousdowa.org/book-sale The annual Shelter House book sale will be held March 30-31. Details at https://sheiterhouseiowa.org/events/shelter-house-book-sale/ Copyright © 2019 Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition, All rights reserved. mailahimp You are receiving this email because you signed up at an event or meeting. Our mailing address is: Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition 308 E. Burlington St. PMB 121 Iowa City, IA 52240 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list I update subscription preferences I view email in browser Item Number: 11. + r ., .®Oa • wln�r�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 28, 2019 Invitation: You're invited to Friday after Clinic - April 26 ATTACHMENTS: Description Invitation: You're Invited to Friday after Clinic, April 26 Kellie Fruehling From: Barbara Vinograde< bvinograde@freemedicalclinic.org > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 3:45 PM To: Council Subject: You're Invited to Friday After Clinic! Friday After Clinic with the Free Medical Clinic View this email in your browser Dear City of Iowa City Council Members, Thank you all for your support of the Iowa City Free Clinic! Please join us for Friday After Clinic, as we celebrate the organization's work! I look forward to seeing you on April 26th! Sincerely, You're Invited! Friday After Clinic with the Free Medical and Dental Clinic! April 26, 2018 from 5:30-7:30 pm College of Public Health Atrium Please join us for a free-will donation event, featuring live music by The New Found Five, beverages, appetizers by Maggie's Farm Wood -Fired Pizza, and a short program starting at 6 pm. From your friends at FMC Can't make it to the event? You can still make a donation! Click Here to visit our website and make a donation by clicking on the "Make a Paypal Donation" button! 00 2 + r • wln�r�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 28, 2019 Board of Adjustment: February 13 ATTACHMENTS: Description Board of Adjustment: February 13 Item Number: 12. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FEBRUARY 13, 2019 — 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ryan Hall, Amy Pretorius, Zephan Hazell MEMBERS ABSENT: Connie Goeb STAFF PRESENT: Jesi Lile, Sarah Walz, Sue Dulek OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 pm ROLL CALL - PRELIMINARY Lile announced that the Board currently has four members and that Goeb contacted her earlier that day to let her know that her flight had been delayed and she would not be able to attend the meeting. Another member, Amy Pretorius, has a conflict of interest and cannot hear the special exception, which left only two members, so the meeting did not have a quorum. The special exception EXC18-00008 will be deferred to the next meeting on March 13, 2019. The City Council will be appointing another board member at the meeting Tuesday February 19, so the board will be full again and will have four members who can hear the special exception in March. Upon learning that Goeb would not be able to attend, Lile notified the applicant and a few neighbors in opposition to let them know. Given that Goeb is not present, Lile suggested that the board defer their selection of the chair and vice chair to March, as well as Board procedures as they will have a 5tn member then. Lile then explained that they could proceed to approve the minutes or that could be deferred as well. Pretorius motioned to defer, Hazell seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0. ADJOURNMENT: Pretorius moved to adjourn this meeting. A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018-20198 NAME TERM EXP. 2114 5/09 6/13 8/18 12/12 2/13 COX, ERNIE 12/31/2020 -- -- -- -- -- -- GOEB, CONNIE 12131/2019 O/E X X X X O/E HALL, RYAN 12/31/2022 X X X X X X HAZELL, ZEPHAN 12131/2021 -- -- -- -- -- X PRETORILIS, AMY 12/31/2023 -- -- -- -- -- X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member Item Number: 13. + r .®Oa • wln�r�� CITY Ok IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 28, 2019 Board of Adjustment: March 13 ATTACHMENTS: Description Lioaro ol' Adjustment: March 13 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MARCH 13, 2019 — 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Connie Goeb, Zephan Hazell, Ryan Hall, Amy Pretorius MEMBERS ABSENT: Ernie Cox STAFF PRESENT: Jesi Lile, Sue Dulek OTHERS PRESENT CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 ROLL CALL - Present: Goeb, Hazell, Hall, Pretorius (Cox absent) NOMINATION AND SELECTION OF BOARD CHAIR & VICE CHAIR: PRELIMINARY Hall moved to nominate Goeb as Board Chair, Pretorius seconded the motion, all were in favor. Goeb moved to nominate Hall as Vice Chair, Pretorius seconded the motion, all were in favor. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM: Item EXC18-00008: an application submitted by Linda Annis for a special exception to allow for a buildable, non -conforming lot in the Low Density Single Family Zone (RS -5) located between 409 & 415 Kimball Road in order to build a single-family home. Lile told the Board that the day before Staff had received a request from the applicant to defer this item until the next meeting on April 10, in part due to the unavailability of her attorney. Staff has no objection to this request and has alerted the neighbors. Goeb asked if anyone wished to move to defer EXC18-00008 to the April 10`h meeting. Hall motioned to defer, Hazell seconded the motion. Goeb, Hall, and Hazell voted to defer, Pretorius abstained due to a conflict of interest (3-0). REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURES: Lile asked the Board if they had any questions or concerns about the procedures they have received recently. Goeb asked about the language concerning the temporary alternate. Dulek replied that Staff was working to clarify that language. This section pertains to alternates being allowed in appeals due to conflict of interest, but that alternate cannot be involved in the purchase or sale in real estate. Goeb wants to know why this is more strict than the guidelines for being on the Board, which states that the majority of members cannot be involved in the purchase or sale of real estate. Hazell wanted to know if there was talk of removing the clause or keeping it. Dulek replied that Staff did not know, but whatever they proposed would be brought back to the Board for discussion. Hazell stated that he thought the clause was a good idea. Hazell also wanted to know why the Board could only add an alternate for appeals, not regular cases. Dulek responded that City Council decided (due to the Lusk case) that most of the time appeals are where City Staff is challenged, and it is more needed to make sure that a full Board hears the appeal, rather than special exceptions where cases are not as adversarial against Staff or the public. Goeb clarified that the only appeals were appeals of administrative and staff decisions, whereas applicants cannot appeal a special exception, it must go to court. Dulek clarified that appeals come to the Board of Adjustment first, and it is important to Staff and City Council to have a five -member Board. Special exceptions are different because they are typically more routine. Hazell wondered if the Board could decide they would like an alternate if there was a more controversial case. Dulek replied that all of that was decided through City Ordinance, and that it could be recommended to City Council. CONSIDER DECEMBER 12, 2018 MINUTES: Hall motioned to approve the December 12, 2018 minutes, Hazel seconded, approved (4-0) ADJOURNMENT: Pretorius motioned to adjourn, (4-0). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018-20198 NAME TERM EXP. 2/14 5/09 6113 8/18 12/12 2/13 3/13 COX, ERNIE 12/31/2020 -- O/E GOEB, CONNIE 12/31/2019 O/E X X X X O/E X HALL, RYAN 12/31/2022 X X X X X X X HAZELL, ZEIPHAN 12/31/2021 X X PRETORIUS, AMY 12131/2023 X X KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member