Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-18 Info Packet r 1 ACity Council Information Packet owsi Ait-NeAressinicrir April 18,2019 CITY OE IOWA CITY www.icgov.org IP1. Council Tentative Meeting Schedule April 23 Work Session IP2. Agenda IP3. Memo from Transportation Planner: On-street parking prohibition policy IP4. Memo from Sr. Transportation Engineering Planner: Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions 2015-2017 IP5. Memo from Assistant to the City Manager: Traffic Collision Analysis IP6. Pending Work Session Topics Miscellaneous IP7. Email from Council member Cole: At Large Cat Ordinance IP8. Email from Council member Cole: Manufactured Housing State Programs Overview IP9. Memo from Assistant City Manager and Human Resources Administrator. Employment Status Analysis- Communication Division IP10. Memo from Assistant to the City Manager: Fire Department Vehicle Collision Response Data IP11. Copy of report from Governors Highway Safety Association submitted by City Manager: Pedestrian Traffic Fatallities by State-2018 Preliminary Data IP12. Memo from Public Works Director Pothole Repair IP13. Memo from Budget& Compliance Officer: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending March 31, 2019 IP14. Community Police Review Board Community Forum-April 29 IP15. Joint Meeting Minutes: April 15 IP16. Email from Caroline Dieterle: A Video Surprise from an Arlo Friend [Link has expired to video] IP17. Civil Service Entrance Examination: Maintenance Worker I -Streets IP18. Civil Service Entrance Examination: Recreation Program Supervisor IP19. Civil Service Entrance Examination:Water GIS Technician Email from Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition: Stand up for affordable housing with these ACTION ITEMS [Distributed as late handout 4/22/19] Email from Council member Thomas: On-street parking prohibition policy [Distributed as late handout 4/23/19] Draft Minutes IP20. Community Police Review Board: April 9 IP21. Housing and Community Development Commission: March 14 IP22. Planning and Zoning Commission: April 4 IP23. Telecommunications Commission: March 25 i r 1 ..,-...—..........aA,,,,.. 41, ft. ` .... iCity Council Information Packet — .ass_ CITY 01: IOWA CITY April 18, 2019 www.icgov.org IP1., Council Tentative Meeting Schedule April 23 Work Session, IP2. Agenda IP3. Memo from Transportation Planner: On-street parking prohibition policy IP4. Memo fro Sr. Transportation Engineering Planner:Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycl Collisions 2015-2017 IP5. Memo from Assistant to the City Manager: Traffic Collision Analysis IP6. Pending Work Session Topics Miscellaneous IP7. Email from Council member Cole: At Large Cat Ordinance IP8. Email from Council member Cole: Manufactured Housing State Programs Overview IP9. Memo from Assistant City Manager,and Human Resources Administrator: Employment Status Analysis -Communication Division IP10. Memo from Assistant to the City Manager: Fire Department Vehicle Collision Response Data IP11. Copy of report from Governors Highway Saf8i,ty Association submitted by City Manager: Pedestrian Traffic Fatallities by S to -2018 Preliminary Data IP12. Memo from Public Works Director: Pothole Rep 'r IP13. Memo from Budget& Compliance Officer: Quarter! Financial Summary for Period Ending March 31, 2019 IP14. Community Police Review Board Community Forum ,April 29 IP15. Joint Meeting Minutes: April 15 IP16. Email from Caroline Dieterle: A Video Surprise from an Arlo 1riend [Link has expired to video] IP17. Civil Service Entrance Examination: Maintenance Worker I -Streets IP18. Civil Service Entrance Examination: Recreation Program Supervisor IP19. Civil Service Entrance Examination: Water GIS Technician Draft Minutes 1P20. Community Police Review Board: April 9 IP21. 11—ousing and Community Development Co mission: March 14 IP22. Planning and Zoning Commission: April IP23. Telecommunications Commission: Match 5 i Item Number: 1. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule ATTACHMENTS: Description Council Tentative Meeting Schedule j r 1 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule rSubject to change CITY OF IOWA CITY April 18, 2019 Date Time Meeting Location 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 Monday, July 15, 2019 4:00 PM Reception City of Coralville 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting TBA Tuesday, July 16, 2019 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, August 6, 2019 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, August 20, 2019 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Agenda ATTACHMENTS: Description Agenda Item Number: 2. I r i CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX ww4'V. I Cgo V. o rg City Council Work Session Agenda Tuesday, April 23, 2019 Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall 5:00 PM • 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 [IP3, IP4, IP5] • Clarification of Agenda Items • Information Packet Discussion [April 4, April 11, April 18] Council Direction needed on the following items: 1. (4/11) IP6: Memo from Director of Parks and Recreation: Request for Information #19-161, Partnership Agreement with Iowa City Parks & Recreation 2. (4/18) IP8: Memo from Assistant City Manager and Human Resources Administrator: Employment Status Analysis - Communication Division • Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees Item Number: 3. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Memo from Transportation Planner: On -street parking prohibition policy ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from Transportation Planner to City Manager: On -street parking prohibition policy CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: April 15, 2019 To: Geoff Fruin; City Manager From: Kent Ralston; Transportation Planner Re: On -street parking prohibition policy Introduction: At recent City Council meetings, Council members have discussed the policy by which staff recommends on -street parking prohibitions on existing streets. This memo outlines the current on -street parking prohibition policy staff uses for streets less than 28' in width. History/Background: The City's current subdivision code is very clear on when on -street parking is prohibited on newly constructed streets and is primarily dictated by the width of the street (Attachment 1). Generally, local and collector streets less than 28' in width (including curbs) only allow parking on one side of the street. Further, while the city code provides numerous regulations with respect to specific parking situations (e.g. loading zones, fire lanes, and adjacency to intersections), the code does not specify on -street parking regulations for existing streets. The code generally states that parking can be prohibited along one side of the street when a street does not exceed 30' in width and can be prohibited on both sides of the street when the street is less than 20' in width. Given the flexibility in the code, staff typically adheres to the following on -street parking policy for existing streets: • On local and collector streets, on -street parking prohibitions are generally limited to one side of the street. Parking is rarely prohibited on both sides of the street. • When a request to prohibit on -street parking is generated by management of a City Department (e.g. Police, Fire or Streets), staff conducts an initial review of existing conditions and makes a recommendation to City Council with the specific rationale for the request. When a request to prohibit on -street parking is generated by a resident, staff conducts an initial review of existing conditions. If the street is less than 28' wide and staff documents vehicles parking directly opposite each other, effectively narrowing the street where large vehicles may not be able to safely navigate the corridor, the neighborhood is notified that a recommendation to prohibit parking on one side of the street will be sent to the City Council for action. If staff cannot document vehicles parking directly opposite each other, no action is taken. When a request to prohibit on -street parking is generated by a resident and staff deems no action is required after an initial review, residents are provided the opportunity to petition to have parking prohibited on one or both sides of the street. In this case, staff requires that 50% of the residents in the affected area sign a petition, and a subsequent mail -back survey is supported by 60% of those surveyed. If these thresholds are met, staff recommends the requested prohibition to City Council. • Prior to recommending a change to City Council staff considers: street topography, number of access points, surrounding land uses, existing parking prohibitions, existing parking need, potential hardships caused by a change in on -street prohibitions, and traffic safety. Discussion of Solutions: The City currently has approximately 140 streets less than 28 in width, comprising of more than 18 miles of roadway, that allow parking on both sides of the street (Attachments 2-4). Of the 140 streets, over 100 are 25' wide (including curbs). The image below provides an example of how these corridors function if vehicles are parked directly opposite each other when an emergency vehicle is present. If each of the personal vehicles in the image were parked 18" from the curb as permitted by City Code, it would be difficult for an emergency vehicle, garbage truck or snow plow to safely navigate the corridor. To ensure safe passage of large i vehicles, staff can proceed with, f. 1) the existing policy whereby each request for an on -street r parking prohibition is investigated based on context - '- or, 2) staff could proactively limit 4Si parking to one side of all 140 - streets less than 28' in width that currently allow parking on both sides. The major disadvantages I4 of a `blanket' prohibition is that it would likely prohibit parking where unnecessary, may 'Image from The Village of Mundelein Illinois increase vehicle speeds in *The 24' cross-section measurement excludes curbs corridors where existing parking helps 'calm' traffic, and could cause potential hardships in neighborhoods with an already limited parking supply. Financial Impact: Under the current policy, staff estimates that less than $5,000 per year is spent on staff time and materials related to requests for additional parking prohibitions. If a 'blanket' change was implemented where parking was limited to one side of the street for each of the 140 streets less than 28' in width, an approximate cost estimate for labor/materials is $65,000. Recommendation: Given that staff typically only receives a handful of complaints each year that result in additional parking prohibitions due to narrow streets causing safety concerns or otherwise preventing the delivery of City services, staff (including the Fire Chief) recommends the City continue with the existing policy. Notes. ',loop streets provide access for 12 or fewer dwellings 21ow volume cul-de-sacs provide access to 10 or fewer single-family dwellings - 3.For residential streets with toss than 28 feet of pavement width, parking is restricted to one side, jD W N r 0 N S C N to z (D N N ci O - n0 ,;' O 00- (D Q(D N O 7 Number Travei p Minimum Right Of Way Width Pavement Width Lanes Parkirg Maximum Grade Sidewalk Width Residential alley+rear la..,e 20 feet S fee; Na 2 cercen: nfa Commercial alleyrrear lane <feefminimum_+ragas 27 feetvanes j No t ^cercen; n/a Loop street' 900 feet minimumfvanes f 22 feet• st�arac Yes, ac 4 i t0 een:e 1 4 feet residential side C= __- s' ae st eet onl, .;: vci,�rne c.i-de-sac` 50 fee! 22 feet 1 shared Yes en t `0 aercent 4 feet both sides side CJI-0e-58C+feet 28 Of 23 re3tYes} •0 aercent 5 feet both sides Local residential street 6r lest 2E cr 23 res: j 2 ;? y833 .2 concent 5 feet tc"s sides Lots: commercialflncust:iai 80 feet 28 feet 2 Yes 8 percent 5 feet te"_•+ sides street J'. Collector street {ail land 86 feet 3` feet 2 ^. Yes `• E cemer•! fcr-esidential: 3 percent for commercial i 5 feet beta sides Collector street vrilh b ke 55 fee: 34 feet j 2 No 3 oercent 5 feet Goth sides lanes ? 2 lane arterial street . ±':0 feet minimum 39 feet 2 " No L oercen: 8 feet one s5e set cae '` J; side --- - Arterial street wMh b*e - 100 feet minimum 34 feet 2 No f S pefeer: 8 feet one side75 fee; cre lanes sire 4 lane arterial street.20 fee _... 54 feet/vanes depencing :` meaisr. s nctuded 4 ! No l 8 peresnt 8 feet one s *c:e _ set one side Arterial street with parking 100 feet minimum: more may be required depending on : a'ses. Laseo on number of lanes and whether parking is 2`Yes 8 percent 8 toot one siae:i feet one parking configur"Dn parsile or angled1 side 3 lane arterial street tit feet annimurr 45 feetva:ies dea,e ding 4 ^edian is included 3 No 8 percen€ 8 fee: ane side:. feet one side Notes. ',loop streets provide access for 12 or fewer dwellings 21ow volume cul-de-sacs provide access to 10 or fewer single-family dwellings - 3.For residential streets with toss than 28 feet of pavement width, parking is restricted to one side, jD W N r 0 N S C N to z (D N N ci O - n0 ,;' O 00- (D Q(D N O 7 r arKlfl!U Ufl IVdf IUVN OLf CCLb Hvw so - IM ST 5111 Sr d4 . PARK RO ..i-.:-. s _ . A ` � ROCNE&TERAY OR A r4C1 COMTST ,-.•_' a WTm ST ODDA t AfUSCA rAYE x u P1 a� \"7oatr 26 8, 27 ft. Wide Streets with On -Street Parking 0 0.75 1.5 Mites " Parking Allowed One -Side Author. Frank Waisath e vices Department: Neighborhood 8 Development Se' � Both Sides Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Iowa South 3 T1x map m ~4W b carve as m aid i, pnpNc npeea.r"t Arterial Streets snbraia frww;ranttabraa�-a_yaeMe CITY OF IOWA CITY ranting On marrow Ol:reets HAI(F1 1.•.. sm � a D 0.75 11.5 - Miles Parking Allowed One -Side Author. Frank Waisath ! c Department Neighborhood & Development Seryi.es Both Sides Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Iowa South rw��•� Tris map is i+Me'gMbfenrxrab inti�D�i"esK'�`a' �'t.Y� Arterial Streets -y. T`1%ml °° �—.,,Wdf., °""'--y CITY OF IOWA CITY S7Fr 8r PARK FtD R�SSEtz�•, NIA Jfh All WITT STI I -� 1 •�J ; I C r v - b+'_ dye Mocoters etW - 24 & 25 ft. Wide Streets with On -Street Parking D 0.75 11.5 Miles Parking Allowed One -Side Author. Frank Waisath ! c Department Neighborhood & Development Seryi.es Both Sides Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Iowa South rw��•� Tris map is i+Me'gMbfenrxrab inti�D�i"esK'�`a' �'t.Y� Arterial Streets -y. T`1%ml °° �—.,,Wdf., °""'--y CITY OF IOWA CITY r.% 1 . \ 1 11a._ r-ai Kil ly UH INar I uw OLI U'GLb 22 & 23 ft. Wide Streets with On -Street Parking Parking Allowed One -Side Both Sides Arterial Streets 0 0.75 1.5 Mies u Author Frank Waisath Department: Neighborhood 8 Dereimpment Services Pro)ecbon: NAD State Parte Iowa Soul, ... 1983 n...ft ftdns-�.nrasn �v + ar+vi,- aMIt,.s y. 'etormax, K m vlam±w.a kr aoo,-arr r j , xhrr*w n:.po _ CITY OF IOWA CITY s -r s; I G MVAMTV N Roc"esmR A't dR� A ARAAD .a $ �J rol9i', n kja�FLOW AVE 22 & 23 ft. Wide Streets with On -Street Parking Parking Allowed One -Side Both Sides Arterial Streets 0 0.75 1.5 Mies u Author Frank Waisath Department: Neighborhood 8 Dereimpment Services Pro)ecbon: NAD State Parte Iowa Soul, ... 1983 n...ft ftdns-�.nrasn �v + ar+vi,- aMIt,.s y. 'etormax, K m vlam±w.a kr aoo,-arr r j , xhrr*w n:.po _ CITY OF IOWA CITY N D N 0 1L 3 wCD �L 4�, Q .. CD CA CD CD 0 Item Number: 4. �r A�� CITY OE IOWA CITY www.iogov.org April 18, 2019 Memo from Sr. Transportation Engineering Planner: Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions 2015-2017 ATTACHMENTS: Description emo from Sr. Transportation Engineering Planner: Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions 2015-2017 I r , --t4 A0V. s CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 29, 2019 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Emily Bothell, Sr. Transportation Engineering Planner Re: Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions 2015-2017 Introduction: At the January 22nd, 2019 City Council Work Session council member Thomas requested pedestrian and bicycle collision data to supplement the Traffic Collision Analysis (2095-2017). To follow is a brief analysis of the intersections with three or more pedestrian and bicycle collisions between 2015 and 2017. The data used in the analysis was sourced from the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT). Evaluation Process: Collision frequency was summarized for all intersections in Iowa City. Locations with three or more collisions were evaluated for this analysis. Each location is ranked using the Iowa DOT Office of Traffic Safety weighted formula. The formula has three data inputs: number of collisions (weighted at 25%), crash rate (weighted at 25%), and severity of collisions (weighted at 50%). The three inputs are explained in more detail below. 1. Number of Collisions — This is the total number of collisions per location obtained from the Iowa Crash Analysis Tool during the years of 2015-2017. Based on the number of collisions, each location was given a score. Scores are assigned as shown in Table 1. 2. Crash Rate — This is the total number of collisions per one -million vehicles divided by the total number of days per Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Crash rates allow each intersection to be evaluated with a common denominator. The crash rate is then assigned a corresponding score as shown in Table 1. 3. Severity — This is the combined severity of all collisions per location. Collisions are categorized by: property damage only, possible/unknown personal injury, minor personal injury, major personal injury, and fatality. These types of collisions are given a weight of 1, 1, 3, 5, and 12, respectively, and then totaled to give each location a severity raw score. These raw scores are then converted to a total severity score as shown in Table 1. Weighted Formula: After points are assigned for the three categories, the points are entered into the Iowa DOT weighted ranking formula and organized from highest to lowest combined score as shown in Tables 2 and 3. Formula: (Collision Points * 0.25) + (Crash Rate Points * 0.25) + (Severity Points * 0.5) March 29, 2019 Page 2 Table 1: Iowa DOT Evaluation Criteria and Associated Points Number of Collisions Crash Rate rity Collisions Points Rate Points Raw Score Points >29 15 >3.5 15 >56 15 27-28 14 3.26-3.5 14 53-56 14 25-26 13 3.01-3.25 13 49-52 13 23-24 12 2.76-3.0 12 4548 12 21-22 11 2.51-2.75 11 4144 11 19-20 10 2.26-2.5 10 37-40 10 17-18 9 2.01-2.25 9 33-36 9 15-16 8 1.76-2.0 8 29-32 8 13-14 7 1.51-1.75 7 25-28 7 11-12 6 1.26-1.5 6 21-24 6 9-10 5 1.01-1.25 5 17-20 5 7-8 4 0.76-1.0 4 13-16 4 5-6 3 0.51-0.75 3 9-12 3 4 2 0.26-0.5 2 5-8 2 3 1 <0.25 1 <5 1 Intersection Assumptions: The following assumptions were made for collisions occurring at intersections: • Collisions occurring within 250 feet (+/- 50) feet from the intersection of streets will be included. • If the roadway type is a commercial/residential drive, the crash will not be counted. • Collisions involving one pedestrian or bicycle will be counted, assuming the accident was most likely caused by the intersection. March 29, 2019 Page 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision Evaluation: Table 2 displays the intersections with three or more collisions involving pedestrians and those intersections with three or more bicycle collisions. The number of collisions, crash rate, and severity is shown for each intersection along with their associated points. These points are then used in the weighted formula, shown on page 1, to derive a combined score. The intersections are then ranked from highest to lowest combined score. Table 2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision Data 2015-2017 Intersections with three or more Pedestrian Collisions Intersection Collisions Collision Crash Crash Rate Severity Severity Combined Rank Points Rate Points Points Score Burlington Street and Clinton Street 6 3 0.16 1 14 4 3 1 Hawkins Drive and Evashevski Drive 3 1 0.34 2 11 3 2.25 2 Burlington Street and Linn Street 3 1 0.12 1 5 2 1.5 3 Intersection Collisions Collision Crash Crash Rate Severity Severity Combined Rank Points Rate Points Points Score Burlington Street and Madison Street 3 1 0.10 1 9 3 2 1 Burlington Street and Lucas Street 3 1 0.20 1 11 3 2 1 Gilbert Street and Washington Street 3 1 0.19 1 5 2 1.5 2 Gilbert Street and Benton Street 3 1 0.18 1 5 2 1.5 2 Map 1 displays the intersections with three or more pedestrian collisions and intersections with three or more bicycle collisions in Iowa City. The collisions were separated by mode to evaluate the existing facilities and determine what countermeasures, if any, can be implemented that are specific to that mode. Of the hundreds of intersections in Iowa City, there are only three intersections with three or more pedestrian collisions and four intersections with three bicycle collisions. March 29, 2019 Page 4 Map 1: Intersections with three or more Pedestrian Collisions and Intersections with three or more Bicycle Collisions C 0 S Burlington St. & Clinton St. Hawkins Dr. & Evashevski Dr. O a 09 SO A C Burlin on 3t m x niYQ Y , f Qivii. M®IroaeAve i a U Burlington St. & Linn St. Pedestrian Collisions 0 Pedestrian Collisions N Years 2015.2017 Iowa River 0 0.25 0.5 Miles l-1 ""`•jli.:l� L,U11151[,iil� L_�vwy�rov�maw��a r ruc•w+ Gilbert St. & Washington St. Gi4, i 3 Was ngton st I Burlington St. & Madison St. t a Burlington St. & Lucas St. Gilbert St. & Benton St. March 29, 2019 Page 5 Table 3 displays the intersections with three or more collisions involving pedestrians and bicycles. The number of collisions, crash rate, and severity is shown for each intersection along with their associated points. These points are then used in the weighted formula, shown on page 1, to derive a combined score. The intersections are ranked from highest to lowest combined score. Table 3: Intersections with three or more Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions 2015-2017 Collision Crash Crash Severity Combine Intersection Collisions Points Rate Rate Severity Points Score Rank Points Burlington Street and Clinton Street 8 4 0.22 1 18 5 3.75 1 Hwy 6 and Hawkins Drive/Rocky Shore Drive 4 2 0.09 1 12 3 2.25 2 Hawkins Drive and Evashevski Drive 3 1 0.34 2 11 3 2.25 2 Burlington Street and Madison Street 4 2 0.12 1 12 3 2.25 2 Burlington Street and Gilbert Street 4 2 0.12 1 12 3 2.25 2 Riverside Drive and Burlington StreetlGrand Avenue 3 1 0.06 1 9 3 2.00 3 Gilbert Street and Washington Street 3 1 0.19 1 9 3 2.00 3 Burlington Street and Lucas Street 3 1 0.20 1 11 3 2.00 3 Hwy 6 and Sycamore Street 3 1 0.10 1 11 3 2.00 3 Dubuque Street and Park Road 4 2 0.14 1 8 2 1.75 4 Burlington Street and Dubuque Street 3 1 0.12 1 7 2 1.50 5 Burlington Street and Linn Street 3 1 0.12 1 5 2 1.50 5 Gilbert Street and Jefferson Street 3 1 0.20 1 7 2 1.50 5 Gilbert Street and Benton Street 3 1 0.18 1 7 2 1.50 5 Gilbert Street and Iowa Avenue 3 1 0.19 1 3 1 1.00 6 Map 2 displays the intersections with three or more pedestrian and bicycle collisions in Iowa City. The intersections with three or more pedestrian and bicycle collisions will be analyzed to understand what intersections may necessitate countermeasures for both modes. Of the hundreds of intersections in Iowa City there are only 15 intersections with three or more pedestrian and bicycle collisions, with a majority located in downtown Iowa City. Of the 15 intersections, the Burlington Street and Clinton Street intersection has the highest number of collisions (eight) and the highest severity of collisions (18). The other 14 intersections only have four or three pedestrian and bicycle collisions in three years as shown in Countermeasures Staff intends to review the top intersections with three or more pedestrian and bicycle collisions to identify countermeasures to decrease the number and severity of these collisions. For more information on the types of countermeasures, please see the Iowa City Traffic Collision Analysis 2015-2017. March 29, 2019 Page 6 Map 2: Intersections with three or more Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions Iwo NO NSPENOM ME ONMENES No MENEMENE Ewa 0 ME IN UK MEN Rim CJI:-•••• ii of Pedestrian and SillNumber Bicycle Collisions Years 2015-2017 0.25 0.5 MilesJ i0 Item Number: 5. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Memo from Assistant to the City Manager: Traffic Collision Analysis ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from Assistant to the City Manager: Traffic Collision Analysis Previously disbtributed in 1/17 Info Packet M CITY OF IOWA CITY ..mom *�, k SMA®��� M E M O RA N Date: January 15, 2019 To: City Council From: Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager Re: Traffic Collision Analysis Introduction City Council's 2018-2019 Strategic Plan includes an action item to, uComplete an analysis of traffic accident data and identify actions to improve the safety of our roadways for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians." In January of 2019 the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC) completed a traffic collision analysis for the years 2015-2017. This report Is attached. Next steps This topic is included on City Council's pending work session list. Council has indicated a desire to engage in a discussion reviewing the collision analysis and potential countermeasures. Council has also suggested that University of Iowa Professor Jodi Plumert be invited to the work session to update Council on her related research and participate in the discussion. Staff recommends scheduling Professor Plumert and the traffic collision analysis discussion at the same work session. Please review the attached analysis to ensure the information needed to engage in your discussion is present. Staff will work with the Mayor, Council, and Professor Plumert to find a suitable date for scheduling the work session item. City of Iowa City Traffic Collision Analysis 2015-2017 +r CITY of IOWA CITY Analysis Completed By: Emily Bothell, Senior Transportation Engineering Planner Nate Bauer, Transportation Planning Intern January 2019 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Evaluation Process, Inputs and Weighted Formula 1 Intersection Evaluation 2 Intersection Assumptions 2 Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations 3 Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations by Quadrant 4 2013-2015 / 2015-2017 Collision Comparison 6 Intersection Capital Improvement Program Projects 7 Mid -Block Evaluation 8 Mid -Block Assumptions 8 Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations 8 Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations by Quadrant 10 2013-2015 / 2015-2017 Collision Comparison 11 Mid -Block Capital Improvement Program Projects 13 Potential Countermeasures 14 Per Capita Collision Comparisons 17 Complete Intersection Ranking 18 Complete Mid -Block Ranking 22 Introduction This report identifies high collision locations in Iowa City for the years 2015 through 2017. The goal of this report is to increase awareness of high collision locations. As a result, Iowa City will be able to identify and implement countermeasures designed to reduce collisions at these locations. The previous collision study analyzed collisions between years 2013 and 2015, which will be compared to the collisions that occurred between 2015 and 2017. The data used in this report was sourced from the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT). The Iowa DOT obtains copies of collision reports from local jurisdictions to compile a database called the Iowa Crash Analysis Tool. This report utilizes the most complete and current data available from the Iowa DOT for the years 2015 through 2017. Evaluation Process Collision frequency was summarized for all intersection and mid -block locations in Iowa City. Locations with three or more collisions were evaluated for this report. The total number of intersection locations (locations with three or more collisions) within the Iowa City area is 171. The total number of mid -block collision locations (locations with three or more collisions) is 64. Each location is ranked using the Iowa DOT Office of Traffic Safety weighted formula. The formula has three data inputs: number of collisions (weighted at 25%), crash rate (weighted at 25%), and severity of the collisions (weighted at 50%). The three inputs are explained in more detail below. Inputs 1. Number of collisions —This is the total number of collisions per location obtained from the Iowa Crash Analysis Tool during the years 2015-2017. Based on the number of collisions, each location was given a score. Scores are assigned as shown in Table 1. 2. Crash Rate — This is the total number of collisions per one -million vehicles divided by the total number of days per Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Crash rates allow each intersection to be evaluated with a common denominator. The crash rate is then assigned a corresponding score as shown in Table 1. Intersection crash rate formula: (# Collisions) * (1,000,000) (# Days) * (Total entering AADT) Mid -block crash rate formula: (# Collisions) * (1,000,000) (# Days) * (Total AADT) * (segment length in miles) 3. Severity — This is the combined severity of all collisions per location. Collisions are categorized by: property damage only, possible/unknown personal injury, minor personal injury, major personal injury, and fatality. These types of collisions are given a weight of 1, 1, 3, 5, and 12, respectively, and then totaled to give each location a severity raw score. These raw scores are then converted to a total severity score as shown in Table 1. Weighted Formula After points are assigned for the three categories, the points are entered into the Iowa DOT weighted ranking formula and organized from highest to lowest rank as shown on Pages 18-23. Formula: (Collision Points * 0.25) + (Crash Rate Points * 0.25) + (Severity Points * 0.5) Table 1: Iowa DOT Evaluation Criteria and Associated Points Assumptions The following assumptions were made for collisions occurring at intersections: • Collisions occurring within 250 feet (+/- 50) feet from the intersection of streets will be included. • Sideswipes involving Failure to Yield (FTY) will be included, whereas sideswipes for vehicles traveling the same direction will not be included (i.e. changing lanes, hitting a parked car). • If the data record is incomplete regarding the manner of the crash, but still involves two vehicles, it will be counted. • if the roadway type is a commercial/residential drive, the crash will not be counted. • If the roadway type is a non -intersection but the manner of the crash is likely caused by the intersection (i.e. rear -end) the crash will be counted. • Collisions involving one vehicle will be counted, assuming the accident was most likely caused by the intersection. Top 10 Intersections Figure 1 displays the top ten intersections in Iowa City, between 2015 and 2017, with the highest combined score after taking into account the number of collisions, crash rate, and severity of collisions. Three of the ten intersections are located on Riverside Drive and four are sited along the Hwy 1/ Hwy 6 corridor. As shown in Table 2, the intersections of E Burlington Street/ S Gilbert Street and S Riverside Drivel W Benton Street are both ranked sixth as they have the same combined score of 9.25. Similarly, the intersections of Riverside Drive/ Hwy 1 and Hwy 6, Hwy 1/ Mormon Trek Boulevard, and Madison Street/ W Burlington Street are all ranked eighth with a combined score of 8.75. 2 Number of Collisions Crash Rate rity Collisions Points Rate Points Raw Score Points >29 15 >3.5 15 >56 15 27-28 14 3.26-3.5 14 53-56 14 25-26 13 3.01-3.25 13 49-52 13 23-24 12 2.76-3.0 12 45-48 12 21-22 11 2.51-2.75 11 41-44 11 19-20 10 2.26-2.5 10 37-40 10 17-18 9 2.01-2.25 9 33-36 9 15-16 8 1.76-2.0 8 29-32 8 13-14 7 1.51-1.75 7 25-28 7 11-12 6 1.26-1.5 6 21-24 6 9-10 5 1.01-1.25 5 17-20 5 7-8 4 0.76-1.0 4 13-16 4 5-6 3 0.51-0.75 3 9-12 3 4 2 0.26-0.5 2 5-8 2 3 1 <0.25 1 <5 1 J Assumptions The following assumptions were made for collisions occurring at intersections: • Collisions occurring within 250 feet (+/- 50) feet from the intersection of streets will be included. • Sideswipes involving Failure to Yield (FTY) will be included, whereas sideswipes for vehicles traveling the same direction will not be included (i.e. changing lanes, hitting a parked car). • If the data record is incomplete regarding the manner of the crash, but still involves two vehicles, it will be counted. • if the roadway type is a commercial/residential drive, the crash will not be counted. • If the roadway type is a non -intersection but the manner of the crash is likely caused by the intersection (i.e. rear -end) the crash will be counted. • Collisions involving one vehicle will be counted, assuming the accident was most likely caused by the intersection. Top 10 Intersections Figure 1 displays the top ten intersections in Iowa City, between 2015 and 2017, with the highest combined score after taking into account the number of collisions, crash rate, and severity of collisions. Three of the ten intersections are located on Riverside Drive and four are sited along the Hwy 1/ Hwy 6 corridor. As shown in Table 2, the intersections of E Burlington Street/ S Gilbert Street and S Riverside Drivel W Benton Street are both ranked sixth as they have the same combined score of 9.25. Similarly, the intersections of Riverside Drive/ Hwy 1 and Hwy 6, Hwy 1/ Mormon Trek Boulevard, and Madison Street/ W Burlington Street are all ranked eighth with a combined score of 8.75. 2 Figure 1: Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations n 0 Ranked Intersections 0 0.5 1 2 Miles N Table 2: Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations j a i ■ SCOTT BLVD ID F� Intersection Rank 1 W n 1 2 C 7 2 3 Bo rum St. and Hwy 6 3 4 O 4 5 7 5 6 RIVERSIDE DR 6 7 S Riverside Dr. and W Benton St. ROCHESTER AVE 8 S Riverside Dr I Burlington St. Madison St. W Burlington St. Melrose Ave. I Mormon Trek Blvd. 9 1 ((�� 10 + BURLINGTON ST m E COURT ST MELROSEAVE `) r—N >, S Rivomide Dr.1 W Banton 8t a E Burlkl{ttOn St. l S (3Fltlelt St W BEN70N S 100 MUSCATINE AVE LU z78 'RWmlde'Dr,IHveylli3 runr8tl 6 Boy Hwy 5w © G s 8 Gilbert St / Hvry 6 C—, Hwy 1 J Mormon Trrk Blvd. to Sycamore SL 1 Hwy 8 `pa m 0 Ranked Intersections 0 0.5 1 2 Miles N Table 2: Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations j a i ■ ID Intersection Location Intersection Rank 1 Sycamore St. and Hwy 6 1 2 S Gilbert St. and Hwy 6 2 3 Bo rum St. and Hwy 6 3 4 Melrose Ave. and Mormon Trek Blvd. 4 5 Riverside Dr. and W Burlington St. / Grand Ave. 5 6 E Burlington St. and S Gilbert St. 6 7 S Riverside Dr. and W Benton St. 6 8 Riverside Dr. and Hwy 1 / Hwy 6 8 9 Hwy 1 and Mormon Trek Blvd. 8 10 Madison St. and W Burlington St. 8 3 Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations by Quadrant In order to further evaluate the types of intersections with high collision/crash/severity rates, the City was divided into four quadrants defined by major arterials (Dubuque Street, Gilbert Street, Melrose Avenue, Burlington Street and Court Street). Figure 2 and Tables 3 and 4 display the top ten intersections with the highest combined score by quadrant. Figure 2: Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations by Quadrant ��� W 7 07 0 10 zI 5 Q1 4 RINER31D8 DR 8 7 MELROSEAVE 2-3.69 1 F 499 co LU W BENTON ST k �I 9 g 7 4 log 0 Ranked Intersections 0 0.5 1 2 Miles C 1 Q4 40 ry^O 3 0i tP� 6 a MUSCATINE AVE Q3 When analyzing the collisions by quadrant, it becomes evident that a majority of intersections with the highest combined score are located along major corridors or at intersections with higher volumes. The highest-ranking intersections in Quadrant 1 are primarily located along Melrose Avenue and Dubuque Street. In Quadrant 2 the highest collision locations are situated along Burlington Street and in downtown Iowa City. The majority of intersections with the highest-ranking collisions in Quadrant 3 are located along the Highway 6 corridor. Lastly, in Quadrant 4 the highest-ranking intersections are situated along Highway 1. 4 W 110 SCOTT BLVD Q` ROCHESTER AVE BURLINGTON ST .—r—� A E COURT ST C 1 Q4 40 ry^O 3 0i tP� 6 a MUSCATINE AVE Q3 When analyzing the collisions by quadrant, it becomes evident that a majority of intersections with the highest combined score are located along major corridors or at intersections with higher volumes. The highest-ranking intersections in Quadrant 1 are primarily located along Melrose Avenue and Dubuque Street. In Quadrant 2 the highest collision locations are situated along Burlington Street and in downtown Iowa City. The majority of intersections with the highest-ranking collisions in Quadrant 3 are located along the Highway 6 corridor. Lastly, in Quadrant 4 the highest-ranking intersections are situated along Highway 1. 4 Table 3: List of Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations for Quadrants 1 and 2 Table 4: List of Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations for Quadrants 3 and 4 Intersection Rank 1 West of Dubuque St. & North of Melrose Ave Quadrant East of Dubuque St. & North of Burlington St✓Court St. 1 Camp Cardinal Blvd. and Melrose Ave. Gilbert St. and Burlington St. 2 Kennedy Pkwy. And Melrose Ave. Iowa Ave. and Van Buren St. 3 Galway Dr. and Melrose Ave. Dod a St. and E Burlington St. 4 Dublin Dr. and Melrose Ave. Dodge St. and Iowa Ave. 5 Hawkeye Park Rd. and Melrose Ave. Governor St. and Iowa Ave. 6 Melrose Ave. and Westwinds Dr. E Jefferson St. and N Gilbert St. 7 Melrose Ave. and Mormon Trek Blvd. E Court St. and S 1 st Ave. 8 Bartlett Rd. and Mormon Trek Blvd. E Market St. and N Linn St. 9 Cameron Way and Mormon Trek Blvd. N Scott Blvd. and Rochester Ave. 10 Mormon Trek Blvd. and Westwinds Dr. E Market St. and Johnson St. Table 4: List of Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations for Quadrants 3 and 4 Intersection Rank 3 East of Grl,bert St & South of Burlington St✓Court SL Quadrant 4 West of Gilbert SL &South of Melrose Ave 1 Hwy 6 and Sycamore St. S Gilbert St. and Hwy 6 2 Hwy 6 and Bo um St. S Riverside Dr. and W Benton St. 3 S 1 st Ave. and Hwy 6 Hwy 1 and Mormon Trek Blvd. 4 Keokuk St. and Hwy 6 Hwy 1 and Hwy 6 5 Fair Meadows Blvd. and Hwy 6 Hwy 1 and Sunset St. 6 Heinz Rd. and Hwy 6 McCollister Blvd. and S Gilbert St. 7 Dickenson Ln. and Russell Dr. Hwy 1 and Orchard St. 8 Industrial Park Rd. and Hwy 6 Hwy 1 and Ruppert Rd. 9 Gilbert Ct. and Kirkwood Ave. Myrtle Ave and S Riverside Dr. 10 Broadway St. and Hwy 6 Cae Dr. and Rohret Rd. 2013-201512015-2017 Collision Comparison In comparing the top ten intersections between 2013 and 2015 to those between 2015 and 2017, the data shows collision numbers, severity of collisions and collision rates continue to remain constant as shown in Figures 3 and 4. Two intersections moved into the top ten ranking (Riverside Dr./ Highway 1 and 6 and Highway 1/ Mormon Trek Boulevard) and two intersections moved out of the ranking (Riverside Drivel Hawkins Drive and Highway 6/ Fair Meadows Boulevard). EC N 50 O rn 40 O v y.. 30 O G? ,p 20 E Z 10 0 Figure 3:Total Collisions ■ 2013-2015 2015-2017 ii Sycamore St & 5 Gl�bert 5t. & Boyrum St. & Melrose Ave. Riverside Or. & E Burlington St. S Riverside Dr. Rivers -de Dr. & Hwy 6 Hwy 6 Hwy 6 & Mormon Burlington St. / & S Gilbert St. & W Benton St. H%ry 1/6 Trek Blvd. Grand Ave. Hwy 1 & Madison St. & Mormcn Trek W Burlington Blvd. St. Figure 3 compares the total number of collisions for the top ten intersection locations between 2015 and 2017 to those between 2013 and 2015. Between 2013 and 2017, the intersection with the highest number of total collisions was S Gilbert Street/ Highway 6. Figure 4: Manner of Collision ■ Rear End - Angle, oncoming left turn ■ Broadside 45 40 y� 35 C O N 30 L) 25 fl 20 6 - as E 15 0 2 10 a uu u L� m ui rvr ..� m in cn u� N N N 1 9 N G N :amore St &; S Gliben St & ; Bovrum St & ( Melrose Ave. Hwy 6 Hwy 6 Hwy 5 & Mormon Trek Blvd. M N M N m u'+. m ✓� M 0 Iverside Dr. &i E Burlington 5 Riverside Dr,jRlverside Dr. urlington St, / St. & S Gilbert & W Benton Hwy 1/6 Grandkve. 5:. St. 6 Hwy 1& IMad Icon St. &! Mormon Trek ! W Burlington Blvd, O P d Q I Hwy 1& IMad Icon St. &! Mormon Trek ! W Burlington Blvd, Figure 4 compares the three highest collision types for each intersection between 2013 and 2015 to those between 2015 and 2017. Across the ten intersections, rear -end collisions account for a majority of collisions followed by angle, oncoming left -turn collisions. 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program Projects Of the top ten intersection collision locations, two intersections have projects scheduled in Iowa City's 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program. The Mormon Trek Boulevard four to three lane conversion will be completed in 2019 and will help to reduce the number of rear -end and angle, oncoming left -turn collisions by upwards of 25% because of the dedicated center left -turn lane. The conversion will also improve walkability with fewer lanes for pedestrians to cross, and traffic will be located farther from the sidewalk. Table 5: CIP Projects Melrose Ave. & Mormon Trek Blvd. • This project includes the installation of a right hand turn lane from Mormon Trek to Benton St, updated roadway lighting, and the conversion of a portion of Mormon Tre<'rom {our lane to three lar:e. • These improvements vj'i' hep to alleviate traffic back-ups and reduce vehicle accio'ertLL sues. Madison St. & W Burlington St. • Reconstruction of the intersection or Burlington & Madison to add turn lanes on Madison, signal improvements and replacement of water and svver mains as well as the potential instaiEation of a andscaped median from the Iowa River to Mad7son St. • Improvements will address pedestrian and `_eaff?c flows assocaited with the University, The Madison Street and Burlington Street intersection will be reconstructed to add turn lanes on Madison Street and signal improvements, amongst others, in order to address pedestrian and vehicle traffic flows. These improvements will also help to reduce the number of rear -end collisions as vehicles will be able to queue in a dedicated turn -lane as compared to queuing in a through/ left -turn lane. Additionally, with only one dedicated through lane the number of broadside collisions may also decrease as opposing vehicles will only need to respond to one -lane of oncoming vehicles. This project will begin in 2019. Potential Countermeasures To date, staff reviewed the top ten intersection collision locations and have identified and/or implemented potential countermeasures at multiple intersections. • Hwy 6 & Svcamore Street. Staff is currently researching the flashing yellow arrow sequence at the intersection. • Hwy 6 & Gilbert Street. Staff installed a `Yield to Pedestrian' sign on the northwest corner of the intersection for west to northbound right -turning vehicles. This will remind motorists to yield to pedestrians as they turn right. • Hwy 6 & Bovrum Street. Staff is reviewing the left -turn traffic signal poles, shields, etc. to determine if any adjustments need to be made. • Hwy 1/ Hwv 6 corridor., Staff reviewed the signal timings for yellow clearance and will adjust if necessary. Staff intends to continue to monitor the top ten intersection collision locations to identify potential countermeasures to decrease the number and severity of collisions. An overview of best practice countermeasures is available on Page 14. 7 Mid -Block Evaluatio Assumptions The following are the assumptions made for collisions at mid -blocks: • Collisions occurring within 250 feet (+/- 50) feet from the intersection of nodes (nodes only include public streets) will be included. • Types of roadways include: all non -intersection, intersection with bike/pedestrian, other intersection, not reported, T -Intersection, and unknown. Cloverleaf freeway ramps and railroad crossings are not considered intersections. Roundabouts/traffic circles are intersections. Alleyways are not considered intersections, and collisions occurring in the alleyways will not be counted. Crashes on exit/entrance ramps for interstate freeways will not be counted. • Major Causes do not include: ran traffic signal, FTY at uncontrolled intersection, FTY making right turn on red signal, FTY from yield sign. • Collisions unlikely caused by the intersection (as ascertained from the crash report) will be counted. • If the roadway type is a commercial/private road (with other roads intersecting it), the crash will not be counted. If the roadway is a private commercial/residential driveway, the crash will be counted, except if there is a traffic controlling device on it at the main road (i.e. traffic light). Accidents in alleyways/parking lots/institutional roads will not be counted. Accidents with vehicles entering or exiting alleyways/parking lots/institutional roads will be counted. • Collisions involving one vehicle will be counted. • Sideswipes while vehicles were traveling the same direction will be included (i.e. changing lanes, hitting a parked car), while sideswipes involving FTY at an intersection will not be included. • If the data record regarding the manner of the crash is incomplete, but involves at least one vehicle, it will be counted. • If the roadway type is a non -intersection but the manner of the crash is likely caused by the intersection (i.e. rear -end) the crash will not be counted. Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations Figure 5 depicts the top five mid -block collision locations in Iowa City (2015-2017). Two of the five locations are located along the Highway 1 and 6 corridor. The other three locations are located along Riverside Drive, Dubuque Street and North Dodge Street. Table 6 lists the midblock rankings and their associated ID number. 8 Figure 5: Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations N Dubuque St between Taft Spdwy and Kimball Rd. ( N Dodge St between 1.80 EB Ramp and Scott Blvd. m W M a 0 m 0 0 R�RSIDE pR�b,,;Velley HAve. and N Riverside Dr. � m MELROSE AVE of E COURT 3T M BURLINGTON ST Y W z0 W BENTON ST Li 18 O i E3 Hwy 1 between Sunset St and Marmon Trek Blvd N Ranked Mid -Blocks 0 0.5 1 2Miles N ti q A W MUSCATINE AVE C`9 Hwy 6 between S Gilbert St and Boyrum St N Mid -Block ID Mid -Block Location G3� e 1 Hwy 1 between Sunset St. and Mormon Trek Blvd. �A r J Table 6: Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations 9 Mid -Block ID Mid -Block Location Mid -Block Rank 1 Hwy 1 between Sunset St. and Mormon Trek Blvd. 1 2 N Dubuque St. between Taft Speedway and Kimball Rd. 2 3 N Dodge St. between 1-80 EB Ramp and Scott Blvd. 3 4 Hwy 6 between Valley Ave. and N Riverside Dr. 4 5 Hwy 6 between S Gilbert St. and Boyrum St. 5 9 Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations by Quadrant Figure 6: Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations by Quadrant a A MELROSE AVE of ❑ Ranked Mid -Blocks 0 0.5 1 4 \ SCOTT BLCV \l r W Q2 2 ROCHESTER AVE RnR810g OR 5 Z a rn _.._....___. __ E COURT 9T 1 2 i Miles N � 5 aJ W BE 5 ON ST 4 E3 2 3 Q4 A� C+ vQ �� O 0 MUSCATINE AVE <O �� Q3 Figure 6 displays the top five mid -block collision locations by quadrant. The four quadrants are defined by major arterial streets, which allows for a comprehensive view of the highest ranking mid -block locations across Iowa City. Specific intersection information can be found in Tables 7 and 8. The highest ranking mid -block locations are primarily situated along major arterial and collector streets. The highest-ranking locations in Quadrant 1 are primarily located along Dubuque Street. In Quadrant 2 the highest collision locations are situated along North Dodge Street. In Quadrant 3 the mid -block collision locations are varied with several located along the Highway 6 corridor. Lastly, in Quadrant 4 the highest- ranking mid -block locations are situated primarily along Highway 1. 10 Table 7: List of Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations for Quadrants 1 and 2 Table 8: List of Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations for Quadrants 3 and 4 Quadrant 7 Intersection Intersection East of Gilbert St. & South of Rank West of Dubuque St. & North of Melrose Ave East of Dubuque St. & North of Burlington SUCourt St. 1 N Dubuque St. between Taft Speedway and N Dodge St. between I-80 EB Ramp and Scott Blvd. Hwy 1 between Sunset St. and Mormon Trek Blvd. Kimball Rd. Mall Dr. between Lower Muscatine Rd. and S 1st 2 Hwy 6 between Valley Ave. and N Riverside Dr. Dodge St. between Governor St. and Brown St 3 N Dubuque St. between 1-80 WB Ramp and 1-80 N Dodge St. between 1-80 WB Ramp and 1-80 EB Ramp Hwy 6 between S Riverside Dr. and Sturgis Corner Dr. EB Ram Governor St. between Burlington St. and 4 N Dubuque St. between 1-80 EB Ramp and N Dodge St. between Northgate Dr. and 1-80 WB Ramp Meadow Ridge Ln. Van Buren St. between Burlington St. and 5 Newton Rd. between Woolf Ave. and S Scott Blvd. between N 1 st Ave. and Rochester Ave. Riverside Dr. Table 8: List of Top 5 Mid -Block Collision Locations for Quadrants 3 and 4 2013-201512015-2017 Mid -Block Collision Comparison In comparing the top five mid -block collision locations between 2013 and 2015 to those between 2015 and 2017, the data shows collision numbers, severity and collision rates continue to remain constant as shown in Figures 7 and 8. Hwy 1 between Sunset Street and Mormon Trek Boulevard experienced a significant increase in the number of collisions between 2015 and 2017 moving it from the third highest ranking location to the first. The midblock location on Hwy 6 between S Gilbert Street and Boyrum Street dropped from fourth to fifth in the intersection ranking and the combined score increased slightly from 8.25 to 8.5. Though the combined score increased slightly, the number of collisions, crash rate, and severity of collisions remained roughly the same. The midblock locations ranked second through fourth between 2015 and 2017 were not in the top five ranking between 2013 and 2015. These locations experienced an increase in collisions, severity, and crash rate. 11 Quadrant 4 Intersection East of Gilbert St. & South of West of Gilbert St. & South of Melrose Ave Rank Burlin n StJcourt St. 1 Hwy 6 between S Gilbert St. and Boyrum St. Hwy 1 between Sunset St. and Mormon Trek Blvd. Mall Dr. between Lower Muscatine Rd. and S 1st Hwy 1 between Hudson Ave. / Shirken Dr. and Orchard 2 Ave. St. 3 Hwy 6 between Lakeside Dr. and Heinz Rd. Hwy 6 between S Riverside Dr. and Sturgis Corner Dr. 4 Governor St. between Burlington St. and Hudson Ave. between Benton St. and Hwy 1 Bowe St. 5 Van Buren St. between Burlington St. and W Benton St. between Greenwood Dr. and Miller Ave. Bowery St. 2013-201512015-2017 Mid -Block Collision Comparison In comparing the top five mid -block collision locations between 2013 and 2015 to those between 2015 and 2017, the data shows collision numbers, severity and collision rates continue to remain constant as shown in Figures 7 and 8. Hwy 1 between Sunset Street and Mormon Trek Boulevard experienced a significant increase in the number of collisions between 2015 and 2017 moving it from the third highest ranking location to the first. The midblock location on Hwy 6 between S Gilbert Street and Boyrum Street dropped from fourth to fifth in the intersection ranking and the combined score increased slightly from 8.25 to 8.5. Though the combined score increased slightly, the number of collisions, crash rate, and severity of collisions remained roughly the same. The midblock locations ranked second through fourth between 2015 and 2017 were not in the top five ranking between 2013 and 2015. These locations experienced an increase in collisions, severity, and crash rate. 11 Figure 7: Total Collisions 12013-2015 201.5-2017 35 sn 30 RR C = p — - '�y 25 �^ a t..K 20.. - - i. 15 20 -- Z 5 - 0 Hwy 1 between Sunset St. N Dubuque St betweEr. N Dodge St. between 1-80 Hwy 6 between Valley & Mormon Trek Blvd, Taft Speedway & Kimball EB (tamp & Scott Blvd Ave. & N Riverside Dr. Rd. Mid -bloc:: Locations Hwy 6 between S Gilbert St. & Beyrum St. Figure 8 compares the four highest collision manners (rear -end, angle, oncoming left -turn, sideswipe, and broadside) for each mid -block location between 2013 and 2015 to those between 2015 and 2017. Across the five mid -block locations, rear -end collisions account for a majority of collisions followed by sideswipe collisions. All five mid -block locations experienced an increase in the total number of collisions. 30 C 25 O N 5 0 Figure 8: Manner of Collision Rear End r :Angle, oncoming (eft -tum Sides;.vipe Broadside 2013-2015 2015-2017 2013-2015 2015-2017 Hwy 1 between Sunset St. iN Dubuque St. between & Mormon Trek Blvd. Taft Speedway & Kimball Rd. 2013-2015 2015-2017 12013-2015 2015-2017 2013-2015 2015-2017 I NN Dodge St, between 1-80 Hwy 6 between: Valley Ave. Hwy 6 between SGilbert St. EB Ramp & Scott Blvd & N Riverside Dr. & Boyrum St. Mid -block Locations 12 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program Projects Of the top five mid -block collision locations, two locations have projects scheduled in Iowa City's 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program. The N Dubuque Street project (Gateway Project) involved the reconstruction and elevation of Dubuque Street while also addressing pedestrian and traffic flows. The project is currently in the final stages of completion and may decrease the number of rear -end and angle -oncoming left -turn collisions, with the decrease in the posted speed limit from 30 -mph to 25 -mph. Table 9: CIP Projects N Dubuque St. between Taft Speedway & Kimball Rd. • This project reconstructs and elevates Dubuque St as well as replaces Park Rcad Bridge, including multi -modal features and flocd protection. • Secondarily, these improvements w611 address pedestrian and traffic flows. Hwy 6 between Valley Ave. & N Riverside Dr. • This project is part of the 2018 DOT plan to resurface Hwy 6/Riverside Or from Rocky Shore Dr to Hwy 1/Hwy 6. A resurfacing project on Highway 6 between Rocky Shore Drive and Hwy 1 and Hwy 6 will be completed in 2019. While the resurfacing may not have direct impacts on the number of collisions, new pavement markings may reinforce driver expectations and reduce collisions. Potential Countermeasures Staff intends to review the top five mid -block collision locations to identify potential countermeasures to decrease the number and severity of collisions. An overview of best practice countermeasures is available on Page 14. 13 Potential Countermeasure After identifying the highest ranked collision locations in Iowa City, the next step is to identify potential countermeasures. Countermeasures can be defined as a device, program, policy, or capital investment intended to improve safety and reduce the number of collisions. To follow are best practices available to assist in identifying countermeasures depending on the collision pattern and probable cause. Staff will use these best practices to help identify any countermeasure that could be implemented to reduce the number, rate and severity of collisions. Right angle collisions at unsignalized intersections Rear end collisions at unsignalized intersections Large total intersection volume High approach speed Roadway design inadequate Pedestrian Driver not aware of intersection Remove sight Restrict parking near corners Install/improve street lighting Reduce speed approaches* Install signals [see MUTCD] Install stop signs [see MUTCD] Install warning signs [see MUTCD] Install yield signs [see MUTCD] Channelize intersections Install signals [see MUTCD] Reroute through traffic Reduce speed limit on approaches* Install rumble strips Widen lanes Change from angle to parallel parking Prohibit parking or pedestrian crosswalk Relocate crosswalk Install/improve warning signs Slippery surface Overlay pavement Provide adequate drainage Groove pavement Reduce speed limit on approaches* Provide "SLIPPERY WHEN WET" signs Large number of turning vehicles Create Left- or right -turn lanes Prohibit turns Increase curb radii conducted to justify speed limit reduction 14 Collision Probable General Pattern Cause Countermeasure Rear end collisions at Poor visibility of signals Install / improve advance warning devices signalized intersections Install overhead signals Install 12" signal lenses [see MUTCD] Install visors Install backplates Relocate signals Add additional signal heads Remove obstacles Reduce speed limits on approaches* Inadequate signal timing Adjust amber phase Provide progression through a set of signalized intersections Fixed object collisions Slippery surface Overlay pavement and/or vehicles running off roadway Provide adequate drainage Groove pavement Reduce speed limit on approaches* Provide "SLIPPERY WHEN WET" signs Roadway design inadequate for Widen lanes traffic conditions Relocate islands Close curb lane Poor delineation Improve / install pavement markings Install roadside delineators Install advance warning devices Sideswipe collisions Roadway design inadequate for Improve / install pavement markings between vehicles traffic conditions Channelize intersections traveling opposite Create one-way streets directions or head-on collisions Remove constrictions such as parked vehicles Install median divider Widen lanes Collisions between Roadway design inadequate for Widen lanes vehicles traveling in traffic conditions Channelize intersections same direction such as Provide turning bays sideswipe, turning, or lane changing Install/improve parking lane lines Remove parking Collisions with parked Large parking turnover Prohibit parking cars or cars being parked Change from angle to parallel parking Reroute through traffic Create one-way streets Create off-street parking Reduce s ed limit* "spot speed study should be conducted to/ustlfy speed Irma reduction 15 Collision ob.b Pattern Cause Right angle collisions at Poor visibility of signals InstalUmprove advance warning devices signalized intersections Install overhead signals Install 12" signal lenses [see MUTCD] Install visors Install backplates Improve location of signal heads Add additional signal heads Reduce speed limits on approaches* Inadequate signal timing Adjust amber phase Provide all -red clearance phase Add multi -dial controller Install signal actuation Re -time signals Provide progression through a set of signalized intersections Left -turn collisions at Large volume of left turns Provide left tum signal phase intersections Prohibit left turns Reroute left tum traffic Channelize intersections Install stop signs [see MUTCD] Create one-way streets Restricted sight distance Remove obstacles Install warning signs Reduce speed limit on approaches* Fixed -object collisions Object near traveled way Remove obstacles near roadway Install barrier curbing Install breakaway feature to light poles, sign posts, etc. Project objects with guardrails Pedestrian crossings Install/improve signing or markings of pedestrian crosswalks Provide pedestrian "WALK" phase Slipper surface Overlay pavement Provide adequate drainage Groove pavement Reduce speed limit on approaches* Provide "SLIPPERY WHEN WET" signs Unwarranted signals Remove signals [see MUTCD] Large turning volumes Create left- or right -turn lanes Prohibit turns Increase curb radii Night collisions Poor visibility Install1improve street lighting Install/improve delineation markings Install/improve warning signs Wet pavement collisions Slippery pavement Overlay with skid -resistant surface Provide adequate drainage Groove existing pavement Reduce speed limit* Provide "SLIPPERY WHEN WET" sins *Spot speed study should be conducted to justify speed limit reduction 16 The following data has been included to compare collision trends between 2013 and 2015 to those occurring between 2015 and 2017. The number of collisions per 1,000 people in Iowa City was compared to that of similar sized cities in Iowa. Between 2013 and 2017, Per Capita Collision Comparisons the City of North Liberty had the fewest number of -X20'=3-2015 2015-201 collisions per 1,000 people followed by the City of ' s: Cedar Rapids. Iowa City °..c had the fifth lowest 2". 7c number of collisions per 61) 1,000 people as compared 5c to eleven other communities, whereas c {' �, Davenport had the highest "2 number of collisions. As shown in Table 10, the . S", v RT r p�' a C^�a? �� �30,Q� City of Iowa City averaged' sA ff'" 57.3 collisions per 1,000 ` �'� -r Co people from 2015-2017 city and 57.1 collisions per 1,000 people from 2013- 2015. While Iowa City's population and total number of collisions increased between these time frames, the per capita collision rate only increased marginally (0.2). As compared to the other communities, Iowa City has one of the lowest numbers of collisions per capita. Of the communities analyzed, the cities of Des Moines and Davenport had the highest rates of collisions per 1,000 persons. Table 10: Per Capita Collision Comparisons 2013-2017 city q ollisions PUIatioqjj&§UWV1Y (2016 - 16,984 g between 330 2015-2017g Collisions '000 -perlim. 19.4 Population (2010) 13,374 between 2013-2016 Collisions 271 2013-2015 Collisions per 1,000 person. -;I 20.3 North Liberty Cedar Rapids 129,537 6,236 48.1 126,326 5,799 45.9 Ames 64,073 3,239 50.6 58,965 3,124 53.0 Ankeny West Des Moines 53,413 61,624 3,000 3,655 56.2 59.3 45,582 67,862 56,609 2,574 3,428 56.5 60.6 Waterloo 68,357 4,091 59.8 68,406 4,369 63.9 Sioux City 82,666 6,100 73.8 82,684 5,687 68.8 Council Bluffs 62,326 4,615 74.0 62,230 4,509 72.5 Coralville 20,078 1,624 80.9 18,907 1,516 80.2 Des Moines 212,859 17,296 81.2 203,433 15,367 75.5 Davenport 102,305 9,244 90.3 99,685 8,556 85.8 Source: 2016 ACS 5 -Year Population Estimate and Iowa DOT Crash Analysis Tool 17 18 I Sycamore St, Hwy 6 I 41 15 1.44 6 53 14 1.2.25 1 2 S Gilbert St. Hwy 6 Y 46 is 1.03 5 54 14 12.00 2 3 Boyrum St. Hwy 6 33 15 0.79 4 41 11 10.25 3 4 Melrose Ave. Mormon Trek Blvd. 29 15 0.93 4 39 10 9.75 4 5 Riverside Dr. W Burlington St. Grand Ave. 36 15 0.72 3 38 10 9.50 5 6 E Burlington St. S Gilbert St. 32 15 0.99 4 34 v 9 9.25 6 7 S Riverside Dr. W Benton St. 32 15 0.82 4 36 9 j 9.25 6 8 Hwy 1 Hwy 6 28 14 1 0.61 3 34 9 8.75 1 8 9I Hwy 1 Mormon Trek Blvd. 32 15 0.90 4 32 a 8.75 8 10 Madison St. W Burlington St. 32 15 0.94 4 32 8 8.75 8 11 S 1st Ave. Hwy 6 25 13 0-87 4 31 8 8.25 11 12 Hwy I Sunset St. 25 13 0.78 4 27 7 7.75 12 13 Hawkins Dr. Hwy 6 23 12 0.45 2 27 7 7.00 13 24 Keokuk St. Hwy 6 21 11 0.59 3 25 7 7.00 13 is Church St N Dubuque St. 20 10 1-02 5 22 6 6.75 is 16 Iowa Ave. Van Buren St. 11 17 20 6 9 2.27 10 17 5 6.50 16 17 is McCollister Blvd. Dodge St. S Gilbert St. E Burlington St. T 1,39 6 4 19 20 5 s 6.25 6.00 17 18 10 0.92 19 Fair Meadows Blvd. Hwy 6 17 9 0.85 4 19 5 5.79 19 20 E Burlington St. S Clinton St. 20 10 0.52 3 20 5 5.75 19 21 Heinz Rd. Hwy 6 14 7 1.05 5 18 5 5 5.50 21 22 Hwy 1 Orchard St. is 9 0.71 3 20 5.50 21 23 Hwy I Ruppert Rd. is 8 0.51 3 19 5 5.25 23 24 Myrtle Ave. S Riverside Dr. 16 8 0'5 �5 3 18 5 5.25 23 25 Industrial Park Rd. Hwy 6 14 7 0.72 3 20 5 5.00 25 26 Dickenson Ln. Russell Dr. 5 3 22.60 15 5 1 5.00 25 27 Broadway St. Hwy 6 15 8 0.60 3 is 4 4.75 27 28 Dodge St. Iowa Ave. 12 6 1.08 5 14 4 4.75 27 29 Gilbert Ct. Kirkwood Ave. 11 6 1.06 5 13 4 4.75 27 30 GovernorSt. Iowa Ave. 12 6 1.38 6 12 3 4.50 30 32 Camp Cardinal Blvd. Melrose Ave 14 7 0.59 3 14 4 4.50 30 32 Cae Dr. Rohret Rd. 12 6 0.80 4 14 4 4.50 30 33 E Burlington St S Dubuque St. 14 7 0.57 3 16 4 4.50 30 34 Iowa Ave. S Riverside Dr. 16 a 0.45 2 16 4 4.50 30 35 S Gilbert St Stevens Dr. 9 5 1.21 5 13 4 4.50 30 Jefferson36 E St. N Gilbert St. 12 6 0.69 3 14 4 4.25 36 37 N Dubuque St. Park Rd. 14 7 0.47 2 16 4 4.25 36 38 E Court St. S 1st Ave. 12 6 0.51 3 14 4 4.25 36 39 j Kirkwood Ave. 5 Gilbert St. 13 7 0.48 2 13 4 4.25 36 40 j Valley Ave. Hwy 6 116 0.50 2 13 4 4.00 40 41 E Market St. N Linn St. 10:± 5 1.01 s 10 3 4.00 40 18 19 42 N Scott Blvd. Rochester Ave. 12 6 0.83 4 12 3 4.00 40 43 Muscatine Ave. S 1st Ave. 11 I 6 0.36 2 13 4 4.00 40 44 Muscatine Ave. S 7th Ave. 10 5 1.06 5 10 3 4.00 40 45 E Burlington St. S Capitol St. 12 6 0.40 2 14 4 4.00 40 46 Bowery St. Dodge St. 9 5 0.84 4 9 3 3.75 46 47 E Market St. Johnson St, 8 4 1.16 ^5 12 3 3.75 46 48 Muscatine Ave. S Scott Blvd. 9 5 0.77 :4:= 9 3 3.75 46 49 S Gilbert St. Southgate Ave. 9 5 0.77 4 j 9 3 175 46 50 E Burlington St. GovemorSt. 10 5 0.53 3 12 3 3.50 50 i 51 Taylor Dr. Hwy 6 ,i� 8 4 k 0.34 2 14 4 3.50 50 52 Cameron Way Mormon Trek Blvd. 10 5 0.62 3 10 3 3.50 50 53 E Market St. _ N Dubuque St. 11 6 0.49 2 11 3 3.50 50 54 N Dodge St. N Scott Blvd. 12 6 0.37 2 12 3 3.50 50 55 Lower Muscatine Rd S 1st Ave. 10 5 0.60 3 10 3 3.50 50 56 Greenwood Dr. W Benton St. 10 5 0.72 3 12 3 3.50 50 57 Mormon Trek Blvd. W Benton St. 9 5 0.51 3 11 3 3.50 50 58 Mormon Trek Blvd. Westwinds Dr. 10 5 0.61 3 10 3 3.50 50 59 E College St, Lucas St. 5 3 1.77 8 5 1 3.25 59 60 E Market St. N Gilbert St. 7 4 0.61 3 11 3 3.25 59 61 Lower West Branch N Scott Blvd. 7 4 0.67 3 11 3 3.25 59 62 N Dodge St. Northgate Dr. 7 4 0.61 3 11 3 3.25 59 63 E Prentiss St. S Dubuque St, 6 3 1.34 6 6 2 3.25 59 64 E College St. S Gilbert St. 8 4 0.53 3 10 3 3.25 59 65 E Court St. S Scott Blvd. 8 4 0.58 3 10 3 3.25 59 66 N Riverside Dr. Hwy 6 9 5 0.19 1 11 3 3.00 66 67 E Burlington St. Lucas St. 7 4 0.48 2 9 3 3.00 66 68 Hawkeye Park Rd. Melrose Ave. 7 4 0.47 2 9 3 3.00 66 69 Bartlett Rd, Mormon TrekBlvd. 7 4 0.44 2 9 3 3.00 66 70 Bradford St. S 1st. Ave. 7 4 0.47 2 9 3 3.00 66 71 r72� E Court St. 4 _ Iowa Ave. S Gilbert St. 5 Gilbert St. 7 8 - - 4 4 0.35 0.49 2 9 3 I 3.00 66 2 10- 3 3.00 �66 73 74 Dodge St. E Washington St. 7 4 I 0.68 W 0.74 - 3 7 2 2.75 73 E Jefferson St. GovemorSt. 8 - 4 ^Y 3 8 2 2.75 73 75 Melrose Ct. Melrose Ave 7 4 i 0.55 3 { 7 2 2.75 73 76 Old Highway 218 Ruppert Rd. 5 3 0.30 2 9 3 2.75 73 77 78 Kirkwood Ave. Church St. Summit St. 8 4 ' A v 0.52 3 3 8 6 2 I 2 2.75 73� Dodge St. 6 3 0.53 2.5 78 79 + Hudson Ave. i Hwy 1 7 4 0.28 2 T 7 - i� 2A 2.50 R 78 80 Newton Rd. Hwy 6 7 4 0.32 2 7 2 2.50 78 81 82 a-- 83 i Bowery St. Iowa Ave. _ J--- ! Lower Muscatine Rd. Johnson St, Lucas St. - --I-- Mall Dr. 6 _ 4 _ 6 3 0.69 3 6 2 1 2 2,50 2.50 I 2-50 j 78 78 78 ----W 3 1.29 0.58 6 3 4 6 84 E Court St. Muscatine Ave. 7 4 0.47 2 7 2 - 2.50 78 19 20 85 '. Kimball Ave. Prairie dd.Chien 4 2 0.96 4 6 2 2.50 78 86 Bowery St. S Gilbert St. 7 4 0.30 2 7 2 2.50 78 87 E Benton St. S Gilbert St- 7 4 0.43 2 7 2 2.50 78 88 E Washington St. S Gilbert St. 7 4 0.40 2 7 2 2.50 78 89 N Dubuque St. SW Ramp Curve 7 4 0.27 2 I 7 - 2 2.50 78 90 Capitol St. W Benton St. 7 4 0.36 2 7 2 2.50 78 91 Dodge St. E Jefferson St. 6 3 0.48 2 f 8 2 2.25 91 92 E Burlington St. Johnson St. 6 3 0.32 2 8 2 2.25 91 93 Dublin Dr, Melrose Ave. 5 3 0.34 2 t 7 2 2-25 91 94 E Market St - N Clinton St. 6 3 0.38 2 6 2 2.25 91 95 B'laysville Ln. f Foster Rd. N Dubuque St. 7 4 0.23 1 ; 7 2 2.25 91 96 E Davenport St. N Gilbert St. 4 2 1.10 5 4 1 2.25 91 97 N 1st. Ave. Rochester Ave. 51st. Ave. u 6 3 0.44 2 8 2 2.25 91 98 Friendship St. 6 3 0.33 2 6 2 2.25 91 99 E Washington St. S Clinton St. 6 3 0.42 2 6 2 2.25 91 100 Liberty Dr. S Scott Blvd. 4 2 0.71 3 6 2 2.25 91 101 i E Burlington SL Van Buren St. 6 3 0.34 2 6 2 2.25 91 102 Sturgis Corner Dr. Hwy 6 6 3 0.18 1 6 2 2.00 102 103 Dodge St. Market St. 4 2 0.30 2 6 2 2.00 102 104 E Court St. S 7th Ave. 5 3 0.54 3 5 1 2.00 102 105 E Burlington St. S Linn St. 5 3 0.22 1 7 2 2.00 102 106 E Burlington St. Summit st. 4 2 0.29 2 6 2 2.00 102 107 Lower Muscatine Rd. Sycamore St, 5 3 0.52 3 5 1 2.00 102 108 E Washington St. Johnson St. 4 2 0.69 3 4 1 1.75 108 109 Iowa Ave. Johnson St. 4 2 0.67 3 4 1 1.75 108 110 Abbey Ln. Mormon Trek Blvd. 5 3 0.41 2 5 1 1.75 108 111 Dodge St PrairieRd. DuChien 5 3 0.33 2 5 1 1.75 108 112 N Dubuque St. Ronald St. 5 3 0.31 2 5 1 1.75 108 113 Mall Dr. S 1st Ave. 5 3 0.30 2 5 1 1.75 108 114 Keokuk St. Southgate Ave. 5 3 0.46 2 5 1 1.75 108 115 E Jefferson St. - Van Buren St. - 4 - 2 0.65 4 3 4 I - 1 1.75 108 116 Miller Ave. W Benton St, 5 3 0.41- 2 5 1 1.75 ` 108 117 1st Ave Wayne St. 5 3 0,32 2 5 1 1.75 108 118 E Bloomington St. Govemor5t. 4 2 0.48 2 4 1 1.50 118 119 Miller Ave. j Hwy1 5 3 0.19 1 ---___-2.__-.._ 1 5 1 1.50 118 120 SScott Blvd. ------Hwy 6--- 4'�---2--'-----0.29---- 4------'_.--1 5 1 - 1.50 -118 121 I Brown St. N Dubuque St. 5 - 3 --0.14 1.50 118 122 Church St. N Gilbert St. 3 1 0.52 3 -- 3 1 _ 1.50 118 123 124 E Jefferson St. N Linn St. Stadium Dr, 4 2 0.47 2 2 4 _ 4 1 1 - 1.50 118 Hospital Loop Dr. 4 2 0.48 1.50 118 125 S Riverside Dr. Sturgis Comer Dr_ _ - 5 - 3- - 4 1 2 0.19 -- 0.30 - - 1- - J 2 - S 4 -..--.1 1 1`504 I 118 126 Sunset St. W Benton St. _ 1.50 - 118 127 I Mormon Trek Blvd. Westside Dr. 4 I 2 0.30 2 4 1 L_1.50 118 20 21 128 Melrose Ave. Westwinds Dr. 4 2 0.25 2 4 1 1.50 118 129 S Scott Blvd. Wintergreen Dr, 4 2 0.46 2 4 1 1.50 118 130 Dodge St. E Bloomington St. 3 1 0.30 2 3 1 1 1.25 130 132 Dodge St. E College St 3 1 0.28 2 3 1 1.25 130 132 2nd Ave. E Court St. 3 1 0.36 2 3 1 1.25 130 133 4th Ave. E Court St 3 1 0.36 2 3 1 1.25 130 134 E College St. GovemorSt. 3 1 0.34 2 3 1 1.25 130 135 Boyrurn St. Hollywood Blvd. 4 2 0.09 1 4 1 1.25 130 136 Maiden Ln. Kirkwood Ave. 3 1 0.29 2 3 1 1.25 130 137 GovemorSt, Market St. 3 1 0.25 2 5 1 1.25 130 138 Emerald St. Melrose Ave. 4 2 0.21 1 4 1 1.25 130 139 E Burlington St. Muscatine Ave 4 2 0.24 # 1 4 1 1.25 130 140 1-80 WB Ramp N Dodge St. 4 2 0.18 1 4 1 1.25 140 241 Fairchild St N Dubuque St. 4 2 0.25 1 4 1 1.25 140 142 N Riverside Dr. River St. 3 1 0.35 2 3 1 1.25 140 143 E Benton St. S Clinton St. 4 2 1 0.21 I 1 4 1 1.25 140 140 1" E Prentiss St. 5 Clinton St. 3 0.47 2_ 3 1 1.25 145 Highland Ave S Gilbert St. 4 2 0.09 j 1 4 1 1.25 140 [1:4:6: E Washington St. S Linn St. 3 1 0.31 2 3 1 1.25 140 147 1 E Court St. Summit St. 3 1 . ......... ----- 1 0.31 --- 0.48 2 3 I 1 1 1.25 140 148 Bums Ave. Sycamore St. 3 2 3 1 1.25 140 149 Bowery St. Van Buren St. 3 1 0.34 2 3 1 1.25 140 150 S Capitol St. W Prentiss St. 3 1 0.45 2 3 1 1.25 140 N Scott Blvd. Washington St. 3_ 1 017 2 3 1 1.25 140 15 S 1st Ave. 2 FM Washington St. 3 1 0.29 2 3 1 1.25 140 153 W Benton St. Westgate St, 3 1 035 2 5 1 1.25 140 154 Hwy I Westport Plaza 4 2 0.16 1 4 1 1.25 140 155 j Grand Ave. Ct. Grand Ave. 3 1 0,11 1 3 1 1.00 155 156 Keokuk St. Kirkwood Ave. Kirkwood Ave. 3 3 3 1 1 0.21 0.21 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1-1.00 1 1.00 1.00 155 155 155 157 1 Lucas St. 158 a -Galway Dr. Melrose Ave. 1 0.18 159 160 Kennedy Pkwy E Jefferson St. Melrose Ave N Clinton St. 3 3 1 1 0.18 0.23 1 1 3 3 1 1 1.00 1.00 155 155 161 162 163 E Bloomington St. N Dubuque St. 3 3 3 1 1 1 0.17 0.18 0.25 1 1 1 1 3 3 5 j 1 j 1.00 T- 1.00 1.00 155 155 1 E Davenport St. E Jefferson St. N Dubuque St. 1 N Dubuque St. 1 1 155 164 s Ln. N Scott Blvd. 3 1 0.21 1 3 1 1.00 155 165 1166 N 1st Ave. Hwy I N Scott Blvd. Naples Ave. 3 3 I 1 I 0.17 024 . 1 1 I 1 3 5 1 f 1.00 1 1.00 r 155 155 167 1i McCollister Blvd. old Highway 218 3 0.21 1 3 1 ^ 1 1,00 155 168 Grand Ave. S Grand Ave. 3 1 0.15 1 3 1 1.00 155 169 N Dubuque St. Taft Speedway 3 1 0.12 1 r 3 1 I 1.00 I 155 170 orchard St. W Benton St. 3 1 0.25 1 3 1 1.00155 171 MelroseWestgate St. 3 1 0.16 3 1 1.00 1555 21 22 C W!7 - I Hwy I Sunset St. MormonTrek 32 15 3.39 14 34 9 11.75 1 Blvd. 2 N DuSbuquet. Taft Kimball Rd. 31 14 3.25 15 35 9 11.50 2 Speedway 3 N Dodge St. 1-80 E Bp Scott Blvd. 25 13 3.44 14 29 8 1075 3 Ram 4 Hwy 6 Valley Ave. N Riverside 25 13 2.11 9 31 i 8 9.50 4 Dr 5 Hwy 6 S Gilbert Boyrum St. 16 9 3.59 15 20 5 8.50 5 St, 6 N Dubuque 1-80 WB 1-80 EB 13 7 5.14 15 24 6 8.25 6 St. Ramp Ramp Hudson 7 Hwy 1 Ave. I Orchard St. 9 5 4.36 15 20 5 7.50 7 Shirken Dr. 8 N Dubuque 1-80 EB Meadow 17 9 2.49 10 17 5 7.25 8 St. I Ramp RidGe Lr. 9 Newton Rd. Woolf Ave i S Riverside 11 6 3.27 14 13 4 7.00 i 9 Dr. 1 10 Hwy 6W Newton Rd. Valley Ave. 11 6 5.04 15 1 11 3 6.75 10 11 S Clinton St. Washington Burlington i 10 5 12-85 15 10 3 6.50 11 St. St. 1 12 S Capitol St. Washington Burlington 10 5 85.52 15 10 3 6.50 11 St. St. 13 Melrose Ave. Westwinds Mormon 7 4 1 4.13 15 i 7 2 575 13 Dr, Trek Blvd. , I 14 Hwy 6 S Riverside Sturgis 8 4 8.23 15 8 2 5.75 13 Dr. Corner Dr. Lower 15 Mail Dr Muscatine S 1st Ave 5 3 7.61 15 5 2 5.50 I 15 Rd, I is Iowa Ave. S Riverside 7 Madison 5 3 4.06 15 5 2 5.50 15 Dr. St. 17 Governor St Burlton ing Bowery St. 6 3 1208 15 6 2 5-50 15 St. 18 Van Buren St. Burlington Bowery St. 6 3 24.16 15 6 2 5.50 15 St* '9 St. Governor Brown St. 6 3 3.57 15 8 2 5.50 15 St. EDodge 20 Johnson St. Court St. Bowery St. 6 3 30.23 L--1-5 ---- 8 2 5.50 15 21 Hudson Ave. Benton St. Hwy 1 5 3 182,97 15 1 5 2 I 5.50 15 J St. 1 22 S 1st Ave. Bradford Mail Dr. 5 3 4.43 15 7 2 5.50 15 Dr. 23 W Benton St Greenwood Mller Ave. 5 3 4,11 1 15 5 2 5.50 15 Dr- 1 24 Hwy 6 Lakeside Heinz Rd. 10 5 2.03 I 9 16 4 5.50 15 Dr. 25 Burlington St. S Riverside Washington MadisSt. on ,Dr. t Burlingtcn 10 5 f 2.50 10 1 12 3 5.25 25 26 Madison St. St. St. 4 2 8.92 15 8 2 5.25 25 27 WestwindsMormon Roberts Rd. -1 f' 4 2 14.30 15 , 2 5.25 25 Dr Trek Blvd. 28 Melrose Ave. Dublin D. Hawkeye I Park Rd. 4 I 2 I I 5.25 15 8 1-j 5.25 25 29 Hwy 1 Westport Ruppert 11 6 1-98 i 8 11 1 3 5.00 29 Maze Rd, i Lower 30 S 1st Ave. Mall Dr. Muscatine 7 4 2.47 10 9 3 1 5.00 29 Rd. 1 31 W Benton St. Oaknoll Dr, Greenwood 4 2 15.11 15 4 1 4.75 31 1 Dr. 32 Hwy 6 Hawins Newton Rd. 4 2 9.50 15 L 4 1 4.75 31 Dr.k 33 S Riverside Benton St. Sturgis 4 2 10.10 15 4 1 4.75 31 Dr. _I Comer Dr. 22 23 F Finkbine 34 Hawkins Dr. Commuter Elliot Dr. 5 3 2.99 12 7 2 4.75 31 Dr. I i 36 Emerald St. Melrose Ave. Benton St. j 3 1 6.87 15 3 1 4,50 35 Whispering 36 Primrose Ct. Meadow Cul de Sac 3 I 1 159.59 15 3 1 4.50 35 Dr. 37 Williams St. Muscatine Wayne 3 1 83.56 15 3 1 4.50 35 Ave. Ave. 38 Duck Creek Deerfield Rohret Rd. 3 1 15.57 15 3 1 4.50 35 Dr. Dr. 39 Taylor Dr. Tracy Ln. Sandusky Dr. 3 1 14-60 15 3 1 4.50 35 �0: Gilbert St. Benton St. Kirkwood Ave. 3 1 4.79 15 3 1 4.50 45 41 S Scott Blvd. American Hampton 3 1 5-56 15 31 1 4.50 45 Legion Rd. St. 42 Benton St. S DRiversider. Capitol St. 6 3 Y 2.73 11 8 2 4.50 45 43 S Riverside Burlington ! Myrtle Ave. 10 5 1.61 7 10 3 4.50 -- 45 Dr. St. 44 S 1st Ave. D St. F St. 4 2 3.20 13 4 1 4.25 44 45 Hwy 6 Heinz Rd. Scott Blvd. SE 8 4 2.10 9 8 2 4.25 44 m 46 Melrose Ave. Cardinal Pkwy. 7 4 9 7 2 4.25 44 Blvd. 47 Melrose Ave Finkbine MacBride 5 3 1 3.20 13 7 2 4.10 47 Ln, Rd 48 N Dodge St. 1-80 WB 1-80 EB 6 3 1.94 8 6 2 3.75 48 R amp_ Ra Ram 49 Melrose Ave- Hawkeye Park Rd. d Westwins Dr. 6 3 j 1.81 8 11 8 2 3.75 48 50 Park Rd. N Riverside Dubuque 4 2 2.39 10 4-� 1 3:50 50 N Riverside Dr. St. 61 Dr. Old Hwy 218 River St, i Hwy 6 3 5 1 I 3 2.63 I 11 59 3 1 3 3.50 3.50 50 50 52 Ruppert Rd. imperial Ct. 53 S Riverside Dr. Iowa Ave. Burlington Dr 5 3 1.27 6 5 2 3.25 53 54 Hwy 6 Sturgis Comer Dr. rt GilbeSt. 8 4 1.06 5 8 2 3.25 53 55 Hwy 1 RuppeRd. rt Miller Ave. 4 2 1.60 7 6 2 325 53 56 Hwy 6 Boyrum St. Keokuk St. 5 3 1.36 6 5 2 3.25 53 67 Hwy 6 Keokuk St, I Broadway St, 5 3 1,31 6 5 2 325 53 :58 [S Riverside Myrtle Ave. Benton St. 7 4 1.07 5 7 2 3.25 53 Dr. 59 Hwy 1 Sunset St. Westport Plaza 5 3 0-94 4 5 2 275 1 59 60 Old Hwy 218 Hwy 1 Rd. 3 1 1.58 3 1 2.50 6o 7 61 N Dubuque I 1 Foster Rd. Taft 1 Speedway 3 1 1.39 6 3 1 2.25 61 St. i I st� L�2- F"kWie Blvd. Park Rd. 4 2 0.69 3 6 2 2.25 61 63 N Dodge St. Northgate 1 1-80 WB 3 1 j 0.78 4 3 1 1 1.75 63 Dr - MID 64 L�f Scott Blvd. N 1 st Ave. T Rochester 1 0.39 2 3 1 1.25 64 23 CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Pending Work Session Topics ATTACHMENTS: Description Pending Work Session Topics Item Number: 6. m IN CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS April 17, 2019 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) 7. Review 2018 Police Department traffic stop data with Dr. Chris Barnum (June/July) Item Number: 7. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Email from Council member Cole: At Large Cat Ordinance ATTACHMENTS: Description Email from Council member Cole: At Large Cat Ordinance Kellie Fruehling From: Rockne Cole <rocknecole@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:07 PM To: Kellie Fruehling Subject: Community Cats Attachments: At Large Cat Ordinance.pdf Good afternoon Kellie, Please find the attached community cat ordinance. Would like in information packet. Rockne ORDINANCE NO. 15,735 AN ORDINANCE to amend the Municipal Code of the City of Des Moines, Iowa, 2000, adopted by Ordinance No. 13,827, passed June 5, 2000, as heretofore amended, by amending Sections 18-91, 18-103, 18-105, 18-106, 18-108, and by adding and enacting new Section 18-109, relating to community cats. Be It Ordained by the City Council of the City of Des Moines, Iowa: Section 1. That the Municipal Code of the City of Des Moines, Iowa, 2000, adopted by Ordinance No. 13,827, passed June 5, 2000, as heretofore amended, is hereby amended by amending Sections 18-91, 18-103, 18-105, 18-106, 18-108, and by adding and enacting new Section 18-109 relating to community cats, as follows: Sec. 18-91. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Cat means and includes both male and female animals of the species Felis catus, altered or not. Chief of police means the legally designated chief of the police department or a designated representative. Community cat means a cat that meets the requirements of subsection 18-109(a) of this article. Habitual offender means a person who has been convicted of any violation relating to cats under Chapter 18 of the Des Moines Municipal Code three or more times in a five year period except that multiple convictions on violations occurring as a result of a single incident will count as one conviction for purposes of this definition. time. Impound or impounded means a cat which is held at the animal shelter for any period of Sec. 18-103. Running at large. (a) A cat, properly licensed and displaying such license as required by law, shall not be deemed at large if: (1) The cat is spayed or neutered and is displaying a spay/neuter tag. (2) The cat is on or off the premises of the owner and is properly restrained within a motor vehicle. (3) The cat is properly housed in a veterinary hospital or registered kennel or commercial establishment as defined by I.C. § 162.1 et seq. (4) The cat is not causing damage or interfering with property as prohibited by section 18-10 of this chapter. (5) The owner and the cat are participating in a regularly scheduled competitive or exhibition event sanctioned or sponsored by a nationally recognized organization, local chapter thereof, or other generally recognized local organization, provided that the cat is in the actual physical presence of the owner or trainer at all times. (b) A community cat shall not be deemed at large unless the cat has been deemed a nuisance by the chief humane officer pursuant to section 18-109(b), or is visibly sick or injured. (c) A cat that has an owner shall be deemed to be at large if it is not properly licensed or if it is not housed, restrained or controlled in one of the methods set forth in subsection (a) of this section. Sec. 18-105. Notice of impoundment. The police department, acting under the direction of the city manager, shall cause to be taken up and impounded any cat found to be at large within the city, as defined in this article. The city manager, his or her designee, or a contractor shall give notice thereof in not less than two days to the owner if such owner's name and address appear on the cat's collar or harness or is otherwise known. No notice is required for impoundment of a community cat. Sec. 18-106. Impoundment period. Every cat found without a license and a collar or harness shall be kept for not less than three days after being impounded unless sooner redeemed by the owner in accordance with this article. A cat with identification shall be kept not less than seven days after being impounded unless sooner redeemed by the owner in accordance with this article..Any owner given notice by the police department within 48 hours prior to the appropriate expiration date will be allowed an additional 48 hours in which to redeem the cat. An impounded community cat may be processed immediately for disposition as allowed under subsection 18-108(d) of this chapter. Sec. 18-108. Disposition of unredeemed cats. (a) Chief humane officer's discretion. After the expiration of the appropriate impoundment period, as provided in this article, unless the animal shelter is operated by a contractor, the chief humane officer may do any of the following: (1) Allow adoption pursuant to subsection (b) of this section; (2) Sell the cat for an amount set in the Schedule of Fees adopted by the City Council by resolution to any nonprofit corporation which provides for care and adoption of cats and offers animal cremation services; (3) Humanely destroy the cat; or (4) Sell the cat for purposes of scientific research for an amount set in the Schedule of Fees adopted by the City Council by resolution to an institution duly approved and authorized by the state to conduct such research. (b) Adoption. A person seeking to adopt a cat shall: (1) File a form as prescribed by the chief of police, which shall identify the cat desired for adoption; if the same cat is identified for adoption by more than one person, the form filed first in time with the chief humane officer shall be honored. (2) Pay an adoption fee in the amounts set in the Schedule of Fees adopted by the City Council by resolution which fee shall include the cost of a city cat license and any vaccinations as required by this article and surgical sterilization. (3) If a cat which is too young to submit to vaccinations or to surgical sterilization, the person shall agree in writing to surgical sterilization of the adopted cat within a designated time period; upon submission of written proof of compliance from a veterinarian, the amount set in the Schedule of Fees adopted by the City Council by resolution shall be refunded to the person adopting the cat. Any person who fails to comply with such an agreenunt shall be guilty of a simple misdemeanor, and the chief humane officer or his or her designee shall be authorized to seize and impound the cat for the purpose of administering vaccinations and surgical sterilization as necessarv. (4) The chief of police is authorized to promulgate further rules to effect such an adoption process. (5) The city shall reserve the right to reject any and all adoptions for any purpose the city deems necessary, including but not limited to health concerns. (6) The city takes no responsibility nor makes any warranties or assumes any liability for the condition of the cat adopted. (7) The subsections of this section relating to adoption of unredeemed cats shall also apply to adoption agencies not qualified under subsection (a)(2) of this section. (c) Disposition ivhen contractor operates the animal shelter. Upon a written release of any cat by the chief humane officer or his or her designee, a contractor shall take possession and ownership of any unredeemed cat or community cat. (d) Community cats may be processed for disposition under any options, except adoption, stated under this section 18-108 and in addition a community cat may be returned to the area where captured unless the property owner or the caretaker of the property where the cat was captured requests that the cat not be returned, or if the cat is too sick or injured to be returned in the opinion of a veterinarian. Sec. 18-109. Community Cats. (a) Reouirements. Community cats shall be allowed as free roaming cats if all the following are met: (1) no person owns the cat, (2) cat has been assessed by a veterinarian and deemed healthy, (3) cat has been spayed or neutered, (4) cat has been vaccinated for rabies, feline rhinotracheitis, calcivirus, and panleukopenia, and reasonable attempts to revaccinate cats in accordance with the directions of a veterinarian, (5) cats must be ear tipped by the veterinarian making the health assessment and after determining the cat is spayed or neutered, has been properly vaccinated, and has no known owner. (b) ;A'ui.+°uutr. Conununity cats that create a nuisance may be captured and impounded. For the purpose of this section "nuisance" shall be defined as anything which interferes with the enjoyrnent of life or property. `fhe chief humane officer may determine if' a community cat is a nuisance and shall use information obtained from citizens complaining about a community cat and his/her expertise to determine if a community cat is a nuisance, (c) Ret u•uiug conununity cat to area. A community cat shall be returned to the area where it was captured unless the property owner or the caretaker of the property where the cat was captured requests that the cat not be returned, or the cat is sick or injured, (d) Liahitity. The city shall have no liability for the disposition of any community cat. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full farce and effect as of March 1, 2019. FORM APPROVED: Douglas P. Philiph, Assistant City Attorney T. M. Franklin Cownie, Mayor Attest: I, Diane Rauh, City Clerk of the City of Des Moines, Iowa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of an ordinance (Roll Call No. 18-2100), passed by the City Council of said City at a meeting held December 17, 2018 signed by the Mayor on December 17, 2018 and published and provided by law in the Business Record on January 4, 2019. Authorized by Publication Order No. 10563. Diane Rauh, City Clerk 4 Item Number: 8. �r p- CITY OE IOWA CITY www.iogov.org April 18, 2019 Email from Council member Cole: Manufactured Housing State Programs Overview ATTACHMENTS: Description Email from Council member Cole: Manufactured Housing State Programs Overview Kellie Fruehling From: Rockne Cole <rocknecole@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 12:32 PM To: Kellie Fruehling Subject: Mobile Home Parks Attachments: Manufactured Housing State Programs Overview.pptx Kellie, Please include in packet. Council, In light of recent developments relating to mobile home parks, Councilor Salih and I would like to request a work session to discuss a possible update to our affordable housing plan. One issue that we would like to evaluate is the possibility of city's acquisition of a mobile home park for purposes of reselling to a non-profit or possibly a resident led cooperative. This is obviously a complicated topic, but substantial work has been done in the past on this issue, and I believe we can get up to speed relatively quickly in terms of identifying possible next steps. The purpose of the work session would be to assess where we are right now relating to possible policy solutions and to develop a plan moving forward. If a majority of council is interested in pursuing further, I would anticipate substantial support moving forward from our friends in the non-profit affordable housing community. Rockne State Programs Overview Carla B. Pope Director of Affordable Rental Production Iowa Finance Authority Issues regarding manufactured housing Financing new units Financing existing units r% Mobile home park acquisition Mobile home decommissioning Montan Manufactured Housing Replacement Program to decommission old energy - inefficient mobile homes and to purchase a new manufactured home In 2007, the legislature appropriated $2 mil to create the program By the end of the session, the amount had been cut to $354.,886 Montanc 19 families assisted to date The original $354,886 that was allocated generated an investment of $804,448 Montan Mobile Home Park Acquisition A non-profit association is formed to purchase and rehabilitate a park a Every home was moved, 16 or 28 were decommissioned and replaced Total reconstruction of the site: underground utilities, paved streets, curbs and sidewalks New foundations were poured and homes were set in place New Hampshire New Hampshire Community Loan Fund Created in 1983 based on two beliefs: It is not always low incomes that keep people from taking charge of their lives, sometimes it is access to credit, and There are owners and managers of capital that would put it to use for self-help community efforts if they had a way to do so. New Hampshire Formed a private, nonprofit corporation providing loans and technical assistance to self-help community economic development projects that benefit low and moderate incomes First loan was to a manufactured housing park tenants' group for land acquisition as a cooperative in 1984 New Hampshire In 1988, legislature enacted a "right of first refusal" law for park residents that provides the opportunity for tenants to purchase a park when it becomes for sale The fund only assists acquisitions by tenant -based cooperatives New Hampshire Gap between what the residents can raise and what a conventional bank will lend is provided by the Community Loan Fund in a senior/subordinate debt package As of 2005, 69 cooperative parks have been financed, and banks reliably provide first mortgage financing for cooperative purchases New Hampshire Many acquisitions include substantial rehabilitation that translates into environmental clean-up projects Low cost debt and grants for infrastructure improvement are provided by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and USDA's Rural Development program Vermont Vermont Housing Finance Agency provides four financing products that assist in the purchase of parks and replacement or renovation of homes once parks have been acquired Vermont Bond financing for park acquisition that can include infrastructure improvement Bridge loan for park acquisition and redevelopment Mortgage revenue bond financing for new and replacement manufactured housing Refinancing of existing debt for credit worthy homeowners that may have high cost or predatory loans on their existing units Vermont Sources include state appropriated housing funds, CDBG, Rural Development, and tax-exempt bond financing In addition to amortizing first mortgages, second subordinate loans usually have reduced interest rates and can even include deferred payments Granted funds are often included in the overall financing Vermont Mobile home park purchases are limited to tenant -based cooperatives, nonprofit and public entities Use restrictions limit space lease increases and re -sale prices of units within the park that receive financial assistance As of 2004, Vermont has 38 non-profit controlled parks Vermont State law requires that mobile home park owners notify a state agency at the time a park is offered for sale State statute requires a right of first refusal for tenant based organizations or nonprofit entities that have tenant support Vermont provides a tax incentive to encourage mobile home park owners to sell to eligible nonprofit entities Vermont Once there is community ownership of a manufactured housing development, both existing and replacement units can be set on permanent foundations and provided either cooperative land ownership or long term leases These homes can then qualify for a wide range of conventional mortgage financing Washington Provides funds for decommissioning of mobile homes that cannot (or should not) be relocated because of their dilapidated or unsafe conditions Provides CDBG, state and local funds for the relocation assistance for households displaced by mobile home park closures City of Boulder, CO Mobile Home Rehabilitation Program provides health and safety repairs Assistance is provided through atwo-year forgivable loan limited to $7,500 City of Missoula MT CDBG funds are used as rehabilitation loans for homeowners that live in manufactured housing on rented space City of Northfield, MN Manufactured Home Acquisition Program assists low and moderate income families by disposing of their substandard manufactured home units and providing them with assistance of up to $5,000 for replacement housing The cost of disposition is covered by the city using CDBG entitlement community funding Minnesota Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund Requires owners of manufactured home parks to pay $12 per licensed lot into the Trust Fund each year Owner of manufactured housing park is authorized to recoup the $12 from the manufactured home owner either monthly or in a lump sum Minnesota Trust fund is available to manufactured home owners who have to relocate because the park they are living in is being closed Only home owners that paid into the trust fund are eligible to receive payment Minnesota Funds are paid to Minnesota Management and Budget for deposit in the Trust Fund held by Minnesota Housing If a park is closed, then a neutral third party is appointed to oversee relation Minnesota Housing makes payments as directed by the third party for the costs of relocation Texas Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs has a Manufactured Housing Division Regulates the manufactured housing industry in Texas Texas Responsible for: Monitoring manufacturers' performance in handling consumer complaints Searching for and, when warranted, initiating class action cases Performing post -production monitoring of manufactured homes produced and/or shipped to Texas Monitoring licensed retailers Texas Maintaining records of ownership, location, and real or personal property status Recording and releasing liens Conducting training and issuing licenses to persons in the manufactured housing industry Performing installation inspections Texas Issuing state seals Investigating and resolving consumer complaints under the Standards Act Investigating and taking appropriate action against violators of the Texas Act Administering the Texas Manufactured Homeowners' Recovery Trust Fund Texas Manufactured Homeowners' Recovery Trust Fund Compensates consumers who sustain actual damages resulting from unsatisfied claims against manufactured housing licensees USDA('uarante, 1 Loans New manufactured homes Contract is within 1 year of manufacture of unit Attached to a permanent foundation Loan includes the site Built by approved dealer -contractor USDA C.,jarante.. ' Loan Existing manufactured homes Must be currently financed with Rural Development Sold from RD inventory OR Sold from Lender's Guaranteed Loan inventory Issues in Mortgage Banking Most banks won't finance manufactured homes when there is no land included in the loan Lenders want to be able to sell the loans into the secondary market Banks are unable or unwilling to retain them in their own portfolios Primary purchasers in the secondary market are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Suggestion Traditional lenders offer lower interest rates on mortgage lending State appropriation revolving loan fund guarantees to capitalize a ro provide loan Lower -interest funds might also be "blended" into the first mortgage financing to achieve rates and terms will produce affordability that Item Number: 9. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Memo from Assistant City Manager and Human Resources Administrator: Employment Status Analysis - Communication Division ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from Assistant City Manager and Human Resources Administrator: Employment Status Analysis - Communication Division CITY OF IOWA CITY M EMORANDUM Date: April 17, 2019 To: City Council From: Ashley Monroe, Assistant City Manager Karen Jennings, Human Resources Administrator Re: Employment Status Analysis - Communications Division Background At the January 5, 2019 budget review session, the City Council requested an exploration of converting temporary/hourly employees that work consistent year-round schedules to a permanent status. Using some general assumptions about wage increases and the cost of benefits, staff developed a rough estimate of costs for such a transition and presented information at the January 22, 2019 Council Meeting. At that time, Council determined that it was too complex an issue to decide how to proceed before the adoption of the FY2020 budget. Staff was later directed to return to City Council by early August 2019 with a full analysis for applicable positions. The Communications Division of the City Manager's Office currently has a vacancy in one of two hourly Communications Aide positions. The vacancy allows us to bring a review of the temporary/hourly positions in the Communications Division to you for direction on how you would like to see these positions handled going forward. In addition to the two Communication Aide positions, the Communications Division also employs a single temporary/hourly Communications Creative Assistant position. At this time, permanent staff from multiple departments are filling hours at the front desk at City Hall that would normally be covered by the vacant Communications Aide position. Staff is requesting direction from the City Council on whether you would like to see the Communications Aide and Communications Creative Assistant position maintained as temporary/hourly positions or shifted to permanent positions. Impacts and Considerations On April 10, the City Manager's Office and Human Resources Division met with AFSCME representatives and shared our plans for analyzing each of the temporary/hourly positions that are being considered for permanent status. We also shared with them a list of all temporary positions that meet criteria for hours worked on consistent, year-round basis. Our tentative count is that there are 22 positions currently being filled by more than 150 temporary/hourly employees. AFSCME is currently reviewing the list of positions as well as the types of issues we will be analyzing for each of those positions. They have also reviewed this memo and are aware of the current direction being sought regarding the Communications Division positions. AFSCME indicated they are comfortable with staff taking this issue to the City Council due to the current vacancy. They are aware of the opportunity they have to share their thoughts with you on the Communications Division positions. Staff will continue to review our analysis on all the other positions with AFSCME. They will have ample opportunity to provide input on future position analyses before they come before the City Council. April 17, 2019 Page 2 Below is a brief overview of the main components of the analysis that needs to be conducted for each of the 22 temporary/hourly positions: 1. Impact on Existing Employees Iowa Civil Service law has several requirements that the City must follow: • Iowa Code Chapter 400 says that all positions except those excluded from Civil Service statute (library and some non -bargaining) will be subject to civil service testing requirements. In many positions, this test is the employment application itself but for some positions additional job-related tests may be used. • Additionally, Iowa Code Chapter 35C requires all positions to be filled by competitive examination or appointment to be posted for at least 10 days before application deadline. These requirements mean that the City is required to post for "new" positions and cannot move someone who currently holds a similar temporary/hourly position directly into a permanent position. Instead, we will need to inform impacted hourly staff of the elimination of their existing hourly positions and notify them of the process to apply for the newly created permanent positions. It is important to note that with some positions, it is expected that the number of people needed to fill permanent roles will be fewer than the number of people that currently fill the corresponding temporary/hourly positions. In those cases, some temporary/hourly employees will no longer have an employment opportunity with the City. Furthermore, the minimum qualifications and job duties for each position considered for permanent status will be reviewed and, in many cases, will be altered. Increasing required qualifications and expanding job duties will offer service level enhancements to the community but could also increase barriers to entry for people hoping to find work with the City. In some cases, people currently employed in temporary/hourly positions may not end up being qualified or interested in the expanded job duties of the resulting permanent position. These provisions and considerations apply to the three Communications positions being reviewed below. 2. Bargaining Unit Provisions Converting positions from temporary/hourly to permanent status would make the positions a part of the AFSCME Local #183 Collective Bargaining Unit. The provisions of the AFSCME collective bargaining agreement holds the City to certain obligations. For example, Article 13 of the AFSCME collective bargaining agreement requires internal posting of positions and establishes seniority rights for bargaining unit members. This means that there are positions currently held by temporary/hourly staff that could be filled by existing AFSCME employees based on seniority, leaving current temporary/hourly employees without a position at the City. This provision applies to the three Communications positions being reviewed below. 3. Impacts on Supervisory Positions Iowa Code Chapter 20 includes a 'supervisory employee exclusion' which prevents bargaining unit employees from being supervised by other bargaining unit employees. The City does have AFSCME positions that manage temporary/hourly staff that are outside of the bargaining unit. If the supervised temporary/hourly positions are brought into AFSCME as permanent positions, this directly impacts the existing corresponding AFSCME supervisory April 17, 2019 Page 3 position. That existing AFSCME position would need to be evaluated and re -graded, based on removal of supervisory duties, or, the position would need to be moved out of the union as a new non -bargaining unit position. It is not required for the Communications Division positions, but for future reference, some positions identified for full analysis may require the addition of another layer of supervisory positions to oversee newly added bargaining unit employees. Operationally, it will likely be infeasible for existing non -bargaining unit supervisors to take on greater numbers of direct reports. Supervisory impacts do not apply to the Communications positions being reviewed below. Communications Division Position Analysis In addition to the considerations above, the following charts provide a basic position and cost analysis for the Communications Aide positions and the Communications Creative Assistant position. Communications Aide Position Status quo Possible change Comments (temporary/hourly) (ermanent Staffing • Two 25/week hourly staff Two .63FTE The number of positions structure • One occupied, one vacant Communications Aides and hours worked would stay the same if the positions shifted to permanent status. Minimum High school diploma . High school diploma Additional minimal Requirements • Familiarity with requirements would computer systems enhance service levels • Prior customer but may create barriers service experience to employment for some • Bi -lingual skills applicants. preferred Duties/ Greets and directs visitors at Status quo duties and The additional job Responsibilities City Hall; answers and • creates and audits responsibilities will help dispatches phone calls website/intranet the overall content communication efforts of • manages aspects of the City. ICgovXpress (City mobile app) • Assists with special projects as assigned by the Communications Coordinator Supervisory Reports to Communications No change structure Division Supervisor Pay/Proposed $12.00/hour Grade 2 ($25,605 at With benefits and Grade .63FTE) plus access to insurance the total cost city subsidized health increase is estimated to and dental insurance be $49,251.30. This assumes both employees will opt for April 17, 2019 Page 4 Communications Creative Assistant Position Status quo family health insurance. Comments (temporary/hourly) This number will be Staffing structure One occupied 20/week lower if single or no The number of positions hourly staff member insurance is selected by and hours worked would one or both of the stay the same if the employees. Communications Creative Assistant Position Status quo Possible change Comments (temporary/hourly) permanent Staffing structure One occupied 20/week One .5FTE The number of positions hourly staff member Communications Creative and hours worked would Assistant stay the same if the positions shifted to permanent status. Minimum Demonstrated skills in No change Higher salary and Requirements graphic design and writing availability of benefits required through may lead to an certification or experience increased applicant pool with overall higher levels of experience. Duties/ • Creates marketing No change Responsibilities materials including writing, graphic design and photography • Assists with social media and web postings • Assists Communications Aide as needed Supervisory Reports to No change structure Communications Division Supervisor Pay/Proposed $14.00/hour Grade 4 ($21,726 at With benefits and Grade .5FTE) plus access to city insurance the total cost subsidized health and increase is estimated to dental insurance be $18,152.63. This assumes the employee will opt for family health insurance. This number will be lower if single or no insurance is selected by the employee. Considerations specific to these three Communications Division positions The Communications Aide positions were created in 2012. Prior to that time, the task of greeting people and answering calls at the front desk of City Hall was completed by permanent staff members in the Purchasing Division of Finance. The change to use two temporary employees was pursued to focus the position strictly on customer service duties while not adding considerable expense during a time when the City was reducing or keeping status quo employment levels throughout the organization. Since that time the City has had numerous people successfully fill the role of Communications Aide. Individuals filling the position have generally April 17, 2019 Page 5 worked for one year or longer. Two people filling that position have been hired into permanent roles with the City. Many others filling the role did so during their time as students at the University of Iowa and left after they graduated or had an unavoidable change in class schedule. The Communications Creative Assistant position was created in fiscal year 2018. We have not had any turnover in that position since it was created. In short, the three temporary/hourly positions in the Communications Division are all relatively new. They have served the City well in that we have not had problems finding qualified applicants that stay in the position for reasonable durations of time. In the case of the Communication Aide position, we have been able to occasionally hire exceptional employees into permanent roles with other departments. Converting the positions to a permanent status will present an opportunity to increase service levels to the public. The cost of such conversion could be as high as $67,403.93 ($49,251.30 + $18,152.63). The City Manager has not previously recommended this change despite the potential for extra value because of his view that there are higher priority permanent staffing needs in other parts of the organization. Should the City Council wish to proceed with conversion of these temporary/hourly positions to permanent positions, then staff would take the following steps: 1. Finalize the job descriptions and seek formal Council approval to create the new positions. 2. Inform existing temporary/hourly staff of the revised job description and of the application process. 3. Fill the position after the hiring process has concluded. Staff would also need to amend both the FY2019 and FY2020 budgets. The cost of conversion can be split between the General Fund and the Employee Benefits Fund. Again, assuming that family insurance is selected by the employees holding the new permanent positions, the estimated cost to the General Fund would be $20,598 and the estimated cost to the Employee Benefits Fund would be $46,806. Summary In summary, the three temporary/hourly positions in the Communications Division will be some of the least complex position reviews to be brought to Council. It should be noted: Proposal includes limited changes to operations: 1. There is no change in the management structure warranted with the position changes. 2. There are no proposed changes in hours worked for any of the three positions. 3. There are no changes proposed to activities performed by the Creative Assistant. Changes are being sought for the two Communication Aide positions. Impacts on employees and applicants: 1. Communications is one of our smallest divisions and one of three positions is currently unfilled, limiting the sustained impact on existing employees to two people. 2. Failure to review/reclassify the Creative Assistant position in conjunction with the Communication Aides will create an internal equity issue, as the Creative Assistant requires specialized skills not required of the Communications Aides. If the Communications Aides are converted to permanent status the City will also need to convert the Creative Assistant position. April 17, 2019 Page 6 3. Changes proposed for a benefitted Communications Aide position increases the level of skill and responsibility for applicants, possibly limiting potential to entry level positions. These increases in skill levels will benefit the City and are necessary to bring the position into alignment with skills required of current AFSCME Grade 2 positions. 4. Cost: To move these three positions to permanent part-time would be a maximum of $67,404 in FY2020. This is equivalent to adding approximately one full-time employee (including benefits) in the middle of the AFSCME Pay Plan. The equivalent cost of one full-time employee represents the opportunity cost of Council's decision. Feedback requested from Council The City Council desired to make decisions regarding whether certain temporary/hourly positions should be converted to permanent positions. Staff is actively working to complete analysis on twenty-two such positions and will present that to you in August. Due to a vacancy in one of three temporary/hourly positions in the Communications Division, we have expedited our review of those positions. We respectfully request your direction on whether one (Creative Assistant) or all three of the temporary/hourly positions should be converted to permanent status. Your direction will allow us to fill the position accordingly and resume normal operations at the City Hall front desk. Item Number: 10. �r CITY OE IOWA CITY www.iogov.org April 18, 2019 Memo from Assistant to the City Manager: Fire Department Vehicle Collision Response Data ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from Assistant to the City Manager: Fire Department Vehicle Collision Response Data Date: April 16, 2019 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM To: Geoff Fruin; City Manager From: Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager Re: Fire Department Vehicle Collision Response Data Introduction During this year's budget deliberations, Council requested information regarding Iowa City Fire Department responses to vehicle collisions. Staff was asked to compile the number of vehicle collisions the Department responded to in 2018 and the amount of time invested in responding to these incidents. History/Background In 2018, the Iowa City Fire Department responded approximately 400 incidents involving vehicle collisions. Total Fire Department staff time invested in these incidents was approximately 310 hours. The Fire Department responded to: • 172 vehicle collisions as medical emergencies • 72 fluid clean-ups as a result of vehicle collisions • 7 technical rescues — extrication from vehicles • approximately 150 medical emergencies involving a collision with a pedestrian or cyclist Staff is happy to answer any additional questions. Item Number: 11. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Copy of report from Governors Highway Safety Association submitted by City Manager: Pedestrian Traffic Fatallities by State - 2018 Preliminary Data ATTACHMENTS: Description Copy of report from Governors Highway Safety Association submitted by City Manager: Pedestrian Traffic Fatallities by State - 2018 Preliminary Data Spotlight on GHSA' Governors Highway Wety Association Highway Safety www.ghs.a.org !/'@,GHSAHQ Pedestrian Traffic Fatal'it'ies by State r 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA ."- 2018 is projected to have the highest number of pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. since 1990. 2009 17 4,109 4� .� ' Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA CONTENTS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 INTRODUCTION 6 2018 PRELIMINARY PEDESTRIAN FATALITY DATA 13 2017 PEDESTRIAN FATALITY DATA 22 WHAT ABOUT CITIES? 23 EFFORTS TO REDUCE PEDESTRIAN FATALITIES AND INJURIES 26 DISCUSSION 32 APPENDIX: WHAT STATES ARE DOING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Richard Retting, Sam Schwartz Consulting, researched and wrote the report. Madison Forker, Communications Manager, GHSA, oversaw the report. Russ Martin, Director of Policy and Government Relations, GHSA, and Kara Macek, Senior Director of Policy and Programs, GHSA, edited the report. Creative by Tony Frye Design. / Published February 2019 Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 2 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In recent years, the number of pedestrian fatalities in the United States has grown sharply. During the 10 -year period from 2008 to 2017, the number of pedestrian fatalities increased by 35 percent (from 4,414 deaths in 2008 to 5,977 deaths in 2017); meanwhile, the combined number of all other traffic deaths declined by six percent. Along with the increase in the number of pedestrian fatalities, pedestrian deaths as a percentage of total motor vehicle crash deaths increased from 12 percent in 2008 to 16 percent in 2017. Earlier studies by the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), based on preliminary data reported by State Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs), were the first to predict recent increases in pedestrian fatalities. The present study, based on preliminary data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC), found the alarming rise in pedestrian deaths observed in both 2015 and 2016 appears to have resumed in 2018, although at a lesser pace. For the first six months of 2018 GHSA found a three percent increase in the reported number of pedestrian fatalities compared with the first six months of 2017. However, after adjusting for anticipated underreporting in the preliminary GHSA estimates the nationwide state data and considering the historic trends number of pedestrians killed in pedestrian fatalities during the first and in motor vehicle crashes in second halves of the year, GHSA estimates 2018 was 6,227, an increase the nationwide number of pedestrians killed in of four percent from 2017. motor vehicle crashes in 2018 was 6,227, an increase of four percent from 2017. This projection represents a continuation of an increasing trend in pedestrian deaths going back to 2009 and would be the largest annual number of pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. since 1990. GHSRs latest analysis of preliminary pedestrian fatality data also indicates the following: • States reported a range of changes in the number of pedestrian fatalities in the first half of 2018 compared with the same period in 2017: 25 states (and DC) had increases in pedestrian fatalities; 23 states had decreases; and Two states remained the same. • States differ widely in fatality numbers: The estimated number of pedestrian deaths for the first half of 2018 ranged from one in New Hampshire to 432 in California. Seven states (California, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Arizona, New York and North Carolina — in rank order) are each expected to have more than 100 pedestrian deaths — an increase of two states from 2017. Five states (Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia and Texas) accounted for almost half — 46 percent — of all pedestrian deaths. New Mexico had the highest rate of pedestrian deaths per resident population, while New Hampshire had the lowest. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 3 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA • States use various combinations of engineering, enforcement and education countermeasures to address pedestrian safety, including targeted enforcement in conjunction with public outreach and education. Many factors outside the control of state and local traffic safety officials contribute to annual changes in the number of pedestrian fatalities, including economic conditions, population growth, demographic changes, weather conditions, fuel prices, vehicle miles traveled and the amount of time people spend walking. The increasing shift in U.S. vehicle sales away from passenger cars to light trucks (with light trucks generally causing more severe pedestrian impacts than cars) is also a factor. Although passenger cars are the largest category of vehicles involved in fatal pedestrian crashes, the number of pedestrian fatalities involving SUVs increased at a faster rate — 50 percent — from 2013 to 2017 compared to passenger cars, which increased by 30 percent. Increases in pedestrian fatalities are occurring largely at night. From 2008 to 2017 the number of nighttime pedestrian fatalities increased by 45 percent, compared to a much smaller 11 percent increase in daytime pedestrian fatalities. Additionally, increases in pedestrian fatalities may be linked to population growth in specific cities and states. For example, the 10 states with the highest population growth from 2017 to 2018 — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, North Carolina, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, Texas and Washington State — had an overall five percent increase in the number of pedestrian fatalities during the first six month of 2018 compared with the same period in 2017.' Another possible factor contributing to the recent rise in the overall number of pedestrian fatalities could be the large growth in smartphone use over the past decade, which can be a significant source of distraction for all road users. Despite the overall increase in pedestrian deaths, there is some good news in the 2018 preliminary data: • Pedestrian fatalities during the first half of 2018 declined in 23 states compared with the same period in 2017. • Six states (Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma and Wisconsin) reported double-digit declines in both the number and percent change in pedestrian fatalities from the same period in 2017. • Three states (Iowa, New Hampshire and Utah) reported two consecutive years of declining numbers of pedestrian fatalities. • The number of pedestrian fatalities in the 10 largest cities declined 15 percent in 2017. The decline was especially sharp in New York city, providing evidence of local successes that may not be reflected in statewide data. 1 https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/estimates-national-state.html Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 4 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA INTRODUCTION Walking is the most basic, inexpensive and environmentally -friendly form of human transportation. Walking provides essential connections between residential, retail, and commercial land uses as well as access to public transit, especially in urban and suburban areas. But unfortunately, walking has become increasingly risky in recent years, whether walking the dog, traveling to work or school, exercising or simply taking a stroll. During the 10 -year period of 2008 to 2017, the number of pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. increased by 35 percent, from 4,414 deaths in 2008 to 5,977 deaths in 2017 (Figure 1 and Table 1). This translates into more than 1,500 additional pedestrian deaths in 2017 compared with 2008. At the same time that pedestrian deaths have been increasing, the number of all other traffic deaths combined decreased by six percent. Pedestrian Fatalities and Percent of Total Traffic Fatalities, 2008 - 2017 2008 4,414 33,009 37,423 12% 2009 4,109 29,774 33,883 12% 2010 4,302 28,697 32,999 13% 2011 4,457 28,022 32,479 14% 2012 4,818 28,964 33,782 14% 2013 4,779 28,115 32,894 15% 2014 4,910 27,834 32,744 15% 2015 5,495 29,990 35,485 15% 2016 6,080 31,726 37,806 16% 2017 5,977 31,156 37,133 16% Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 5 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Numbers of U.S. Traffic Deaths in 2008 and 2017 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000+35% .... ....... ........ , 5,977 5,000 4,41.4 0 Pedestrian Deaths ■ 2008 .......... 33,009 ............ 31,156 All Other Traffic Deaths Combined ■ 2017 Along with the increase in the number of pedestrian fatalities, pedestrian deaths as a percentage of total motor vehicle crash deaths increased from 12 percent in 2008 to 16 percent in both 2016 and 2017. This is due to the simultaneous trends of increasing numbers of pedestrian deaths and general declines in the number of occupant fatalities. Declines in occupant deaths are attributed in part to steady enhancements in vehicle crashworthiness and crash avoidance technology, whereas by contrast, pedestrians remain just as susceptible to sustaining serious or fatal injuries when struck by a motor vehicle. 2018 PRELIMINARY PEDESTRIAN FATALITY DATA Tables 2-4 demonstrate the number of pedestrian fatalities projected in each state for the first half of 2018, sorted by state (Table 2), percentage (Table 3) and number of fatalities (Table 4). The preliminary data provided by State Highway Safety Offices have been adjusted based on historical trends to achieve the most accurate projection. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 6 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Sorted by State Table 2 Jan -Ju ne2o18 % Change from 2017 to 2018 (Preliminary State Jan -June 2017 Adjusted) # % Fatalities by State, Alabama 59 40 -19 -32% Jan -June 2017 & 2018 Alaska 7 5 -2 -29% Arizona 112 125 +13 +12% Source: State Highway Arkansas 25 23 -2 -8% Safety Offices California 468 432 -36 -8% Colorado 37 34 -3 -8% Connecticut 19 29 +10 +53% Delaware 13 7 -6 -46% DC 7 8 + 1 +14% Florida 326 330 +4 +1% Georgia 101 133 +32 +32% Hawaii 1 19 +18 +1800% Idaho 7 4 -3 -43% Illinois 67 80 +13 + 19% Indiana 61 42 -19 -31% Iowa 10 9 -1 -10% Kansas 12 16 + 4 +33% Kentucky 38 33 -5 -13% Louisiana 69 77 + 8 + 12% Maine 5 3 -2 -40% Maryland 48 60 +12 +25% Massachusetts 35 38 + 3 +9% Michigan 72 58 -14 -19% Minnesota 18 14 -4 -22% Mississippi 31 44 +13 +42% Missouri 42 44 + 2 +5% Montana 5 6 + 1 +20% Nebraska 7 12 + 5 +71% Nevada 43 31 -12 -26% New Hampshire 5 1 -4 -80% New Jersey 67 73 + 6 +9% New Mexico 32 47 +15 +47% New York 112 117 + 5 +4% North Carolina 83 102 +19 +23% North Dakota 3 3 0 0% Ohio 55 63 +8 +15% Oklahoma 33 22 -11 -33% Oregon 34 28 -6 -18% Pennsylvania 64 90 +26 +41% Rhode Island 10 4 -6 -60% South Carolina 69 74 + 5 + 7% South Dakota 2 5 + 3 +150% Tennessee 57 52 -5 -9% Texas 266 298 +32 +12% Utah 18 13 -5 -28% Vermont 2 2 0 0% Virginia 45 53 + 8 +18% Washington 46 44 -2 -4% West Virginia 10 7 -3 -30% Wisconsin 29 18 -11 -38% Wyoming 3 4 + 1 +33% Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 7 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 8 Sorted by Percentage Change Change from 2017 to 2018 Jan -Jun 2018 (Preliminary Adjusted) # % Pedestrian Fatalities by State, Hawaii 1 19 +18 +1800% Jan - June 2017 & 2018 South Dakota 2 5 +3 + 150% Nebraska 7 12 +5 + 71% Source: State Highway Connecticut 19 29 +10 +53% Safety Offices New Mexico 32 47 + 15 +47% Mississippi 31 44 +13 +42% Pennsylvania 64 90 +26 +41% Kansas 12 16 +4 +33% Wyoming 3 4 +1 +33% Georgia 101 133 +32 +32% Maryland 48 60 + 12 +25% North Carolina 83 102 +19 +23% Montana 5 6 + 1 +20% Illinois 67 80 +13 + 19% Virginia 45 53 +8 + 18% Ohio 55 63 +8 + 15% DC 7 8 + 1 +14% Arizona 112 125 +13 + 12% Louisiana 69 77 +8 + 12% Texas 266 298 +32 + 12% Massachusetts 35 38 +3 +9% New Jersey 67 73 +6 +9% South Carolina 69 74 +5 +7% Missouri 42 44 +2 +5% New York 112 117 +5 +4% Florida 326 330 +4 +1% North Dakota 3 3 0 0% Vermont 2 2 0 0% Washington 46 44 -2 -4% Arkansas 25 23 -2 -8% California 468 432 -36 -8% Colorado 37 34 -3 -8% Tennessee 57 52 -5 -9% Iowa 10 9 -1 -10% Kentucky 38 33 -5 -13% Oregon 34 28 -6 -18% Michigan 72 58 -14 -19% Minnesota 18 14 -4 -22% Nevada 43 31 -12 -28% Utah 18 13 -5 -28% -1 Alaska 7 5 -2 -29% West Virginia 10 7 -3 -30% Indiana 61 42 -19 -31% Alabama 59 40 -19 -32% Oklahoma 33 22 -11 -33% Wisconsin 29 18 -11 -38% Maine 5 3 -2 -40% Idaho 7 4 -3 -43% Delaware 13 7 -6 -46% Rhode Island 10 4 -6 -60% New Hampshire 5 1 -4 -80% Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 8 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Sorted by Number of Fatalities Pedestrian California 432 Fatalities by State, Florida 330 Jan - June 2018 Texas 298 Georgia 133 Source: State Highway Safety Offices Arizona 125 New York 117 North Carolina 102 Pennsylvania 90 Illinois 80 Louisiana 77 South Carolina 74 New Jersey 73 Ohio 63 Maryland 60 Michigan 58 Virginia 53 Tennessee 52 New Mexico 47 Mississippi 44 Missouri 44 Washington 44 Indiana 42 Alabama 40 Massachusetts 38 Colorado 34 Kentucky 33 Nevada 31 Connecticut 29 Oregon 28 Arkansas 23 Oklahoma 22 Hawaii 19 Wisconsin 18 Kansas 16 Minnesota 14 Utah 13 Nebraska 12 Iowa 9 DC 8 Delaware 7 West Virginia 7 Montana 6 Alaska 5 South Dakota 5 Idaho 4 Rhode Island 4 Wyoming 4 Maine 3 North Dakota 3 Vermont 2 New Hampshire 1 Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 9 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA As illustrated in Figure 2, five states (Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, and Texas) accounted for almost half — 46 percent — of all pedestrian deaths during the first six months of 2018. By comparison, these five states represented approximately 33 percent of the U.S. population according to the 2018 U.S. Census. Cal 5 States Comprising 46% of Pedestrian Deaths, Jan - June 2018 0 U) x y yn Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 10 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Pedestrian Fatalities by State per 100,000 Population, Jan - June 2018 Source: State Highway Safety Offices and U.S. Census Bureau Table 5 shows the rate of pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 population by state for the first six months of 2018. New Mexico had the highest rate (2.26), while New Hampshire had the lowest (0.07). Twelve states and D.C. had pedestrian fatality rates of 1.0 or higher per 100,000 population. Sorted by State Sorted by Fatality Rate Alabama 0.82 New Mexico 2.26 Alaska 0.64 Arizona 1.74 Arizona 1.74 Louisiana 1.66 Arkansas 0.78 Florida 1.55 California 1.09 Mississippi 1.46 Colorado 0.60 South Carolina 1.46 Connecticut 0.82 Hawaii 1.36 Delaware 0.73 Georgia 1.27 DC 1.14 DC 1.14 Florida 1.55 California 1.09 Georgia 1.27 Texas 1.04 Hawaii 1.36 Nevada 1.01 Idaho 0.22 Maryland 1.00 Illinois 0.63 North Carolina 0.98 Indiana 0.63 Alabama 0.82 Iowa 0.28 Connecticut 0.82 Kansas 0.54 New Jersey 0.82 Kentucky 0.73 Arkansas 0.78 Louisiana 1.66 Tennessee 0.77 Maine 0.22 Kentucky 0.73 Maryland 1.00 Delaware 0.73 Massachusetts 0.55 Missouri 0.72 Michigan 0.59 Pennsylvania 0.71 Minnesota 0.25 Wyoming 0.69 Mississippi 1.46 Oregon 0.66 Missouri 0.72 Alaska 0.64 Montana 0.56 Indiana 0.63 Nebraska 0.62 Illinois 0.63 Nevada 1.01 Nebraska 0.62 New Hampshire 0.07 Virginia 0.62 New Jersey 0.82 Colorado 0.60 New Mexico 2.26 New York 0.60 New York 0.60 Washington 0.59 North Carolina 0.98 Michigan 0.59 North Dakota 0.39 South Dakota 0.57 Ohio 0.54 Montana 0.56 Oklahoma 0.56 Oklahoma 0.56 Oregon 0.66 Massachusetts 0.55 Pennsylvania 0.71 Ohio 0.54 Rhode Island 0.40 Kansas 0.54 South Carolina 1.46 Utah 0.41 South Dakota 0.57 Rhode Island 0.40 Tennessee 0.77 North Dakota 0.39 Texas 1.04 West Virginia 0.39 Utah 0.41 Vermont 0.37 Vermont 0.37 Wisconsin 0.32 Virginia 0.62 Iowa 0.28 Washington 0.59 Minnesota 0.25 West Virginia 0.39 Maine 0.22 Wisconsin 0.32 Idaho 0.22 Wyoming 0.69 New Hampshire 0.07 Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 11 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Based on the preliminary number of pedestrian fatalities during the first six months of 2018 along with historic data regarding the annual numbers and proportions of pedestrian deaths that occurred during the first and second halves of the year, GHSA projects there were 6,227 pedestrian fatalities in 2018, an estimated four (4) percent increase from 2017 As shown in Figure 3, the projected number of 6,227 pedestrian fatalities in 2018 represents a continuation of an increasing trend in pedestrian deaths going back to 2009 and would be the largest annual number of pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. since 1990. U.S. Pedestrian Fatalities: 1990 - 2018 7,000 6,482 6,500 6,000 5,500 5,000 4,500 O r N M t M c0 n 00 O O r N M� Ln Cfl n N O O r N C2 4 L2 CO n N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O r O O D7 O) O O a7 O O O O O O O O 00000000000000 r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N * 2018 estimate based on preliminary data and historical trends 7* ir LL N 0 d U O Cn Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 12 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA 2017 PEDESTRIAN FATALITY DATA In addition to analyzing preliminary pedestrian fatality data for the first six months of 2018, GHSA also examined pedestrian fatality data for the most recent complete calendar year (2017) as published by NHTSA through FARS. The following crash factors were examined: • Population • Light Level • Location • Alcohol and Other Drugs • Vehicle Type Table 6 and Figures 4 through 15 provide analysis of the most recent pedestrian fatality data available from FARS. Table 6 shows the rate of pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 population by state for 2017 based on the number of pedestrian fatalities reported by FARS and U.S. Census population data. • New Mexico had the highest pedestrian fatality rate (3.53), while Minnesota had the lowest (0.75). • Fifteen states had pedestrian fatality rates per 100,000 population greater than or equal to 2.0 in both 2017 and 2016. By comparison, 11 states had fatality rates this high in 2015, and 7 states had fatality rates this high in 2014 (Figure 4). Number of States with Fatality Rates a 2.0 per 100,000 Population HIM 14 12 11 10 8 7 6 4 2 0 2014 2015 15 15 L 2016 2017 Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Sorted by State Sorted by Fatality Rate llllllllllllllllll� r. i tl ra•J• Pedestrian Fatalities Alabama 2.32 New Mexico 3.53 by State per 100,000 Alaska 1.89 Delaware 3.45 Population, Jan - Dec 2017 Arizona 3.21 Nevada 3.36 Arkansas 1.53 Arizona 3.21 Source: State Highway Safety Offices and California 2.41 South Carolina 3.15 U.S. Census Bureau Colorado 1.64 Florida 3.14 Connecticut 1.29 Kentucky 2.67 Delaware 3.45 Georgia 2.49 DC 1.58 Louisiana 2.48 Florida 3.14 California 2.41 Georgia 2.49 Mississippi 2.37 Hawaii 1.05 Alabama 2.32 Idaho 0.93 Texas 2.17 Illinois 1.15 Oklahoma 2.11 Indiana 1.61 New Jersey 2.07 Iowa 0.76 Rhode Island 1.99 Kansas 1.17 Maryland 1.98 Kentucky 2.67 North Carolina 1.96 Louisiana 2.48 Alaska 1.89 Maine 1.50 Tennessee 1.88 Maryland 1.98 Oregon 1.78 Massachusetts 1.08 Missouri 1.65 Michigan 1.60 West Virginia 1.65 Minnesota 0.75 Colorado 1.64 Mississippi 2.37 Indiana 1.61 Missouri 1.65 Michigan 1.60 Montana 1.33 DC 1.58 Nebraska 1.04 Arkansas 1.53 Nevada 3.36 Maine 1.5 New Hampshire 0.89 Washington 1.47 New Jersey 2.07 Utah 1.35 New Mexico 3.53 Virginia 1.35 New York 1.29 Montana 1.33 North Carolina 1.96 Connecticut 1.29 North Dakota 0.79 New York 1.29 Ohio 1.24 Vermont 1.28 Oklahoma 2.11 Ohio 1.24 Oregon 1.78 Kansas 1.17 Pennsylvania 1.17 Pennsylvania 1.17 Rhode Island 1.99 Illinois 1.15 South Carolina 3.15 South Dakota 1.15 South Dakota 1.15 Massachusetts 1.08 Tennessee 1.88 Hawaii 1.05 Texas 2.17 Nebraska 1.04 Utah 1.35 Wyoming 1.04 Vermont 1.28 Wisconsin 1.00 Virginia 1.35 Idaho 0.93 Washington 1.47 New Hampshire 0.89 West Virginia 1.65 North Dakota 0.79 Wisconsin 1.00 Iowa 0.76 Wyoming 1.04 Minnesota 0.75 Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 14 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Light Level Darkness poses an especially high risk for those traveling by foot. On a national basis, about 75 percent of pedestrian fatalities in 2017 occurred after dark (Figure 5). 2017 Pedestrian Fatalities by Light Level 75°/0 ? 10/a 4% Daylight W M DawnlDusk LL ui U Dark o' U) Figi an fatalities. From 2008 to 2017 the number of nighttime pedestrian fatalities increased by 45 percent, compared to a much smaller 11 percent increase in daytime pedestrian fatalities. Over this 10 -year period, nighttime crashes accounted for more than 90 percent of the total increase in pedestrian deaths. Number of Daytime and Nighttime Pedestrian Fatalities, 2008 - 2017 5,000 4,500 Nightime 4,543 4,440 4,000 4,040 3,500 3,0003,452 31405 3,510 3,059 3,030 3,204 2,500 2,846 2,000 1,500 Daytime 1,000 1,1451,079 1,092 1,068 1,168 1,166 1,191 1,245 1,311 1,267 500 a LL 0 N i 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 �n Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% Percentage of All Pedestrian Fatalities that Occurred in the Dark, 2008-2017 72% 72% x........71.%...... 74% 7= 74% 50% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 W LL d U 7 O W As illustrated in Figure 8, the largest category of roads on which pedestrian fatalities occurred in 2017 was local streets, followed by state highways. A surprisingly large number of pedestrian fatalities — ten percent of the total — occurred on Interstates. Some of the pedestrian fatalities on Interstates involve motorists who are struck while standing outside of their cars due to mechanical issues or minor crashes. Pedestrian Fatalities by Roadway Type, 2017 400 35% 35% 30% 25% 25% 20% 16% 15% 10% 5% 10g'o � 8010 0% Local Street State Highway U.S. Highway Interstate Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ County Road LL 6 2 3 0 N 16 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA On a national basis, about 26 percent of pedestrian fatalities in 2017 occurred at intersections or were intersection -related (Figure 9). The majority of pedestrian fatalities occurred at non -intersection locations. 2017 Pedestrian Fatality Locations 72/0 W. 2% 0 Not at Intersection At Intersection Intersection Related Other/Unknown Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Alcohol and Other Drugs Alcohol impairment — for the driver and/or pedestrian — was reported in about half of traffic crashes that resulted in pedestrian fatalities in 2017, An estimated 32 percent of fatal pedestrian crashes involved a pedestrian with a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.08 grams per deciliter (g/dQ or higher; an estimated 17 percent of drivers involved in these crashes had a BAC of 0.08 or higher (Figure 10). Even in cases where the pedestrian's or driver's alcohol consumption may not be identified by police as a contributing factor to the crash, a pedestrian or driver with a BAC of .08 or higher has diminished faculties that could impact judgment, decision-making, and reaction time. 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Percent of Pedestrians and Drivers with BACs a 0.08 g/dL in Fatal 2017 Pedestrian Crashes 32/0 Pedestrians 17% Drivers Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 18 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Figure 11 shows the percentage of pedestrians killed in traffic crashes with a BAC greater than or equal to 0.08, by age group. The percentage of fatally -injured pedestrians with high BACs is relatively stable for those within the 21 through 54 age groups. Alcohol Impairment for Pedestrians Killed in Traffic Crashes by Age Group in 2017 50% 45% 42% 43% 41% 40% 40% 35% 35% 30% 25% 21% 20% 18% 15% 10% g% 8% a 5% , c°n 0% 16-20 21-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Pedestrian Age Group For comparison, Figure 12 shows the percentage of drivers killed in traffic crashes with a BAC greater than or equal to 0.08, by age group. Unlike pedestrians, the percentage of fatally -injured drivers with high BACs is highest among young drivers of legal drinking age (21-24) and declines for each successive age group. Alcohol Impairment for Drivers Killed in Traffic Crashes by Age Group in 2017 30% 27% 26% 25% 23% 20% 19% 15% 15% 15% 10% 9% 8% cn 5% ui O 7 O 16-20 21-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Driver Age Group 1 Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA In addition to alcohol, both drivers and pedestrians involved in traffic fatalities can be under the influence of other drugs, although the best available data is incomplete. For example, if alcohol is present, tests may not be administered for other drugs. Also, caution should be exercised in assuming that drug presence implies impairment. Drug tests do not necessarily indicate impairment at the time of the test. In some cases, drug presence can be detected for a period of days or weeks after ingestion. Figure 13 shows the percent of (tested) fatally -injured pedestrians that had police -reported drug involvement for pedestrians ages 18-35 and for all those ages 18+. The most commonly -reported drug was methamphetamine. Because fatally -injured pedestrians that test positive for drugs can also have BACs greater than or equal to 0.08, combining the percentages in figures 10 and 13 would result in an overcount. 25% 2010 1510 10% 5% 016 Percent of (Tested) Fatally -Injured Pedestrians with Police -Reported Drug Involvement, 2017 22% 18-35 Pedestrian Ages 1810 All 18+ N LL W 0 ur Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 20 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Figure 14 shows the number of pedestrians killed in single -vehicle crashes by vehicle type in 2017. The largest category of striking vehicles (42 percent of the total) was passenger cars. Number of Pedestrians Killed in Single -Vehicle Crashes by Vehicle Type in 2017 2,500 2,243 2,000 1,600 1,080 +30% 1,000 926 561 500 263 290 LL N U N i Q (n Pasenger SUVs Pick Ups Vans Large Othed Cars Trucks Unknown Figure 15 shows trends in the numbers of pedestrians killed in single -vehicle crashes involving passenger cars and SUVs from 2013 to 2017. Although passenger cars account for a larger number of pedestrian deaths, the number of pedestrian fatalities involving SUVs increased at a greater rate — 50 percent — during this 5 -year period compared to passenger cars, which increased by 30 percent. Number of Pedestrians Killed in Single -Vehicle Crashes Involving Passenger Cars FA 2,500 +30% 2,279 2,133 2,000 1,835 1,754 1,500 .......1P +50% .. .......................... 1,050 1,097 1,000 861 730 763 a ' 500 2 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 cn Passenger Cars SUVs Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA WHAT ABOUT CITIES? Because most pedestrian fatalities occur in urban areas, GHSA also examined changes in the number of pedestrian fatalities for the ten most populous U.S. cities. The total number of pedestrian fatalities for the ten largest cities decreased by about 15 percent, from 2016 to 2017, but remained about 9 percent higher than in 2015 (Figure 16). Pedestrian Deaths in the 10 Largest U.S Cities - 2015 - 2017 800 700 600 551 500 400 300 200 100 0 2015 704 2016 LY1711 2017 LaL 2 3 O V1 Figure 17 shows the number of pedestrian fatalities for each of the ten largest cities in 2015, 2016, and 2017. Several cities had substantial reductions in pedestrian fatalities in 2017, including New York, Los Angeles, San Antonio and San Diego. Pedestrian Deaths in the 10 Largest U.S Cities - 2015 - 2017 160 140 137 131 130 120 116 100 95 85 80 7s 73 62 60 46 98 90 64 58 5-6-57 52 4141 43 37 43 45 42 40 26 11 29 31 Q 21 20 ' ' 15 13 C 0 QP °� e`ey ``aA° AN, \Qr�a eco, w°c'o `¢° ah �es� �Qo°j Cr �,oJ \aae Qr° cQS ac0 � dao �,o Qac ya 5 2015 2016 2017 Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 22 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA EFFORTS TO REDUCE PEDESTRIAN FATALITIES AND INJURIES Achieving robust and sustained progress toward reducing — and someday eliminating — pedestrian fatalities and injuries requires a comprehensive approach to pedestrian safety that combines: Enforcement; r Engineering; • Education; and • Emergency medical response. Programs should incorporate the latest advances in technology and best practices and must be tailored to the needs of state and local communities. Federal Safety Programs and Resources Federal government resources available to help states reduce pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries include the following: 0 Section 402. The State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program is the cornerstone of state behavioral highway safety strategies. It provides the greatest flexibility for states to target resources to meet their most pressing needs. Eighteen states responding to GHSA's questionnaire for this report indicated they currently use Section 402 funds to support pedestrian safety programs. C Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Focus States and Cities. Since 2004, the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Safety Office has been working aggressively to reduce pedestrian deaths by focusing extra resources on the cities and states with the highest numbers of pedestrian fatalities and/or fatality rates. Part of this effort has included How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, which helps state and local officials know where to begin to address pedestrian safety issues. C Section 403. Under this program, NHTSA has conducted a series of education and enforcement efforts in pedestrian focus cities, including demonstration projects in Louisville, New York City, and Philadelphia. In addition, funds were awarded to the Safe States Alliance for a project on injury prevention for pedestrians. ® Section 405. The FAST Act, enacted on December 15, 2015, created a new National Priority Safety Program, Section 405(h) Nonmotorized Safety, to provide approximately $70 million annually through Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2020 for eligible states to decrease pedestrian and bicyclist crash fatalities. Under the nonmotorized safety grant program, NHTSA awarded approximately $14 million to 22 states for FFY 2017, 23 states for FFY 2018, and has determined 25 states to be eligible for grants being awarded this year for FFY 2019. A state is eligible if its bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities exceed 15% of its total annual crash fatalities based on the most recent year of FARS data available. Funds may be used to train law enforcement officials on bicyclist/pedestrian traffic laws, for bicyclist/pedestrian safety enforcement of these laws, and for education campaigns promoting bicyclist/pedestrian traffic laws. Congress could provide states more flexibility in the kinds of programs these funds can be used for, such as public education on safe bicyclist and pedestrian practices generally, not just traffic laws, on the safe use of Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 23 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA infrastructure, to aggregate more data on non -motorized safety, and to expand programs to more classes of non -motorized road users. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The goal of this program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non -state-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a data -driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety, focusing on the application of proven engineering countermeasures to significantly reduce fatal and serious -injury crashes. Although prior federal transportation legislation allowed HSIP funds to be spent on public education and law enforcement efforts — and several states leveraged this opportunity — this option was eliminated in the latest reauthorization bill. What States Are Doing SHSOs are committed to improving the safety of all road users by focusing on behavioral issues that lead to traffic crashes such as impaired, distracted and aggressive driving; seat belt use; child passenger, pedestrian, bicyclist and motorcyclist safety; and teen and older driver issues. SHSOs are typically tasked with addressing behavioral safety issues via education and enforcement initiatives. SHSOs administer federal highway safety grants (including Sections 402 and 405 as outlined above) and produce annual state Highway Safety Plans (HSPs) as required by the U.S. Department of Transportation. In some states, SHSOs are responsible for traffic records coordination and Safe Routes to School programs. Many factors that contribute to pedestrian crashes are outside of the control of SHSOs. For example, traffic engineering considerations such as roadway design, traffic signal design, sidewalk construction, and street lighting fall under the purview of the engineering divisions of state and local DOTS. SHSOs work with their state DOT counterparts to align behavioral solutions with engineering efforts. SHSOs provided the following examples of strategies they and their partners employ to reduce pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries: • Targeted law enforcement efforts. ® For example, Massachusetts provided funding to 84 local police departments across the state to conduct overtime enforcement patrols aimed at reducing pedestrian and bicyclist injuries and fatalities. • Public information campaigns. 0 For example, Connecticut introduced the "Watch for Me CT" campaign, which is a statewide educational community outreach campaign involving media components and community engagement in partnership with CT Children's Medical Center. • Educational outreach in high-risk areas. ® For example, the Georgia Office of Highway Safety has grantees in cities with significant increases in pedestrian fatalities that are working on educational programs. These programs have been focused on areas where there are significant numbers of people who walk as a primary form of transportation. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 24 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA • Safe Routes to School programs. For example, Ohio DOT administers funding that can be used to improve the design of pedestrian facilities, such as the Safe Routes to School program, which provides $4 million annually to communities looking to improve the safety of K-8 students who walk or bike to school. • Focusing enforcement in high-risk zones. For example, the Delaware Office of Highway Safety partners with law enforcement agencies in high crash locations to educate pedestrians and give citations when necessary. • Pedestrian safety assessments/road safety audits. For example, New York State DOT is conducting pedestrian safety site evaluations at approximately 2,000 unsignalized midblock crosswalks and 2,400 signalized crosswalks on state -maintained routes in urban areas. • Support for engineering countermeasures, including some that target high-risk pedestrian crossing intersections and corridors. For example, Florida allocated $100 million to lighting improvements in 2,500 priority locations across the state to increase the visibility of pedestrians using the roadway at night. • Adoption of Complete Streets policies, which direct transportation planners and engineers to routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation. • Inclusion of pedestrian safety action items in Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs). Every state is addressing pedestrian safety using a combination of engineering, education and enforcement. Specific SHSO-reported activities are provided in the Appendix. This list does not represent the full spectrum of activities happening across the country. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 25 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA DISCUSSION In recent years, pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. have risen at an alarming and unprecedented rate; • During the 10 -year period 2008-2017 the number of pedestrian fatalities increased by 35 percent, while the number of all other traffic deaths combined decreased by six percent. • GHSA projects 6,227 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes 2018, representing a four percent increase from 2017 and the largest annual number of pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. since 1990. • Pedestrian deaths as a percent of total motor vehicle crash deaths increased from 12 percent in 2008 to 16 percent in both 2016 and 2017. Pedestrians now account for the largest proportion of traffic fatalities in more than 30 years. • The number of states with pedestrian fatality rates >2.0 per 100,000 population more than doubled from seven in 2014 to 15 in both 2016 and 2017. Many factors outside the control of traffic safety officials contribute to the observed year-to-year changes in the number of pedestrian fatalities, including economic conditions, population growth demographic change, weather, fuel prices, the amount of motor vehicle travel, and the amount of time people spend walking. Travel monitoring data published by FHWA indicates that motor vehicle travel on all roads and streets increased by 0.3 percent for the first half of 2018 as compared with the same period in 2017.2 The increase in motor vehicle travel was smaller on non -interstate urban arterials (0.2 percent) and other urban roads (0.1 percent) where most pedestrian fatalities occur. Unfortunately, comparable exposure data for nationwide pedestrian activity is not available. Other factors contributing to the recent rise in the overall number of pedestrian fatalities could include the increasing shift in U.S. vehicle sales away from passenger cars to light trucks (with light trucks generally causing more severe pedestrian impacts than cars), and the large growth in smartphone use (which can be a significant source of distraction for all road users). Figure 18 shows U.S. retail sales (in thousands) of passenger cars and light trucks from 2008-2017, indicating a sharp increase in sales of light trucks accompanied by a decline in sales of passenger cars. Figure 19 shows a correspondingly steady increase in light trucks as a percent of total light vehicle sales. Light trucks — as well as passenger cars — can be made safer by installing automatic emergency braking systems that can detect and brake for pedestrians. This technology uses information from forward-looking sensors to automatically apply or supplement the brakes when the system determines a pedestrian is in imminent danger of being struck. A recent study found that automatic emergency braking technology installed by one vehicle manufacturer was associated with a 35 percent reduction in the rate of likely pedestrian -related insurance claims.3 2 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel monitoring/18juntvt/ 3 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 2018. Subaru crash avoidance system cuts pedestrian crashes Status Report, Vol. 53, No. 3 May 8, 2018 Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel—monitoring/l Sjuntvt/ 26 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Retail Sales (in thousands) of Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, 2008-2017 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,769.2 6,000 k 6,425.6 4,000 2,000 8,744.2 7,943.8 7,245.2 6,649.0 7,586.3 7,708.0 7,51 5,919.1 7,188.0 ,404.1 6 5,635.7 6,092.9 5,000.8 11,055.3 0 6,872.7 \o 6,080.2 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Light Trucks Cars Light Trucks as a Percent of Total U.S. Light Vehicle Sales, 2008-2017 70% 65% 61% 60% 57% 0 0 51% 52% 50% 51% o 50% 40% a W m U 30% E E U 20010 . . . . . . . . E m 10%kqmm� ImImi W— 2 a 0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 N 1 Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Regarding cellphone use, the reported number of smartphones in active use in the U.S. more than quintupled from 2010 to 2017, and the amount of wireless data usage over this period increased by about 4,000 percent (Figures 21 and 22).4 Number of Smartnhones in Active Use 300 250 200 150 273 262 228 208 175 152 112 100 78 50 50 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Annual Wireless Data Traffic (Billions of MB) 18,000 16,000 15,687 14,000 13,719 12,000 10,000 9,650 8,000 6,000 4,000 3,230 4,061 2,000 1,468 388 0 � ■ 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 " Chakravarthy, B.; Anderson, C.L.; Ludlow, J.; Lotfipour, S.; and Vaca, F.E. 2010. The Relationship of Pedestrian Injuries to Socioeconomic Characteristics in a Large Southern California County. Traffic Injury Prevention 11 /5. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 28 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Analysis of data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance data base shows the number of cell -phone -related Emergency Department visits is increasing in parallel with the prevalence of cell phone use in the United States.5 Many of these injuries are sustained while the user is engaged in text messaging rather than conventional telephone conversation, and this trend appears to have contributed to a sharper increase in the number of incidents in recent years. Although the surge in smartphone use coincides with a sharp rise in pedestrian fatalities during the same period, there is a lack of evidence to establish a definitive link. This may be due in part to the inability of police crash investigators to accurately capture momentary distraction caused by smartphones, many of which are mounted on vehicle dashboards and windshields. That pedestrian deaths as a percent of total motor vehicle crash deaths have increased steadily in recent years (from 12 percent to 16 percent) could reflect, in part, the fact that passenger vehicles have become increasingly safer for vehicle occupants through design changes and supplemental safety equipment, thereby decreasing the chance of fatal injuries. Pedestrians, on the other hand, do not benefit from occupant -oriented vehicle crashworthiness improvements, and thus could account for an increasing share of total traffic fatalities. The movement toward equipping more vehicles with automatic braking and pedestrian detection technologies could help reduce pedestrian collisions. The welcome decrease of 15 percent in pedestrian fatalities in the nation's 10 largest cities from 2016 to 2017 might be attributable in part to aggressive traffic safety initiatives such as Vision Zero, which has a principal aim of reducing the number of pedestrian and bicyclists fatalities, with the long- term goal of bringing these numbers to zero. This report provides insights into crash factors documented in FARS that can help inform the efforts of state and local safety officials to reduce pedestrian fatalities. For example: • About 75 percent of pedestrian fatalities occur after dark, and increases in pedestrian fatalities are occurring largely at night. From 2008 to 2017 the number of nighttime pedestrian fatalities increased by 45 percent, compared to a much smaller, 11 percent increase in daytime pedestrian fatalities. The growing prevalence of nighttime pedestrian fatalities suggests a need to prioritize engineering and enforcement countermeasures that can improve safety at night (e.g., improved street lighting, nighttime enforcement patrols). • About 60 percent of pedestrian fatalities occur on local streets and state highways. Challenging crossing locations such as multilane urban arterials often have bus stops or land use patterns that require pedestrians to cross busy roads. Countermeasures such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons, curb extensions, and pedestrian refuge islands can improve pedestrian safety in these environments. • Alcohol impairment is a major factor. An estimated 32 percent of fatal pedestrian crashes involved a pedestrian with a BAC of 0.08 or higher, and an estimated 17 percent of drivers involved in these crashes had a BAC of 0.08 or higher. Pedestrian safety can be addressed by conducting high visibility impaired driving enforcement in areas with robust nighttime pedestrian activity. • The majority of pedestrian fatalities occur at non -intersection locations. Although it is impossible to make all non -intersection locations safe or suitable for pedestrian activity, there are 5 Saltos, A.; Smith, D.; Schreiber, K.; Lichtenstein, S.; and Lichtenstein, R. 2015. Cell -Phone Related Injuries in the United States from 2000-2012Journal of Safety Studies ISSN 2377-3219 2015, Vol. 1, No. 1. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 29 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA opportunities to improve pedestrian safety at midblock locations through speed enforcement and management along with increased street lighting. • Pedestrians struck by a large SUV are twice as likely to die as those struck by car.6 Design changes such as softer vehicle fronts, pedestrian detection systems, and replacing the blunt front ends of light trucks with sloping, more aerodynamic (car -like) designs can reduce the risk of pedestrian deaths in the event of a crash. In the short -run, local efforts to reduce speed limits and speeding in pedestrian zones can help reduce the severity of light truck -pedestrian crashes. As previously mentioned, the number of pedestrian fatalities involving SUVs increased by 50 percent from 2013 to 2017, significantly more than did passenger cars (which continue to be the largest category of vehicles involved in fatal pedestrian crashes). Despite the overall increase in pedestrian deaths, there is some good news in the 2018 preliminary data. Twenty three states saw declines in pedestrian fatalities for the first half of 2018 compared to 2017, with six states reporting double-digit declines and three states reporting consecutive years of declines. Further, the sharp decrease in pedestrian fatalities in some cities suggests progress in urban centers that may not be reflected in state -level data. SHSOs in all 50 states and territories continue to actively engage with their partners to implement a wide range of educational, enforcement and engineering initiatives aimed at reducing the numbers of pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries. Along with critical funding support provided through federal partners, states will continue to focus their efforts on effective countermeasures to reverse the trend of increasing pedestrian fatalities. In addition, some communities have seen a localized rise in pedestrian activism and pedestrian -centered safety planning, such as Vision Zero initiatives and the preparation of pedestrian action plans, while other communities lack this type of coordinated advocacy or planning. The national footprint of pedestrian safety is not uniform, and there are many reasons for differing pedestrian fatality rates among states, including land use patterns, roadway designs, vehicle speeds, population density and demographics. The physical environment in which pedestrians walk has a profound influence on safety outcomes, and roadway design practices have been evolving over time to increasingly accommodate pedestrians, including those with disabilities. There is a significant time lag, however, in achieving roadway design improvements through roadway construction and land development projects. 6 Lefler, D.E. and Gabler, H.C. 2004. The fatality and injury risk of light truck impacts with pedestrians in the United States. Accident Analysis & Prevention Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 295-304. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 30 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Socioeconomic status (SES) — in particular, poverty — is another strong risk factor for pedestrian crashes. For example, Canadian researchers analyzed the influence of SES levels on rates of death from unintentional injury among Canadian children from 1971 to 1998 and found that for each unit change in income quintile, from highest to lowest, the risk of death from pedestrian collisions increased by 13 percent.' A California study found that pedestrian crashes are four times more frequent in poor neighborhoods and that neither age of the population, education, English language fluency, nor population density explained the effect of poverty." Although this pedestrian fatality analysis has focused on statewide data, pedestrian safety problems must also be considered on the local level, in the settings where pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries occur. States along with their local/regional partners should engage in robust data analyses and field assessments to identify high-risk corridors, allocate resources where they are most needed, and implement evidence -based pedestrian safety improvements on a systemic basis. States should also continue to work with local law enforcement partners to address chronic driver violations that contribute to pedestrian crashes such as speeding, impaired driving and distracted driving. Enhancing pedestrian safety is in all of our best interest; almost everyone is a pedestrian at some point in their day, whether just a short walk to the car, one's primary form of transportation or somewhere in between. As fatal pedestrian crashes have come to represent a higher percentage of all traffic deaths, it is clear that this issue needs to be a continued priority for states and their partners in the effort to reach zero fatalities. While improvements to infrastructure are essential, educational campaigns and law enforcement have crucial roles to play in supporting and bolstering pedestrian safety. Together, we can implement proven countermeasures to achieve our shared goals. 7 Birken, C.S.; Parkin, P.C.; To, T.; and Macarthur, C. 2006. Trends in rates of death from unintentional injury among Canadian children in urban areas: influence of socioeconomic status. CMAJ 175(8). " Chakravarthy, B.; Anderson, C.L.; Ludlow, J.; Lotfipour, S.; and Vaca, F.E. 2010. The Relationship of Pedestrian Injuries to Socioeconomic Characteristics in a Large Southern California County. Traffic Injury Prevention 11 /5. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 31 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA APPENDIX: WHAT STATES ARE DOING Every state is addressing pedestrian safety using a combination of engineering, education and enforcement. Specific SHSO-reported activities are provided. This list does not represent the full spectrum of activities happening across the country. Alaska Engineers have adopted internal policies on the use of refuge islands and divided traffic ways when applicable to new road construction. Some jurisdictions have adopted the Complete Streets concept. Arizona Arizona law enforcement agencies concentrate on enforcement, education and awareness when it comes to pedestrian safety, focusing on the habits of the pedestrian and the driver. Pedestrians are reminded to walk on a sidewalk facing traffic, cross at intersections or within crosswalks, be visible at night by wearing light colors, and avoid distractions like cell phone use. Drivers are reminded to look for pedestrians everywhere, always stop for them in crosswalks, never pass vehicles stopped at a crosswalk, and slow down around pedestrians, especially in neighborhoods and school zones. California California has implemented proven countermeasures such as: • Classroom and community group safety presentations; • Positive reinforcement citations for children demonstrating safe pedestrian behavior; • A Safetyville mock city to practice safe behavior; • Walking school bus activities; • Enforcement of safe driving behavior at crosswalks; and • Efforts to educate the community on how to interact with new types of infrastructure. In addition, Section 402 funds were used in Lancaster to purchase utility box wraps with pedestrian safety messaging, as well as for the Southern California Association of Governments to promote community outreach and traditional countermeasures. Colorado The Colorado Highway Safety Office funds two large metro pedestrian enforcement grants and one community education grant. The City and County of Denver has highlighted pedestrian safety in its Vision Zero plan. Connecticut Connecticut introduced the "Watch for Me CT" campaign, which is a statewide educational community outreach campaign that involves media components and community engagement in partnership with CT Children's Medical Center. Section 402 funds were used for the "Watch for Me CT" campaign, law enforcement training and the development of public information and education rack cards. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 32 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA The first non -motorized safety course for law enforcement was held in 2018. A statewide signage project was recently completed to ensure pedestrian signage was up to date with current standards, including near schools and bus stops. On the public information and education front, track cards were developed with CT laws and safe driving tips related to pedestrian safety. Delaware The Delaware Office of Highway Safety partners with enforcement agencies in high crash locations to educate pedestrians and give citations when necessary. Delaware DOT conducts roadway safety audits, performs roadway diets, adds pedestrian lighting and builds sidewalks, among other pedestrian safety measures. Section 402 funds are used for education and enforcement efforts, as well as paid media. District of Columbia DC employed improvements in infrastructure; development and implementation of safety plans (i.e. SHSP, Vision Zero); behavioral safety programs; and technology enhancements that have helped to control the rate of change of pedestrian fatalities. Section 402 funds were used to target outreach to smaller geographic areas by Ward and — even at a lower level — zip code to engage the community and understand their concerns. Florida Florida uses a combination of education, enforcement, engineering and emergency response countermeasures that are data -driven and context -sensitive to improve pedestrian safety. • GIS maps are used to track the coordinated effort and to ensure that all elements work together comprehensively to ensure success. • Behavioral components include enforcement as a first line of education during high visibility enforcement sweeps in areas with higher representation of pedestrian -involved traffic crashes, as well as paid media and grassroots activities to educate the public on traffic laws and provide safety tips and information. • First responders are educated on the most common types of injuries sustained in crashes so they are prepared to provide the best possible response to crash victims. Additional education is provided in the trauma centers during the recovery process to crash victims, their families and friends. • Engineering components include Complete Streets and context -sensitive solutions to ensure that pedestrians have safe and accessible routes. This is overlaid with enforcement advice to engineers on how a pedestrian or motorist may use the selected countermeasure to ensure the state is putting the right elements in the right places based on the context of the community. • Florida allocated $100 million to lighting improvements in 2,500 priority locations across the state to increase the visibility of pedestrians using the roadway at night. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 33 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA • Educational materials are developed based on the context of the community to ensure that all messages resonate with the state's diverse audiences. A new 4 -hour classroom -based law enforcement training class was implemented in 2018, which all officers participating in high visibility pedestrian safety enforcement are required to attend. • Florida engages "brand ambassadors" to share safety messages and shift the safety culture. More than 70 federal, state and local partners, stakeholders and safety advocates on Florida's Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Coalition are committed to reducing fatalities with a goal of zero. Florida uses a variety of funding sources to improve pedestrian safety, including 402 funds. For example, the University of South Florida Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) was the subrecipient of a grant to implement a Florida Bicycle/Pedestrian educational paid media campaign, as well as a grant for facilitation and support of the functions of Florida's Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program and Coalition. Georgia The Georgia Office of Highway Safety has grantees in cities with significant increases in pedestrian fatalities that are working on educational programs. These programs have been focused on areas where there are significant numbers of people who walk as a primary form of transportation. Much of the focus has been on school children. Georgia is also increasing the number of crosswalks with audible directions and countdowns. With regard to Section 402 programs, the City of Macon had one of the highest per capita fatality rates for pedestrians. City leaders including the mayor, council, sheriff and school system have worked on educational programs for all pedestrians. Hawaii Hawaii continued educational presentations to remind drivers and pedestrians about pedestrian safety. The state also used NHTSA funds for pedestrian enforcement efforts focused on drivers and pedestrians. As for infrastructure, Hawaii began installing "gateway" treatments in the Nuuanu area of Oahu, and Hawaii DOT has begun to display traffic safety messages on Dynamic Message Signs on Oahu's highways. Section 402 funds are used for media, educational presentations and pedestrian enforcement. Idaho Idaho funds $2 million per year of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements and educational programs through the Transportation Alternatives Program. The Idaho Office of Highway Safety is working with the Idaho Walk and Bike Alliance to develop PSAs about walking and bicycling in Idaho. Indiana Indiana DOT is addressing pedestrian safety through emphasis on walkways, lighting, and audible signals. Section 402 funds are being used for a pedestrian and bicyclist safety program, and the agency will be implementing a new Stop Arm Violation Enforcement (SAVE) program to help enforcement focus on catching school bus stop arm violators to protect children getting on or off the school bus. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 34 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Kansas Kansas' primary focus has been on education, including small mini -grants to a number of cities. The primary countermeasures have been education efforts, distribution of brochures and creation of radio advertising. Louisiana The Louisiana Highway Safety Commission (LHSC) funds behavioral programs that educate young people on the pedestrian laws and how to be safe when walking. This is accomplished through safety towns, bike rodeos, and one-on-one education. The Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) initiated three new pedestrian and bicycle planning projects in different jurisdictions, kicked off a statewide analysis of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes to identify risk factors and influence countermeasure prioritization, and supported an MPO project that provided safety equipment to schools and shelters along with a data -driven media campaign encouraging "safe streets for everyone." From a broader perspective, DOTD has continued implementing its Complete Streets policy to ensure the safety and infrastructure needs of pedestrians are considered on every project. LHSC has used 402 funds for behavioral projects to educate young people on ways to safely walk and increase their knowledge of Louisiana laws. The educational projects conduct classroom presentations, coordinate safety towns, administer pre- and post-tests to gauge knowledge change, and coordinate community outreach events. Another project utilizing 402 funds works with schools in the greater New Orleans area to develop travel safety plans that include pedestrian and bicycle safety. Students are taught about pedestrian safety through a curriculum and a safety town. Maine The Maine Bureau of Highway Safety, with Maine DOT and designated partners, conducts an extensive and targeted public education program and outreach campaign aimed at pedestrians and motor vehicle safety. Print materials for pedestrians and drivers are distributed to businesses and community centers in locations identified by Maine DOT. Maine uses multiple media venues to promote the "Heads Up! Safety is a Two -Way Street" campaign. Media efforts concentrate in the top 10 community clusters with the highest pedestrian fatality rates. The focus of the media campaign is to educate the walking and motoring public about pedestrian hazards. Targeted enforcement serves to increase compliance with appropriate traffic laws by both pedestrians and motorists. Behavioral pedestrian safety initiatives require improvements in unsafe driver or pedestrian behaviors. Traffic enforcement focuses on the high pedestrian -motor vehicle crash locations across the State of Maine based on the past three years of data. Maine currently has several programs approved in their Highway Safety Plan with 402 funding, including a planned activity for the "Heads Up! Safety is a Two -Way Street" educational and media campaign for pedestrians. It also has High Crash Pedestrian Community Law Enforcement Agencies as well a Targeted Pedestrian -Motor Vehicle Traffic Enforcement program. Massachusetts The Massachusetts Office of Highway Safety developed educational media messaging on pedestrian safety in collaboration with Massachusetts DOT (MassDOT). Additionally, Massachusetts provided funding to 84 local police departments across the state to conduct overtime enforcement patrols Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 35 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA aimed at reducing pedestrian and bicyclist injuries and fatalities. Subrecipients were also allowed to purchase equipment specifically for improving pedestrian and bicycle safety such as traffic cones, crosswalk signs, crosswalk markers and bicycle helmets. On the engineering front, MassDOT performed a safety evaluation of the improvement of 34 signalized intersections throughout the Commonwealth. Intersection improvements included signal equipment and timing upgrades; pedestrian, bicycle and ADA improvements; pavement resurfacing; and signage and pavement marking upgrades. The majority of MassDOT's federally funded projects involve intersection improvements or redesigns to make roads safer for all users (motor vehicle occupants, motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians). Through subrecipient WalkBoston, MassDOT also helped fund an engineering -centric project that worked with six communities with high incidence of pedestrian injuries and fatalities to develop strategies for improving their respective towns' walking environments. Section 402 funds are used for pedestrian and bicycle media, including the initial launch of a "Scan the Street for Wheels and Feet" awareness campaign done in collaboration with MassDOT. Michigan Michigan is implementing a variety of measures to improve pedestrian safety, including law enforcement training and mobilization, public education, Road Safety Audits (RSAs), a Work Zone Mobility Manual featuring guidance on the treatment of pedestrians in work zones, Complete Streets policies and traffic control devices. Over two years, Michigan used Section 402 funds to conduct a comprehensive pedestrian and bicyclist crash evaluation through Western Michigan University. A pedestrian and bicyclist safety statewide conference was held in May 2016, using 402 funds, to share the information and results of the 2016 Michigan Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Evaluation Report. Minnesota Minnesota provided the following examples of pedestrian safety projects: • Evaluation of Sustained Enforcement, Education, and Engineering Measures on Pedestrian Crossings study, HumanFirst Lab, University of Minnesota: The objective of this study is to review the City of St. Paul's effort to improve pedestrian safety and investigate whether a program similar to a NHTSA-supported study could be applied to changing the driving culture related to yielding to pedestrians and speed compliance on arterial and collector roads on a citywide basis. • Enforcing Pedestrian Laws: More than one-fourth of pedestrian deaths occur in Hennepin County, and the majority within the city of Minneapolis. Minnesota crash data show that drivers made errors in judgment approximately half of the time, and the other half, the pedestrian made the error. Aiming to decrease the number of pedestrian fatalities, a grant was written with the Minneapolis Police Department and the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office to conduct HVE and increase the number of citations written to pedestrians and drivers. Missouri Limited applications of traffic calming are being implemented (speed humps, roundabouts, road diets, etc.). Enhanced signing, particularly at mid -block crossings, is frequently used to emphasize pedestrian Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 36 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA crossings. In addition, pedestrian countdown timers and audible pedestrian signals are being used at several signalized intersections. Behavioral solutions are more limited, but public awareness campaigns focused on keeping pedestrians safe have been conducted in St. Louis and Kansas City. Montana Pedestrian fatalities have represented approximately seven percent of all fatalities in Montana during the last five years. Montana's Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan requires that the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) review fatalities on high-risk roads and fatalities and serious injuries per capita among older drivers and pedestrians annually to assess if action is needed. The Roadway Departure and Intersection Crashes emphasis area contains a strategy to "reduce and mitigate intersection crashes through data -driven problem identification and the use of best practices." Under this strategy, MDT has developed an implementation step to construct infrastructure improvements to mitigate intersection -related crashes. Examples include but are not limited to: turn lanes; signal phasing/timing; flashing yellow arrows; retroreflective backplates on signals; sight distance improvements; roundabouts or other intersection control improvements; pedestrian improvements, including improvements at midblock crossings; bicycle improvements; signal coordination and timing improvements; enhanced/improved lighting; or enhanced/improved signing. MDT requires that during any construction project, pedestrian issues are reviewed to determine the best practice for the specific project. Nevada After having a record year in 2017 with 100 pedestrian fatalities statewide, the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety through the Zero Fatalities program launched an aggressive new Pedestrian Safety campaign in May of 2018. Nevada's campaign speaks to drivers and pedestrians, emphasizing the role of both in enhancing safety. The campaign is highly geo-targeted to the most dangerous roads, intersections and behaviors to best reach its audience and is primarily a paid media approach, complemented with public relations safety messages. New Hampshire The New Hampshire Highway Safety Office works directly with its local law enforcement partners to educate, message and enforce pedestrian and bicyclist safety laws on the state's roadways. New Jersey The primary activities being implemented include overtime enforcement and education funding to police departments. Both the State Pedestrian Fund and Section 402 funds are used to pay for overtime enforcement that target high pedestrian crash locations and provide pedestrian safety education materials for delivery to high-risk segments of the pedestrian population. New Mexico New Mexico has created "Look For Me" corridors, high crash risk travel corridors coupled with high frequency transit travel corridors throughout Albuquerque. Road Diets are being studied and implemented in parts of the city. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 37 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA New York The Governor's Traffic Safety Committee (GTSC), the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH), and the NYS Department of Transportation (NYS DOT) are continuing to play key roles in pedestrian safety guided by the New York State Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP). The $110 million initiative identifies 20 "focus communities," which account for nearly 50 percent of all pedestrian crashes. The five-year plan calls for a variety of low-cost engineering improvements undertaken by NYS DOT, enforcement strategies organized by GTSC and educational/public information initiatives spearheaded by NYS DOH. NYS DOT is conducting pedestrian safety site evaluations at approximately 2,000 unsignalized midblock crosswalks and 2,400 signalized crosswalks on state -maintained routes in urban areas. Improvements to crosswalk safety design and construction, consisting of proven countermeasures to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, are also ongoing. GTSC planned, promoted and coordinated two, six -hour pedestrian safety training workshops for law enforcement officers. Officers learned about the state's plan to address pedestrian injuries and fatalities, relevant vehicle and traffic laws, pedestrian crash issues and data. They were also given tools and strategies for the effective implementation of pedestrian education and enforcement countermeasures. GTSC also conducted an annual pedestrian safety enforcement mobilization. GTSC worked with police agencies covering 20 designated PSAP "focus communities" to allocate a portion of their PTS grant to fund additional patrols during the high -visibility blitz, "Operation See! Be Seen!" Grantees were encouraged to issue warnings and educational materials prepared by the NYS DOH to pedestrians and drivers found violating safety laws during the first week of the campaign, and citations during the second week. New York City has its own pedestrian safety initiative known as Vision Zero. Age-appropriate educational and outreach programs are provided at hundreds of schools and senior centers in target communities. Multi -language presentations are provided to parents at health centers, schools and public assistance centers. Outreach to schools includes meetings with principals and school staff and walking tours to identify issues around the locations. New York City's Department of Transportation also staffs street teams to engage with community residents and business owners in high-risk corridors. North Carolina The "Watch for Me NC" program grant supports training for law enforcement related to crosswalk and pedestrian traffic laws. North Dakota North Dakota DOT teamed up with local communities to plan, design and install temporary Active Transportation Demonstration Projects. These temporary demonstration projects help determine the public's desired types of long-term changes for safer streets. These demonstration projects included crosswalk enhancements in which nine communities participated. The projects are designed to make the intersections more pedestrian -friendly while keeping vehicular traffic moving. Engineering measures include new or replaced pedestrian and bicyclist facilities, new bicycle lanes, new or replaced ADA measures, and pedestrian signage. The facilities are placed throughout the state where federal funding was requested and awarded along with local funding matches. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 38 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Law enforcement is also tasked with enforcing pedestrian right-of-way laws when they encounter violations. Ohio Ohio DOT (ODOT) developed materials for a statewide campaign around pedestrian safety in 2018, called "Your Move Ohio." Messages included "Yield to Pedestrians When Turning," "Look Out for Each Other," and "Slow Down, Watch for Pedestrians." The campaign included a statewide advertisement buy, social media page, development of materials for local communities, car magnets and distribution of flashing reflectors across the state. In addition, Ohio DOT and statewide partners are working to emphasize pedestrian safety within the novice Driver's Education Program. Statewide partners are creating supplemental materials on driver education emphasizing laws that keep pedestrians safe. Regarding enforcement, ODOT facilitates a statewide active transportation network for partners and practitioners. Best practices for bicyclist and pedestrian safety are shared, including enforcement strategies. Within the scope of the Safe Routes to School Program, ODOT funds projects to improve student safety, including training and implementation of enforcement activities. At least four communities were awarded projects in 2018 that addressed enforcement in some way. ODOT administers funding that can be used to improve the design of pedestrian facilities. For example, the Safe Routes to School program provides $4 million annually to communities looking to improve the safety for K-8 students to walk or bike to school. The Transportation Alternatives program provided roughly $27 million for projects in 2018, many of which supported bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Highway Safety Improvement Program funds programs focused on improving roadway safety, for which pedestrian projects are eligible. Through Section 402 funding, each Safe Communities program can direct programming based on local problem identification. Butler County, Franklin County and Hamilton County (which represent 28 percent of statewide pedestrian fatalities) have proposed pedestrian activities in their grants to address pedestrian issues. Butler, Franklin and Hamilton County Safe Communities will conduct evidence -based programs that will specifically address their pedestrian problem identification. Oklahoma The Oklahoma Highway Safety Office has supported a pilot project in Tulsa for the last three years to identify means and methods for improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety. This effort involves both enforcement and engineering concepts working together to identify and address the increasing number of pedestrian fatalities. The "Walk This Way" and "Everyone is a Pedestrian" programs have been used in both Tulsa and Oklahoma City, but not to any great extent yet. The DOT sponsors a bicyclist and pedestrian safety committee that makes recommendations for improved engineering assistance in roadway design. Several larger communities have added pavement markings and signage to better indicate bicycles are allowed on the main roadways unless other prohibited. Additionally, the use of a "3 -foot buffer" is encouraged and in some cases mandated by local laws. Oregon The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) re-released its PSA for the "Oregonian Crossing — Every Intersection is a Crosswalk" campaign in theatres and Facebook ads. Oregonian Crossing yard signs were also created and distributed to all regions. The new campaign "Oregonians Standout" was Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 39 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA also released to remind Oregonians to be visible to drivers. The state re-released the "Say What You See" back -to -school pedestrian safety PSA in September. An updated brochure on "What you need to know about Oregon Crosswalk Laws: A Driver's Guide" was created and translated in other languages to be distributed to local Department of Motor Vehicle offices and local police departments. Also, the state created a pocket "Driver's Field Guide to Sharing Oregon's Roads" which is also stocked at DMV offices and used in partnership with the state Driver Education Program. Pedestrian Safety Enforcement (PSE) Operation overtime mini -grants were awarded to 28 local law enforcement agencies to do PSE operations statewide from April to September 2017. Non -funded law enforcement agencies also conducted their own PSE operations throughout the year. In 2014, ODOT developed the Oregon Statewide Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Implementation Plan. Oregon did a crash- and risk-based analysis with practitioners statewide to develop a list of systemic mitigation measures being implemented with HSIP funds. For 2017 statewide, ODOT continued to implement improved pedestrian crossings, including: installation of Rapid Flashing Beacons and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, using Leading Pedestrian Intervals, and upgrading and installing accessible pedestrian push buttons, sidewalks and curb ramps. ODOT has made it common practice to use advanced stop bars at signalized intersections as a pedestrian/bicyclist safety measure. Also, House Bill 2017 (Keep Oregon Moving) passed, approving funding of multiple transportation projects to include statewide pedestrian safety improvement and Safe Routes to School infrastructure in the coming years. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania law enforcement conduct targeted enforcement stings for motorists who fail to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) website has a number of safety videos targeted at parents and children that are focused on walking safely to school. Packages of pedestrian safety cards have been distributed at numerous events. The state's district press and safety officers execute a range of other activities in support of pedestrian safety. From an engineering perspective, the state is focused on being more aggressive with road diets, bulb -outs, speed tables and raised intersections. Rhode Island Rhode Island has created a law enforcement pedestrian safety training, which all agencies requesting funding for pedestrian projects are required to attend. The training offers best practices, data and a review of pedestrian statutes and policies. A training course is also available for businesses and their employees, which offers some of the same information and data. Infrastructure measures include road diets and statewide mitigation programs focused on curves, signalized intersections and high-risk crosswalks. South Carolina The Office of Highway Safety and Justice Programs partnered with the South Carolina Highway Patrol to specifically target pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues through the Target Zero umbrella campaign. The Highway Patrol utilizes multiple avenues in its effort to educate the public about highway safety issues related to pedestrians, bicyclists and mopeds. Community Relations Officers give approximately 700 safety presentations a year, attend hundreds of safety fairs and give thousands of interviews on various topics, including the topic of vulnerable roadway users. Section 402 funds were used for a billboard campaign to supplement the Vulnerable Roadway Users (VRU) outreach efforts that had been used in the past. A sustained, redesigned VRU campaign is planned for spring 2019. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 40 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Texas The state is conducting educational, training, outreach, research and engineering measures to address pedestrian safety. Some engineering efforts include: 1) safer places to walk along a roadway such as complete sidewalk networks; 2) safer places to cross a roadway such as intersection improvements including pedestrian signals, detection and crosswalks; and 3) Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons for mid -block crosswalks. Section 402 funds are used to support the following projects: • Pedestrian and bicyclist outreach • Early child safety education focusing on pedestrians/bicyclists aged 5-10 years old • Statewide pedestrian and motorist outreach and support to address pedestrian safety Utah Utah placed messaging on sidewalks and near public transportation informing people about pedestrian myths such as "pedestrians always have the right of way." They have also coordinated crosswalk enforcement mobilizations and encouraged each police department to reach out to their local media for coverage. Each of these mobilizations has been coupled with straightforward social media posts explaining laws. Utah is currently conducting a pilot study on advanced crosswalk signal timing giving pedestrians extra time to get out into the crosswalk while the lights are all red. Utah has used 402 funds for local health departments to provide outreach by helping their communities with Green Ribbon Month and Walk to School days. As part of these projects, departments are also required to conduct pedestrian observational surveys to better understand behaviors in the communities they serve. The state also funded enforcement for school bus safety with officers riding on buses calling out vehicles who violate the red stop arm. Vermont Vermont efforts to reduce pedestrian crashes emphasize speed enforcement, lighting and markings of crosswalks, and safety education. Virginia In Virginia, the localities that receive highway safety funding to raise awareness of and enforce pedestrian safety laws include Arlington County, Fairfax County, Prince William County, Richmond City, Roanoke City, Salem City and Harrisonburg City. Additionally, Virginia's "Street Smart Regional Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program" focuses on promoting pedestrian and bicyclist safety and includes similar strategic enforcement engagements around the metropolitan Washington region. This public awareness and enforcement campaign aims at reducing the number of pedestrian and cyclist injuries and deaths in the Washington metropolitan area (including Northern Virginia). The campaign uses creative radio and television advertising in English and Spanish to reach drivers, pedestrians and cyclists, while targeting them through outdoor and transit advertising on bus shelters and bus sides. In addition, law enforcement and local, county and state agencies distribute handouts and tip cards to further spread awareness and educate drivers and pedestrians. Virginia also has several selective enforcement programs to address pedestrian safety. Section 402 funds support Working Towards Zero Pedestrian Deaths, including Street Smart Metro Washington, Share Virginia Roadways and selective enforcement. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 41 Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2018 PRELIMINARY DATA Washington State Many cities are implementing design features on roadways to enhance pedestrian safety, such as curb bulb -outs, protected left turn lanes, pedestrian crossing intervals for crosswalks and various traffic calming measures to slow drivers down. The Washington Traffic Safety Commission supports several pilot projects on high visibility enforcement that couple public education and outreach with enforcement targeted to locations with histories of pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries. The Washington State Legislature created a Pedestrian Safety Advisory Council (PSAC) to study the common causes of pedestrian crashes, which often center on the speed the driver was going and whether the driver or pedestrian were paying attention. The 2018 PSAC report was just submitted and it supports increased used of automated speed enforcement, increased data collection and analysis and strengthening and clarifying the state's vulnerable user law. Section 402 funds are used to support several pilot projects working on high visibility enforcement, coupling public education and outreach with enforcement targeted to locations with histories of pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries. Wisconsin The Bureau of Transportation Safety (BOTS) hosted two Designing for Pedestrian Safety classes in Wisconsin, instructed by FHWA staff. This course provided resources and knowledge about behavioral and infrastructural design to engineers and planners to help increase pedestrian safety. Each course was held over two days, with 20 participants in each course. BOTS also held three Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Law Enforcement Trainings. The training is specifically designed to support law enforcement when addressing and enforcing pedestrian and bicycle safety. In the summer of 2018, BOTS provided the Wisconsin Bike Federation a grant to increase pedestrian safety in Milwaukee, which has the highest rate of pedestrian crashes and fatalities in the state. The goal was to create strategic marketing and advertising that would advance safety messages to the forefront of motorists' and pedestrians' knowledge. BOTS provided four Pedestrian/Bicycle High Visibility Enforcement Grants. This grant program reimbursed officers for overtime while conducting high visibility enforcement to reduce bicyclist and pedestrian crashes and fatalities. Each agency agreed to participate at a minimum of one HVE per week for three months. This minimum was identified from evidence -based, peer-reviewed research. In addition, all agencies were required to participate in the Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Law Enforcement Trainings that the Bureau conducted. Spotlight on Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association I ghsa.org I @GHSAHQ 42 Item Number: 12. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Memo from Public Works Director: Pothole Repair ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from Public Works Director: Pothole Repair � r 4km���t CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: April 18, 2019 To: Geoff Fruin - City Manager From: Ronald Knoche - Public Works Director Re: Pothole Repair Introduction: At the March 13, 2019 City Council meeting, Council members requested information on the Streets Division efforts on pothole repairs. This memo provides information on general pothole education, the various ways pothole repairs are completed, and a preview to the upcoming pavement management study. History/Background: Potholes are most commonly caused by moisture infiltrating into or underneath the pavement. This could include getting under a hot mix asphalt overlay, getting into cracks in the pavement surface or saturating the base material. During the late winter and early spring, the moisture within the pavement experiences freeze and thaw cycles which cause the hot mix asphalt and portland cement concrete materials to shift, buckle and fracture. Vehicles traveling over these weakened areas dislodge the pavement material which results in potholes. Potholes will also occur in previously patched pavements where activities such as snow removal dislodges old patches. Discussion of Solutions: Street Division staff are continually looking for potholes as a part of their normal maintenance operations. We also rely on the public reporting locations of potholes and many times the same potholes are being reported by multiple people, so our Streets Division staff prioritizes potholes by street classification. We continue to respond to pothole reports throughout the year. The repair process for a pothole will depend on the time of year. During December through April, repairs are made with cold mix asphalt or spray injection patch. The spray injection patch applies a tack coat and then coats an aggregate with asphalt emulsion while placing it in the pothole. This material is then compacted into place. The cold mix asphalt material does not tend to be a long-term repair. During May through November, hot mix asphalt is available and is used to repair potholes. In cases where potholes need additional attention to create a better long-term repair, hot mix asphalt is used, and the repairs are made in better weather conditions. When the pavement conditions make pothole repair ineffective, the Streets Division will identify those areas for panel replacement by Staff or through the Streets Rehabilitation Capital Project. Due to the number of potholes this year, the Streets Division has adjusted staffing to allow for two patching crews. This required advancing the purchase of a compacting roller which was approved in the 2020 budget. This will allow the Streets Division to get through the first round of potholing patching more effectively and efficiently. The local supplier has indicated hot mix asphalt will be available starting April 22. Financial Impact: The repairs and maintenance completed by the Streets Division are funded through the Streets Division Operating budget. The repairs and maintenance completed through the Pavement Rehabilitation Program are funded through the Capital Improvements Program. The Streets Division Operating budget and the Pavement Rehabilitation Program are primarily funded with Road Use Tax Funds. Recommendation: The City must do a better job of long-term planning for our pavement maintenance program. The City Council and the Public Works Department has advocated for the development of a Pavement Management Plan. The City is currently negotiating a consulting engineering contract to develop this master plan. At a minimum, this plan will address: • Evaluation of existing street condition using available data • Prioritization of future (short-term and long-term) repair and reconstruction projects • Development of a five-year project plan for inclusion in the City's CIP. • Estimation of required resources (annually) to maintain the current average street condition within the City • Estimation of required resources (annually) to improve the current average street condition within the City to a desired level and maintain it • Recommendations for improvements to the pavement management program and the City's overall design standards Item Number: 13. �r CITY OE IOWA CITY www.iogov.org April 18, 2019 Memo from Budget & Compliance Officer: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending March 31, 2019 ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from Budget & Compliance Officer: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending March 31, 2019 r '2�.® CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: April 10, 2019 To: City Manager, City Council From: Jacklyn Fleagle, Budget & Compliance Officer Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending March 31, 2019 Introduction Attached to this memorandum are the City's quarterly financial reports as of March 31, 2019. The quarterly financial report includes combined summaries of all fund balances, revenues, and expenditures for Fiscal Year 2019 through the end of the third quarter, which is 75% of the way through the fiscal year. The March quarterly report also incorporates the budget amendments that were approved during the Fiscal Year 2020 budget process. Some of the highlights of the City's financial activity are discussed below. Revenue Analysis This revenue analysis pertains to the revenue reports, Revenues by Fund and Revenues by Type, on pages 4-6. In these two reports, the actual revenues would ideally be near 75% of budget since we have completed three-fourths of the fiscal year; however, due to accruals and timing differences, many of these percentages may be above or below 75%. Funds with budget anomalies on page 4 worth noting; the Risk Management fund has actual revenues at 100.6% due to the timing of the entries made for loss reserve payments to intra -city charges The CDBG Fund and Home Fund revenues are at 35.6% and 47.4°/x, respectively. These funds' revenues are below budget primarily due to the timing of the grant activity. These percentages could change quickly depending on when the Federal funds are received. The Transit fund has actual revenues at 47.7% due to the timing of receipt for the federal operating grant. Finally, the Governmental Projects fund has revenues at only 3.8% of budget due to the timing of the Bond issuance. This fund should come up closer to budget after the bond sale this spring. On page 5, a few examples of revenues that are below the 75% mark include property tax revenue which is at 57.3% of budget and reflects the timing of the property tax receipts. The second half property taxes are due in April and should increase this percentage substantially. Other revenues affected by the timing of property tax receipts include TIF Revenues which are at 54.3% and Property Tax Credits which are at 45.3% of budget. Under Charges for Fees & Services, Building & Development fees are at 113.4% of budget and Police Services is at 215.3% of budget on page 5. Building & Development fees includes construction from last summer and fall and is a good indicator of the amount of construction activity underway. Police Services is at 215.3% of budget due to additional hours the University of Iowa has been contracting for during this fiscal year. In addition, under Intergovernmental on page 5, State 28E Agreements are at 116.1% of budget primarily due to the timing of the receipt of the Fire Contract with the University of Iowa. Other State Grants are at 16.6% of budget due to the timing of receipts of grants for major road projects. Local 28E Agreements are at 19.5% of budget primarily due to the $4,000,000 budgeted from other local governments for the County Behavioral Access Center. Finally, on page 6, under Other Financing Sources, Debt Sales revenue is at 0% of budget. We are currently preparing to sell the 2019 general obligation bonds which will bring this revenue source up to 100% of budget. As of March 31, the combined total actual revenue for all budgetary funds is $100,363,933 or 55.5% of budget. Overall, the City's revenues are not substantially different than projected, and the anomalies and budget variances can be explained. Expenditure Analysis This expenditure analysis pertains to the expenditure reports, Expenditures by Fund and Expenditures by Fund by Department on pages 7-9. The analysis of the City's expenditures for Fiscal Year 2019 through March is similar to the analysis for the City's revenues. We generally expect the actual expenditure levels to be around 75% of budget at this time of year. Some funds have expenditure activity through the third quarter that differs significantly from the 75% mark. The following funds have a significant expenditure variance above or below 75%: • CDBG Fund and HOME Fund expenditures are at 43.0% and 52.6%, respectively, due to the timing of the payout of loans and grants to applicants. • Debt Service Fund expenditures are at 33.7%, because the general obligation bond principal payments are not due until June 1. • The Airport Fund expenditures are at 87.5% of budget due to an increase in liability insurance and furniture purchases. • Governmental Projects expenditures are at 28.5% and Enterprise Projects expenditures are at 24.2% because many of the capital projects are scheduled for construction this spring. Overall, the combined total actual expenditures for all budgetary funds through March are $121,164,910 or 50.3% of budget. The City's expenditures through the third quarter have a few major anomalies; however, these can be readily explained. Conclusion Generally, there are no major concerns to report with the City's fund balances at the end of March. One fund, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund, is presented (on page 3) with negative fund balance at -$77,027. This negative fund balance should be reversed following the next receipt of CDBG funds. The other fund balances appear to be near expectations. Additional information is available from the Finance Department upon request. City of Iowa City Fund Summary Fiscal Year 2019 through March 31, 2019 Debt Service Fund Beginning Ending Restricted, Unassigned 5*** Debt Service Fund Year -to -Date Transfers Year -to -Date Transfers Fund Committed, Fund Enterprise Funds Balance Revenues In Expenditures Out Balance Assigned Balance Budgetary Funds 12,222,373 4,609,809 825,616 2,766,746 1,374,359 13,516,693 6,087,645 7,429,048 General Fund 6,159,101 2,157,201 2,683,600 5,138,647 235,099 5,626,156 777,476 4,848,680 10** General Fund $ 36,401,765 $ 34,963,712 $ 8,019,698 $ 40,537,492 $ 4,356,049 $ 34,491,634 $ 6,867,798 $ 27,623,837 Special Revenue Funds 11,938,239 6,981,839 1,370,065 6,399,741 2,506,694 11,383,707 3,177,571 8,206,136 2100 Community Dev Block Grant (25,935) 433,592 2,700 391,037 96,348 (77,027) - (77,027) 2110 HOME 191,819 479,783 - 538,386 83,795 49,420 - 49,420 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 3,893,384 6,336,074 338,660 4,835,109 2,578,505 3,154,503 - 3,154,503 2300 Other Shared Revenue 3,968 3,279 878 4,773 - 2,474 - 2,474 2350 Metro Planning Org of J.C. 262,063 231,401 249,771 444,317 - 298,918 - 298,918 2400 Employee Benefits 2,847,078 7,463,463 - 659,094 8,208,182 1,443,266 - 1,443,266 2500 Affordable Housing Fund 1,208,851 411,707 - 830,000 - 790,558 - 790,558 2510 Peninsula Apartments 166,019 51,751 - 35,201 - 182,569 - 182,569 26** Tax Increment Financing 1,525,592 1,440,457 144,426 96,644 - 3,013,832 898,253 2,115,579 2820 SSMID-Downtown District 212,642 204,699 - 7,943 - 7,943 Debt Service Fund 5*** Debt Service 8,135,315 7,292,688 - 4,655,678 - 10,772,325 1,357,180 9,415,144 Enterprise Funds 710* Parking 12,222,373 4,609,809 825,616 2,766,746 1,374,359 13,516,693 6,087,645 7,429,048 715* Mass Transit 6,159,101 2,157,201 2,683,600 5,138,647 235,099 5,626,156 777,476 4,848,680 720* Wastewater 20,759,108 9,048,339 2,198,714 11,106,146 3,855,961 17,044,054 5,512,693 11,531,362 730* Water 11,938,239 6,981,839 1,370,065 6,399,741 2,506,694 11,383,707 3,177,571 8,206,136 7400 Refuse Collection 1,281,369 2,540,057 4,656 2,480,829 - 1,345,254 - 1,345,254 750* Landfill 26,940,545 4,799,110 1,240,402 4,547,152 1,776,666 26,656,239 24,233,039 2,423,200 7600 Airport 216,770 256,023 75,000 312,550 43,264 191,979 100,000 91,979 7700 Storm Water 795,950 1,087,069 878 318,439 949,000 616,458 - 616,458 79** Housing Authority 7,017,559 7,594,114 83,795 8,086,299 35,962 6,573,207 3,222,767 3,350,440 Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 41,854,944 1,022,815 6,098,629 23,125,561 - 25,850,827 - 25,850,827 Enterprise Projects 9,623,259 947,006 3,166,214 3,650,370 - 10,086,110 - 10,086,110 Total Budgetary Funds $ 193,419,135 $ 100,363,933 $26,502,824 $ 121,164,910 $26,099,883 $173,021,100 $ 52,234,421 $ 120,786,678 Non-Buduetary Funds Internal Service Funds 810* Equipment $ 13,604,405 $ 5,311,124 $ $ 4,019,254 $ 123,200 $ 14,773,075 $ 13,264,227 $ 1,508,848 8200 Risk Management 3,563,234 1,605,960 1,096,500 - 4,072,695 - 4,072,695 830* Information Technology 2,799,530 1,988,892 1,359,911 179,741 3,248,770 370,613 2,878,158 8400 Central Services 725,692 180,135 121,164 100,000 684,663 - 684,663 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 11,374,744 6,537,624 6,827,123 - 11,085,245 7,589,740 3,495,505 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 190,915 307,086 239,338 - 258,663 - 258,663 Total Non -Budgetary Funds $ 32,258,521 $ 15,930,821 $ $ 13,663,290 $ 402,941 $ 34,123,111 $ 21,224,580 $ 12,898,531 Total All Funds $ 225,677,656 $ 116,294,754 $26,502,824 $ 134,828,200 $26,502,824 $207,144,210 $ 73,459,001 $ 133,685,209 3 City of Iowa City Revenues by Fund Fiscal Year 2019 through March 31, 2019 4 2018 2019 2019 2019 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budgetary Fund Revenues General Fund 10** General Fund $ 51,880,377 $ 53,148,922 $ 55,053,255 $ 34,963,712 $ (20,089,544) 63.5% Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant 658,178 906,507 1,218,413 433,592 (784,821) 35.6% 2110 HOME 666,926 534,166 1,012,382 479,783 (532,599) 47.4% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 8,539,943 8,744,810 8,744,810 6,336,074 (2,408,736) 72.5% 2300 Other Shared Revenue 270,089 - 48,260 3,279 (44,981) 6.8% 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co 320,459 365,748 365,748 231,401 (134,347) 63.3% 2400 Employee Benefits 11,668,231 12,908,880 12,908,880 7,463,463 (5,445,417) 57.8% 2500 Affordable Housing Fund 415,749 - 404,360 411,707 7,347 101.8% 2510 Peninsula Apartments 73,278 77,510 77,510 51,751 (25,759) 66.8% 26** Tax Increment Financing 2,473,728 2,631,772 2,631,772 1,440,457 (1,191,315) 54.7% 2820SSMID-Downtown District 354,385 400,124 400,124 212,642 (187,482) 53.1% Debt Service Fund 5*** Debt Service 13,288,394 12,611,282 12,611,282 7,292,688 (5,318,594) 57.8% Enterprise Funds 710* Parking 8,486,558 6,003,966 6,003,966 4,609,809 (1,394,157) 76.8% 715* Mass Transit 8,276,309 4,524,070 4,524,070 2,157,201 (2,366,869) 47.7% 720* Wastewater 13,115,285 12,636,588 12,636,588 9,048,339 (3,588,249) 71.6% 730* Water 9,827,060 9,856,522 9,856,522 6,981,839 (2,874,683) 70.8% 7400 Refuse Collection 3,521,446 3,490,210 3,490,210 2,540,057 (950,153) 72.8% 750* Landfill 7,028,785 6,929,796 7,019,796 4,799,110 (2,220,686) 68.4% 7600 Airport 385,582 361,500 361,500 256,023 (105,477) 70.8% 7700 Storm Water 1,589,311 1,529,350 1,529,350 1,087,069 (442,281) 71.1% 79** Housing Authority 9,620,510 8,921,473 9,511,135 7,594,114 (1,917,021) 79.8% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 12,981,814 14,023,000 26,801,555 1,022,815 (25,778,740) 3.8% Enterprise Projects 1,919,909 3,056,708 3,620,817 947,006 (2,673,811) 26.2% Total Budgetary Revenues $ 167,362,305 $ 163,662,904 $180,832,305 $ 100,363,933 $ (80,468,372) 55.5% Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues Internal Service Funds 810* Equipment $ 6,910,467 $ 6,559,773 $ 6,619,773 $ 5,311,124 $ (1,308,649) 80.2% 8200 Risk Management 1,707,274 1,596,490 1,596,490 1,605,960 9,470 100.6% 830* Information Technology 2,294,690 2,348,876 2,348,876 1,988,892 (359,984) 84.7% 8400 Central Services 228,890 213,912 213,912 180,135 (33,777) 84.2% 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 8,401,738 8,700,966 8,700,966 6,537,624 (2,163,342) 75.1% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 407,695 424,330 424,330 307,086 (117,244) 72.4% Total Non -Budgetary Revenues $ 19,950,754 $ 19,844,347 $ 19,904,347 $ 15,930,821 $ (3,973,526) 80.0% Total Revenues - All Funds $ 187,313,059 $ 183,507,251 $ 200,736,652 $ 116,294,754 $ (84,441,898) 57.9% 4 City of Iowa City Revenues by Type Fiscal Year 2019 through March 31, 2019 Charges For Fees And Services: 2018 2019 2019 2019 Building & Development Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Bud-getary Fund Revenues 127,496 56,530 56,530 121,708 65,178 215.3% Property Taxes $ 56,525,799 $ 59,173,825 $ 59,173,825 $ 33,889,408 $ (25,284,417) 57.3% Other City Taxes: 7,632 10,370 10,370 7,080 (3,290) 68.3% TIF Revenues 2,459,216 2,621,772 2,621,772 1,423,654 (1,198,118) 54.3% Gas/Electric Excise Taxes 684,299 676,411 676,411 334,015 (342,396) 49.4% Mobile Home Taxes 61,182 65,150 65,150 40,339 (24,811) 61.9% Hotel/Motel Taxes 1,045,696 1,251,720 1,251,720 691,413 (560,307) 55.2% Utility Franchise Tax 976,060 939,400 939,400 507,605 (431,795) 54.0% Subtotal 5,226,452 5,554,453 5,554,453 2,997,026 (2,557,427) 54.0% Licenses, Permits, & Fees: 5,933,293 6,168,980 6,168,980 4,080,233 (2,088,747) 66.1% General Use Permits 71,654 100,920 100,920 43,766 (57,155) 43.4% Food & Liquor Licenses 110,377 111,440 111,440 86,478 (24,962) 77.6% Professional License 7,605 12,020 12,020 4,725 (7,295) 39.3% Franchise Fees 662,448 512,750 512,750 296,405 (216,345) 57.8% Construction Permits & Insp Fees 1,850,539 1,777,650 1,777,650 1,481,696 (295,954) 83.4% Misc Lic & Permits 40,881 38,680 38,680 42,217 3,537 109.1% Subtotal 2,743,504 2,553,460 2,553,460 1,955,287 (598,173) 76.6% Intergovernmental: 890,423 369,620 768,950 295,119 (473,831) 38.4% Fed Intergovernment Revenue 13,152,242 11,664,896 15,373,782 8,210,912 (7,162,870) 53.4% Property Tax Credits 1,554,683 1,727,320 1,727,320 783,198 (944,122) 45.3% Road Use Tax 8,426,502 8,672,280 8,672,280 6,221,888 (2,450,392) 71.7% State 28E Agreements 2,003,939 1,724,430 1,774,430 2,060,750 286,320 116.1% Operating Grants 73,825 82,690 82,690 69,584 (13,106) 84.2% Disaster Assistance 110,085 - - - - 0.0% Other State Grants 5,483,837 3,094,020 9,131,736 1,518,909 (7,612,827) 16.6% Local 28E Agreements 1,151,557 5,182,453 5,182,453 1,010,919 (4,171,534) 19.5% Subtotal 31,956,672 32,148,089 41,944,691 19,876,160 (22,068,531) 47.4% Charges For Fees And Services: Building & Development 908,376 411,120 888,930 1,007,791 118,861 113.4% Police Services 127,496 56,530 56,530 121,708 65,178 215.3% Animal Care Services 10,775 11,540 11,540 9,754 (1,787) 84.5% Fire Services 7,632 10,370 10,370 7,080 (3,290) 68.3% Transit Fees 1,226,643 1,261,820 1,261,820 850,429 (411,391) 67.4% Culture & Recreation 774,778 790,848 790,848 439,640 (351,208) 55.6% Misc Charges For Services 69,449 79,217 79,217 52,654 (26,563) 66.5% Water Charges 9,475,186 9,743,172 9,743,172 6,748,714 (2,994,458) 69.3% Wastewater Charges 12,621,036 12,276,650 12,276,650 8,849,185 (3,427,465) 72.1% Refuse Charges 4,010,218 3,909,630 3,909,630 2,782,350 (1,127,280) 71.2% Landfill Charges 5,933,293 6,168,980 6,168,980 4,080,233 (2,088,747) 66.1% Storm Water Charges 1,551,384 1,522,290 1,522,290 1,079,492 (442,798) 70.9% Parking Charges 6,331,040 6,477,470 6,477,470 5,045,084 (1,432,386) 77.9% Subtotal 43,047,304 42,719,637 43,197,447 31,074,112 (12,123,335) 71.9% Miscellaneous: Code Enforcement 232,315 222,633 222,633 171,334 (51,299) 77.0% Parking Fines 475,356 578,720 578,720 419,343 (159,377) 72.5% Library Fines & Fees 143,285 154,420 154,420 102,149 (52,271) 66.2% Contributions & Donations 890,423 369,620 768,950 295,119 (473,831) 38.4% Printed Materials 42,374 41,900 41,900 40,389 (1,511) 96.4% Animal Adoption 12,955 12,020 12,020 35,940 23,920 299.0% Misc Merchandise 55,901 54,770 54,770 49,256 (5,514) 89.9% Intra -City Charges 3,962,198 4,277,635 4,277,635 3,229,225 (1,048,410) 75.5% Other Mise Revenue 908,993 933,261 1,168,897 469,868 (699,029) 40.2% Special Assessments 808 1,090 1,090 48 (1,042) 4.4% Subtotal $ 6,724,608 $ 6,646,069 $ 7,281,035 $ 4,812,671 $ (2,468,364) 66.1% 5 City of Iowa City Revenues by Type Fiscal Year 2019 through March 31, 2019 6 2018 2019 2019 2019 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Use Of Money And Property: Interest Revenues $ 2,879,005 $ 1,071,871 $ 1,071,872 $ 1,822,108 $ 750,236 170.0% Rents 1,385,468 1,367,800 1,367,800 960,262 (407,538) 70.2% Royalties & Commissions 108,843 136,080 136,080 70,691 (65,389) 51.9% Subtotal 4,373,315 2,575,751 2,575,752 2,853,061 277,309 110.8% Other Financial Sources: Debt Sales 12,174,462 10,623,000 14,162,000 - (14,162,000) 0.0% Sale Of Assets 3,633,506 703,393 2,920,018 1,339,752 (1,580,266) 45.9% Insurance Recoveries - - 316,898 279,874 (37,024) 0.0% Loans 956,682 965,226 1,152,726 1,286,582 133,856 111.6% Subtotal 16,764,651 12,291,619 18,551,642 2,906,207 (15,645,435) 15.7% Total Budgetary Revenues $ 167,362,305 $ 163,662,903 $ 180,832,305 $ 100,363,933 (80,468,372) 55.5% Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues Internal Service Funds $ 19,950,754 $ 19,844,347 $ 19,904,347 $ 15,930,821 $ (3,973,526) 80.0% Total Non -Budgetary Revenues $ 19,950,754 $ 19,844,347 $ 19,904,347 $ 15,930,821 $ (3,973,526) 80.0% Total Revenues - All Funds $ 187,313,059 $ 183,507,250 $ 200,736,652 $ 116,294,754 $ (84,441,898) 57.9% 6 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund Fiscal Year 2019 through March 31, 2019 Debt Service Fund 2018 2019 2019 2019 5*** Debt Service Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budgetary Fund Expenditures General Fund 15,738,755 13,284,732 13,284,732 11,106,146 2,178,586 83.6% 10** General Fund $ 52,714,597 $ 58,159,421 $ 60,388,797 $ 40,537,492 $ 19,851,305 67.1% Special Revenue Funds 3,106,776 3,433,507 3,498,007 2,480,829 1,017,178 70.9% 2100 Community Dev Block Grant 592,163 596,507 908,413 391,037 517,376 43.0% 2110 HOME 558,825 546,166 1,024,382 538,386 485,996 52.6% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 6,059,424 6,165,809 6,432,985 4,835,109 1,597,876 75.2% 2300 Other Shared Revenue 333,421 - 48,260 4,773 43,487 9.9% 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co. 591,338 708,554 708,554 444,317 264,237 62.7% 2400 Employee Benefits 967,457 1,283,417 1,283,417 659,094 624,323 51.4% 2500 Affordable Housing Fund 325,000 750,000 1,000,000 830,000 170,000 83.0% 2510 Peninsula Apartments 50,641 59,878 61,118 35,201 25,917 57.6% 26** Tax Increment Financing 392,130 505,193 620,193 96,644 523,549 15.6% 2820 SSMID-Downtown District 354,385 400,124 400,124 204,699 195,425 51.2% Debt Service Fund 5*** Debt Service 13,469,600 13,722,450 13,806,387 4,655,678 9,150,709 33.7% Enterprise Funds 720* Wastewater 15,738,755 13,284,732 13,284,732 11,106,146 2,178,586 83.6% 730* Water 14,382,141 8,388,774 8,440,774 6,399,741 2,041,033 75.8% 7400 Refuse Collection 3,106,776 3,433,507 3,498,007 2,480,829 1,017,178 70.9% 750* Landfill 4,940,648 5,035,196 6,078,392 4,547,152 1,531,240 74.8% 7600 Airport 468,122 357,309 357,309 312,550 44,759 87.5% 7700 Storm Water 497,954 537,865 537,865 318,439 219,426 59.2% 79** Housing Authority 9,342,128 10,952,156 11,429,619 8,086,299 3,343,320 70.7% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 32,499,396 23,580,970 81,247,520 23,125,561 58,121,959 28.5% Enterprise Projects 9,353,681 5,040,308 15,088,368 3,650,370 11,437,998 24.2% Total Budgetary Expenditures $ 185,175,387 $ 167,570,307 $240,741,756 $ 121,164,910 $119,576,846 50.3% Non -Budgetary Funds Expenditures Internal Service Funds 810* Equipment $ 5,041,436 $ 4,468,094 $ 6,263,801 $ 4,019,254 $ 2,244,547 64.2% 8200 Risk Management 1,947,564 1,440,328 1,440,328 1,096,500 343,828 76.1% 830* Information Technology 2,034,623 2,160,935 2,160,935 1,359,911 801,024 62.9% 8400 Central Services 188,468 193,387 193,387 121,164 72,223 62.7% 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 7,848,190 8,381,923 8,381,923 6,827,123 1,554,800 81.5% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 364,128 409,442 409,442 239,338 170,104 58.5% Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures $ 17,424,410 $ 17,054,109 $ 18,849,816 $ 13,663,290 $ 5,186,526 72.5% Total Expenditures - All Funds $ 202,599,797 $ 184,624,416 $259,591,572 $ 134,828,200 $124,763,372 51.9% 7 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund by Department Fiscal Year 2019 through March 31, 2019 2018 2019 2019 2019 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budgetary Funds Expenditures General Fund 10** General Fund City Council $ 109,461 $ 120,391 $ 120,391 $ 87,672 $ 32,719 72.8% City Clerk 491,517 533,577 570,242 404,115 166,127 70.9% City Attorney 765,417 780,796 780,796 559,383 221,413 71.6% City Manager 3,056,803 4,248,266 4,378,266 2,730,343 1,647,923 62.4% Finance 3,805,542 4,345,045 4,840,145 3,149,134 1,691,011 65.1% Police 13,809,546 14,419,896 14,846,648 10,327,869 4,518,779 69.6% Fire 8,030,716 8,262,751 8,278,849 6,105,054 2,173,795 73.7% Parks & Recreation 7,993,287 8,826,119 8,891,119 5,733,005 3,158,114 64.5% Library 6,400,495 6,671,933 6,677,933 4,659,602 2,018,331 69.8% Senior Center 888,544 974,355 986,855 607,247 379,608 61.5% Neighborhood & Development Services 4,965,448 5,824,548 6,865,809 4,207,446 2,658,363 61.3% Public Works 1,909,621 2,554,182 2,554,182 1,527,655 1,026,527 59.8% Transportation & Resource Management 488,203 597,562 597,562 438,966 158,596 73.5% Total General Fund 52,714,597 58,159,421 60,388,797 40,537,492 19,851,305 67.1% Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant Neighborhood & Development Services 592,163 596,507 908,413 391,037 517,376 43.0% 2110 HOME Neighborhood & Development Services 558,825 546,166 1,024,382 538,386 485,996 52.6% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund Public Works 6,059,424 6,165,809 6,432,985 4,835,109 1,597,876 75.2% 2300 Other Shared Revenue Neighborhood & Development Services 333,421 - 48,260 4,773 43,487 9.9% 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co Neighborhood & Development Services 591,338 708,554 708,554 444,317 264,237 62.7% 2400 Employee Benefits Finance 967,457 1,283,417 1,283,417 659,094 624,323 51.4% 2500 Affordable Housing Fund Neighborhood & Development Services 325,000 750,000 1,000,000 830,000 170,000 83.0% 2510 Peninsula Apartments Neighborhood & Development Services 50,641 59,878 61,118 35,201 25,917 57.6% 26** Tax Increment Financing Finance 392,130 505,193 620,193 96,644 523,549 15.6% 2820 SSMID-Downtown District Finance 354,385 400,124 400,124 204,699 195,425 51.2% Total Special Revenue Funds 10,224,785 11,015,648 12,487,446 8,039,260 4,448,186 64.4% Debt Service Fund 5*** Debt Service Finance 13,469,600 13,722,450 13,806,387 4,655,678 9,150,709 33.7% Total Debt Service Fund 13,469,600 13,722,450 13,806,387 4,655,678 9,150,709 33.7% 8 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund by Department Fiscal Year 2019 through March 31, 2019 F 2018 2019 2019 2019 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Enterprise Funds 710* Parking Transportation & Resource Management $ 6,516,098 $ 6,612,092 $ 6,551,661 $ 2,766,746 $ 3,784,915 42.2% 715* Mass Transit Transportation & Resource Management 11,920,706 7,449,879 7,544,879 5,138,647 2,406,232 68.1% 720* Wastewater Public Works 15,738,755 13,284,732 13,284,732 11,106,146 2,178,586 83.6% 730* Water Public Works 14,382,141 8,388,774 8,440,774 6,399,741 2,041,033 75.8% 7400 Refuse Collection Transportation & Resource Management 3,106,776 3,433,507 3,498,007 2,480,829 1,017,178 70.9% 750* Landfill Transportation & Resource Management 4,940,648 5,035,196 6,078,392 4,547,152 1,531,240 74.8% 7600 Airport Airport Operations 468,122 357,309 357,309 312,550 44,759 87.5% 7700 Storm Water Public Works 497,954 537,865 537,865 318,439 219,426 59.2% 79** Housing Authority Neighborhood & Development Services 9,342,128 10,952,156 11,429,619 8,086,299 3,343,320 70.7% Total Enterprise Funds 66,913,328 56,051,510 57,723,238 41,156,548 16,566,690 71.3% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 32,499,396 23,580,970 81,247,520 23,125,561 58,121,959 28.5% Enterprise Projects 9,353,681 5,040,308 15,088,368 3,650,370 11,437,998 24.2% Total Capital Project Funds 41,853,076 28,621,278 96,335,888 26,775,931 69,559,957 27.8% Total Budgetary Expenditures $ 185,175,387 $ 167,570,307 $240,741,756 $ 121,164,910 $119,576,846 50.3% Non -Budgetary Funds Expenditures Internal Service Funds 810* Equipment Public Works $ 5,041,436 $ 4,468,094 $ 6,263,801 $ 4,019,254 $ 2,244,547 64.2% 8200 Risk Management Finance 1,947,564 1,440,328 1,440,328 1,096,500 343,828 76.1% 830* Information Technology Finance 2,034,623 2,160,935 2,160,935 1,359,911 801,024 62.9% 8400 Central Services Finance 188,468 193,387 193,387 121,164 72,223 62.7% 8500 Health Insurance Reserves Finance 7,848,190 8,381,923 8,381,923 6,827,123 1,554,800 81.5% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves Finance 364,128 409,442 409,442 239,338 170,104 58.5% Total Internal Service Funds 17,424,410 17,054,109 18,849,816 13,663,290 5,186,526 72.5% Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures $ 17,424,410 $ 17,054,109 $ 18,849,816 $ 13,663,290 $ 5,186,526 72.5% Total Expenditures - All Funds $ 202,599,797 $ 184,624,416 $259,591,572 $ 134,828,200 $124,763,372 51.9% F Item Number: 14. CITY OE IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Community Police Review Board Community Forum - April 29 ATTACHMENTS: Description Community Police Review Board Community Forum -April 29 Iowa City Public Library Rm A 123 South Linn St, IC COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEa' BOARD COMMUNITY FORUM rhe Community Polite Review Board will be holding a Community Forum for the purpose of hearing views on the policies, practices and procedures of the Iowa City Police Department. (feet lo w,7 City's first Female Captain Denise Brotherton QUESTIONS & COMMENTS: Send your questions or comments you'd like addressed at the forum to the following by Monday, April 15, 2019: Please include full name and address. (All correspondence is public) CPRB City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St, 52240 Or e-mail to CPRB staff: christine-olney@iowa-city.org TIME � :00 Item Number: 15. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Joint Meeting Minutes: April 15 ATTACHMENTS: Description Joint Meeting Minutes: April 15 Minutes of the Joint Meeting between Johnson County Board of Supervisors, University of Iowa, Iowa City Community School District Board, Clear Creek Amana Community School District Board, and the following Cities: Coralville, Hills, Iowa City, Lone Tree, North Liberty, Oxford, Shueyville, Solon, Swisher, Tiffin, and University Heights Monday, April 15, 2019 Iowa City Community School District Educational Services Center 1725 N. Dodge Street Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Present: Iowa City City Council Members: Mayor Jim Throgmorton, Pauline Taylor, John Thomas, Mazahir Salih; North Liberty City Council Members: Mayor Terry Donahue; Coralville City Council Members: Mayor John Lundell, Laurie Goodrich, Meghann Foster; Iowa City Community School District: Ruthina Malone, Shawn Eyestone, Phil Hemingway, Paul Roesler; Johnson County Board of Supervisors: Rod Sullivan, Lisa Green -Douglass, Pat Heiden, Royceann Porter Tiffin: Mayor Steve Berner; Brad Comer, Iowa City Assessor; Tom Van Buer, County Assessor; Geoff Fruin, Iowa City City Manager; Kelly Hayworth, Coralville City Manager; Ryan Haier, North Liberty City Manager; Simon Andrew, Assistant to the Iowa City City Manager; Janet Lyness, Johnson County Attorney; Nicole Novak, Assistant Research Scientist University of Iowa College of Public Health; Marcela Hurtado, Vice President Center for Worker Justice of Eastern Iowa Call to Order Paul Roesler called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Welcome and Introductions Roesler welcomed everyone and asked for introductions. Public Comment There was none. Facilities Work Update (ICCSD) Roesler provided an update on facility work in the school district. He reported on projects at Grant Elementary, Mann Elementary, Lincoln Elementary, Alexander Elementary, South East Jr. High, North Central Jr. High, West High School, Liberty High School, and Tate High School. Budget Planning Update (ICCSD) Murley clarified the certified budget for the tax levy and maximum budget due date is today. The District continues work on budget reductions, which is how the money is spent. The District has been working the last five months on reductions due to a $5.25 million gap by bringing ideas to the Board for feedback on what works and what does not. There is a work session tomorrow afternoon and then the Board will affirm the reductions at the April 23, 2019 Board meeting. Schedule of Graduation Events (ICCSD) Roesler provided graduation dates as follows: May 22, 2019 — Transition Services Center 11:00 AM at the Education Services Center May 24, 2019 —West High School 7:00 PM at Carver Hawkeye Arena May 25, 2019 — Liberty High School 1:00 PM at Liberty High School May 25, 2019 — City High School 7:00 PM at Carver Hawkeye Arena May 28, 2019 — Tate High School 7:00 pm at The Englert Theater Johnson County Community ID Program Update (Johnson County Board of Supervisors) Hurtado, Novak and Lyness presented an update on the Johnson County Community ID program. When the Center for Worker Justice was formed, they wanted to find out what the needs and priorities of the community were. Part of their mission is to empower and educate the community so they started a project called the Immigrant Voices Project and conducted a survey. One of the priorities that emerged was a way for people to identify themselves. A successful campaign resulted in the ability to obtain a county ID. They thanked those that helped to get it implemented and wanted to make clear that to get the ID you apply and show documents however, they do not keep copies of the documents. The impact of the ID program was documented by inviting people to participate in a survey on their ID application day and the results were shared. An ID can be obtained at the Assessor's Office and the County website provides information regarding the documents that are needed. Children are able to obtain an ID and a renewal celebration will take place on July 11, 2019. Property Assessments (City of Iowa City) Comer and Van Buer provided an update on property assessments. Assessments are done every two years and were sent at the end of March. They reported that values changed quite a bit. The State requires equalization and they explained that process. The protest period runs from April 1-25 and to date they have not had many. Legislative update (City of Iowa City) Andrew reported on two bills. HF773 is a bill for an act establishing budget limitations for counties and cities and including applicability provisions. It is problematic in that it places a 2% cap on the increase in property tax revenue, caps the general fund balance at a level lower that what Moody recommends for solid financial planning, is subject to reverse referendum, and is currently written to include pensions and employee benefits. HF718 is a bill for an act relating to the power of cities to regulate certain building restrictions. It would take away a city's ability to place rental permit caps and seems to be an effort to control Ames and Iowa City. This property tax bill was lifted directly from Texas, who is doing the exact same thing, which has been devastating to Austin and Austin suburbs. Berner stated the Iowa League is working to get input from smaller communities as they are just as much, if not more, at jeopardy. Mobile Home Park Acquisition Update (City of Iowa City) Fruin reported that two mobile home parks in Iowa City were recently purchased and new owners placed a significant increase to lot rent, much like what happened in North Liberty. This seems to be a nation-wide phenomenon. North Liberty had a conversation with the individual that purchased Golf View Mobile Home Park and were not very hopeful as they seem to have done their homework and are within their legal rights to do what they are doing. Salih reported that Center for Worker Justice is organizing an association at Golf View Mobile Home Park and are working with lawyers regarding the legality of what it taking place. She stated there is a meeting Thursday at 6:30 PM at the Coralville Rec Center. State of Poverty in Johnson County (City of Coralville) Jacoby reported more than 25,000 in Johnson County live in poverty. Another 25,000 are struggling to make ends meet while working. In Johnson County, 31.5 percent of children were eligible for free and reduced school lunch last year. Poverty stretches across all generations and cultures in our community. Johnson County hosted a public forum, "The State of Poverty in Johnson County" on Friday, Oct. 12, 2018 and more than 90 community members and Johnson County staff participated in the event. The forum included presentations by state and local experts and kicked off a series of action planning meetings focused on collaboratively developing strategies to address issues of poverty in our community. Action planning included raising awareness that poverty is an issue and identifying how poverty affects the entire community. Lunch and learn trainings are being hosted and a follow up meeting is planned for the summer. Other Business Hemingway provided information regarding a monetary donation the City of Hills donates to Hills Elementary School each year and encouraged other municipalities to do the same. Next Meeting Coralville will host the next meeting on July 15, 2019, Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 5:43 pm. Item Number: 16. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Email from Caroline Dieterle: A Video Surprise from an Arlo Friend [Link has expired to video] ATTACHMENTS: Description Email from Caroline Dieterle: A Video Surprise from an Arlo Friend [Link has expired to video] Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Video of deer in my back yard Dieterle, Caroline M <caroline-dieterle@uiowa.edu> Friday, April 12, 2019 11:12 PM Carol de Prosse Council A Video Surprise From An Arlo Friend Check out this video from my Arlo camera. Just click the link below to watch it but don't wait too long --this link will only work for 24 hours. https: //protect -us. mimecast. com/s/ 255NCrkP4WF4Pggu7SIBO?domain=arlo. netgear. com Enjoy! Caroline Sent from my Wad Kellie Fruehling From: Laura Routh <lauridi@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 8:34 AM To: Dieterle, Caroline M; Carol de Prosse Cc: Council Subject: Re: A Video Surprise From An Arlo Friend Wow! Get Outlook for iOS From: Dieterle, Caroline M <caroline-dieterle@uiowa.edu> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 11:12:21 PM To: Carol de Prosse Cc: council@iowa-city.org Subject: A Video Surprise From An Arlo Friend Video of deer in my back yard Check out this video from my Arlo camera. Just click the link below to watch it but don't wait too long --this link will only work for 24 hours. https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farlo.neteear.com%2Fhmsweb%2Fusers%2FIibra rv%2Fshare%2Flink%2F64F36A57DC529AA8 201904&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C0378ceb4ec814b99959408d6bfc63a de%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7CO%7C636907255438588191&amp;sdata=m IzCxpNttdTxO30hKknY OIIRX47UxwQlopymXug4okE%3D&amp;reserved=0 Enjoy! Caroline Sent from my Wad Item Number: 17. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Maintenance Worker I - Streets ATTACHMENTS: Description Civil Service Entrance Examination: Maintenance Worker I - Streets APR 16 2019 City Clerk Iowa City, Iowa April 10, 2019 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council i r CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 3S6-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Worker I — Streets Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Maintenance Worker I — Streets. Kendal Cole IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Rick Wyss, Chair Item Number: 18. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Recreation Program Supervisor ATTACHMENTS: Description Civil Service Entrance Examination: Recreation Program Supervisor APR 15 Z019 City Clerk Iowa City, Iowa April 10, 2019 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council � r 1 06 No% 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 RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Recreation Program Supervisor 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 Recreation Program Supervisor. Katherine Connell IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION r Rick W s, Chair Item Number: 19. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Water GIS Technician ATTACHMENTS: Description Civil Service Entrance Examination: Water GIS Technician APR 15 2019 City Clerk Iowa City, Iowa April 10, 2019 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Water GIS Technician it 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 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 Water GIS Technician. Ryan Bemrich IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �41z-"'- Rick Wyss, Chair Kellie Fruehling From: Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition <jcaffordablehousing@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 12:22 PM To: Council Subject: ft Stand up for affordable housing with these ACTION ITEMS to Late Handouts Distributed View this email in your browser (Date) JOHNSON COUN I Y Affordable Housing Coalition Want to peek inside this week's inboxes of Iowa City councilors? ....... ..d...... ....a..,.,..T. ......,-.-"-,...........,"-............. .v...�. w,.L.N......,.o,c..a..m..un.v .yun.mw providing clean air to Iowa City's residents.I am also concerned that this construction of low income housing will affect the property value of those lots in my residential area and this has been a concern that my neighbors have expressed as well.Overall,I do not think that the economic gain that the city stands to have is greater than the concerns and best interest of the Mackinaw Village community.I hope you take all of our concerns to heart as you make a decision that bunt on a crawl space or a oasement r Jo tney nave to IODK ince traiiers r me answer to mat is mat tney oon t. The plan for the new homes have them situated very close together and In such a way that they are going to look like trailers and they will look out of place.The tenants of Forest View are already marginalized without making their housing seem like a ghetto. of our homes. Please be clear on this,we are not against a community,or people living in our neighborhood we are concerned about the type of housing being placed in Mackinaw Village. Forest View residents need your support in the final stretch. A public hearing and vote is scheduled for Tuesday, April 23 regarding the redevelopment that will include the new Forest View neighborhood. City council members are hearing from a lot of people with sentiments like those expressed above--"We don't want those homes in our neighborhood." City council members need to hear from us, too. Please send an email between now and Monday, or plan to attend the meeting (on Tuesday at 7:00 pm @ City Hall) to make your voice heard. Here are some points you might include: 1. Iowa City values inclusion. That includes a mix of homes in all our neighborhoods. This is a good thing for the neighborhood and the broader community. 2. Residents of Forest View have been involved in the planning process virtually from the very beginning. This is important! 3. There is a plan in place to take excellent care of the neighborhood. 4. The green space in the new neighborhood is similar to many of the attached homes in the existing neighborhood. 5. This proposal keeps a close-knit family neighborhood together. The residents' community will stay intact thanks to this development. 6. This has been a three-year process. The developers have been very responsive to the city's feedback. It is time to move the project forward, and it is time to vote yes. Send your email to council@iowa-city.org. 111. • r • - _ Please don't underestimate the JOIN US FOR OUR power of this small April Community Meeting: The Fight for Mobile Homes act! Friday, April 26; 11:00 am-Noon 2 Room 203C, Health and Human Services building Then, if you are able, 855 S. Dubuque St., Iowa City please join us at the Hear from residents, a mobile home city council meeting park owner, and a national organizer for mobile home tenants' rights on Tuesday, April 23. about what can be done to address the current mobile home crisis. The meeting begins at 7:00 pm. © © 0 Copyright©2019 Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition,All rights reserved. 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 Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. mailchimp 3 Kellie Fruehling From: Geoff Fruin Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 7:49 AM Late Handouts Distributed To: Kellie Fruehling Subject: FW: On-street parking prohibition policy L4 -93 - lcI Kellie— (Date) Could you please print this email and the webpage that is linked below and have them as handouts today? Thank you, Geoff From: John Thomas Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 9:36 AM To: Geoff Fruin <Geoff-Fruin@iowa-city.org>; Kent Ralston <Kent-Ralston@iowa-city.org> Cc: Jim Throgmorton <Jim-Throgmorton@Iowa-city.org> Subject:On-street parking prohibition policy Hi Geoff and Kent, When this topic was first discussed a while back, the approach I suggested to staff and to council was that when a request for parking prohibitions comes up and some form of parking restriction is deemed necessary, staff can present to residents the "one-side only" option, and, if the context analysis allows, the option of a checkerboard parking pattern to avoid vehicles parking opposite to one another. The checkerboard concept can also help calm traffic, especially on long, straight blocks. For reference, here is the section from the NACTO guidelines on "yield streets" where the checkerboard option is explained. Please make copies available to Council at the Work Session for their reference. If you have concerns with the checkerboard concept, I would interested to know what they are. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/streets/yield-street/ Thanks, john 1 John Thomas City Council - District r YIELD STREET Yield Street 2-way yield streets are appro- priate in residential environments where drivers are expected to m, •• -7-- ■ travel at low speeds.Many yield , .,\ /, / streets have significant off-street - I +g -fir parking provisions and on-street z,{ -� �u• ;461 ar �l \ parking utilization of 40-60%or . .�lip`—,l�•r, I1 I,: r : / \ less.Create a"checkered"parking • tt— '1'� a�, ....-.10.,,,:.r; • kt_ i �I scheme to improve the function- Z1=' ! ,� ., _ _ ality of a yield street. - LL� •i ii'b'ora, .r 1 I, i 'N1 1 y� 3 � C ti ill i:! i lila 4 Q 301 V * ":�. 'fir$ , 4 Ithik 1 1 RECOMMENDATIONS ell Driveways should be constructed Vie to minimize intrusion upon the . l For a yield street to function effec sidewalk.Maintain sidewalk materials 1. 11 tively,motorists should be able to and grade across driveways. '-t.SWV i • use the street intuitively without risk © The planted furniture zone of the .. 1 of head-on collision.Depending on I sidewalk creates opportunities for whether the yield street has high or low street trees,bioswales,pervious strips. .- parking utilization,flush curbs,or other and rain gardens. ' features,its configuration may vary.A yield street with parking on both sides r v While most yield streets should PORTLAND,OR 1 functions most effectively at 24-28 ` have a minimum of signage A curb extension narrows the entry and feet,while yield streets with parking slows turning vehicles at the mouth of this on only one side can be as narow as 16 and striping,signage should be used yield street. to indicate bidirectional traffic at feet.' transition points or where 2-way oper- OAll residential streets should ation has recently been introduced. provide safe and inviting places to walk and good access to local Parking utilization on yield streets stores and schools.Design should should be monitored closely.Before mitigate the effects of driveway and after conversion,cities should conflicts,reduce cut through traffic, consult with local residents to see and maintain slow speeds conducive whether or not a"checkered"parking scheme should be striped or remain to traffic safety. unofficial. The street illustrated above depicts a 30-foot roadway within a 45-foot right-of-way. 1 \ . 17 I Item Number: 20. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Community Police Review Board: April 9 ATTACHMENTS: Description Community Police Review Board: April 9 DRAFT COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — April 9, 2019 CALL TO ORDER: Chair King called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Monique Galpin, Latisha McDaniel, David Selmer, Orville Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Staff Chris Olney, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford STAFF ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Iowa City Police Chief Matherly RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Galpin, seconded by McDaniel, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 03/12/19 Motion carried, 5/0. NEW BUSINESS None. OLD BUSINESS Community Forum Discussion — King stated that the 2nd general news release will be sent out on April 22"d Olney reminded the Board that the Forum will be held at the Public Library, April 29th at 6:00 p.m. Proposed Ordinance Change Discussion - King informed the Board that Ordinance 19-4783 amending Title 8, Chapter 8 was passed at the 3/12/19 City Council meeting and a copy of the Ordinance was included in the meeting packet. City Council Liaison Proposal Discussion— Townsend summarized why he felt the CPRB should be assigned a Council member to serve as a Liaison. Selmer agreed that having a Liaison is a good idea, however he had concerns as to the draft proposal memo being too general and felt it should include more direction as to what the Board expects the role of the Liaison to entail. After further discussion, the Board agreed to have Townsend and Selmer prepare a 2nd draft proposal to include additional language regarding the specific role of the Liaison. The revised memo will be in the next meeting packet for the Board to review and discuss at the May 14th meeting. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. CPRB April 9, 2019, 2019 STAFF INFORMATION None. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • April 29, 2019, 6:00 PM, IC Library Meeting Rm A (Community Forum) • May 14, 2019, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • June 11, 2019, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • July 9, 2019, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • August 13, 2019, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Townsend, seconded by Galpin. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 5:58 P.M. DRAFT COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2018-2019 (Meeting Date) KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member TERM 4/23/18 5/8/18 6/12/18 7/23/18 8/21/18 9/11/18 10/9/18 11/13/18 12/11/18 1/8/19 2/20/19 3/12/19 4/9/19 NAME EXP. Donald 7/1/19 X X X X X X O X X X X X X King Monique 7/1/20 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Galpin Orville 7/1/20 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Townsend Latisha 7/1/21 ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- X O X X O X X McDaniel Royceann 7/1/21 O/E X O/E ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- Porter David 7/1/21 X X X X O X O X O X O X X Selmer KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member Item Number: 21. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Housing and Community Development Commission: March 14 ATTACHMENTS: Description Housing and Community Development Commission: March 14 MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2019 — 6:30 PM SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202 PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Charlie Eastham, Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz, Christine Harms, John McKinstry, Maria Padron and Paula Vaughan MEMBERS ABSENT: [vacant position], Mitch Brouse STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly OTHERS PRESENT; Ryan Holst, Elias Ortiz, Craig Moser, Jake Kundert, Shirley Tramble, Brenda Nogaj, Kari Wilken, Roger Lusala, Roger Goedken, Brianna Wills, Heath Brewer, Ashley Gillette, Anthony Smith, Sara Barron, Michi Lopez, Martha Norbeck RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 (Eastham and Fixmer-Oraiz recused) the Commission recommends to City Council the following allocation of FY20 Emerging Aid to Agencies funds: $9,000 to Grow Johnson County, $5,000 to the Center for Worker Justice, and $5,000 to Successful Living. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends to City Council the following allocation of FY20 CDBG/HOME funds: In the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by 20% or less, these amounts will be prorated accordingly, subject to federal caps/requirements and requested amounts; in the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by more than 20%, another funding round will begin. CDBG HOME Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program - Lot Acquisition/Rental Construction $176,000 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity - Lot Acquisition/Homebuyer Assistance $50,000 Successful Living - Rental Acquisition $164,000 The Housing Fellowship - Rental Rehabilitation $70,000 Successful Living - Rental Rehab $59,000 The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Operating $21,000 Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Shelter Repair $90,000 Old Brick — ADA/Structural Fortification Improvements $10,000 In the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by 20% or less, these amounts will be prorated accordingly, subject to federal caps/requirements and requested amounts; in the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by more than 20%, another funding round will begin. Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 2 of 11 CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Vaughan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 21, 2019 MINUTES: Eastham moved to approve the minutes of February 21, 2019 with corrections. Alter seconded A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FY2020 EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES APPLICATIONS: Eastham excused himself from this agenda item as he is on the Board of one of the applicants. Fixmer- Oraiz also recused herself as she is employed by one of the applicants. Lehmann presented the Commission with a summary of the six applications and the requested funding amounts and discussed clarifications about the Forest View Mobile Home Park application. The applicant, Center for Worker Justice, is not able to be present at this evening's meeting but Lehmann can try to answer any questions regarding the application. Padron began by stating she recommended $9,500 for Unlimited Abilities and $9,500 for Grow Johnson County. Vaughan recommended $7,000 for Grow Johnson County. Harms recommended $5,000 for Grow Johnson County. McKinstry recommended $5,000 for Grow Johnson County and $5,000 for Successful Living and $9,000 for the mobile home park redevelopment. Alter recommended $3,800 to all the applicants except for Little Creations Academy. Padron noted the minimum allocation should be $5,000 so Alter reconfigured her allocations to $5,000 for Center for Worker Justice, $5,000 for Johnson Clean Energy and $5,000 for Successful Living. Lehmann added all recommendations into a spreadsheet and calculated the averages. McKinstry noted there is the most consensus for Grow Johnson County so that allocation should be at least the minimum of $5,000. Given the total amount of funds the Commission has to allocate to emerging agencies, they can only fund at most two other organizations. Padron noted the next two top vote getters were Successful Living and Center for Worker Justice (Forest View). If both those were awarded $5,000, the total allocated would be $15,000 which leaves $4,000. Padron asked why McKinstry and Alter wanted to fund the mobile home association. McKinstry noted that Forest View has a tremendous potential for affordable housing in the future. Lehmann clarified the request was not for people to attend the meetings but rather Center for Worker Justice costs which included helping the tenant association start by providing space for them to meet, occasional transportation, some translation for public meetings and childcare. The applicant stated that the most important of these functions is for meeting space rent so this association can meet. McKinstry noted this Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 3 of 11 is a true startup, it is an emerging organization. Vaughan said her concern was that the organization seemed temporary, project based, and not an emerging agency. Padron noted they are funding the Center for Worker Justice which is an agency, for their project of helping this neighborhood association. However the Center for Worker Justice has been around for more than two years and has received funding from the City so wouldn't they be excluded from this. Lehmann clarified the Center for Worker Justice has not received Aid to Agencies funds which makes them eligible for this funding. Alter supports this application because the Center for Worker Justice is lending aid to a group in community outreach and is helping a neighborhood association. Vaughan questioned the allocation to Successful Living which appeared to be an allocation to pay employees but that would not be an ongoing payment, it would only be for one year. Her concern is if they are having difficulty paying their employees then perhaps the model for their organization should be reviewed. Harms agreed and noted all the agencies are having difficulty with payments from Medicaid and not getting paid as much as they thought and this may start a trend of all agencies coming forward. The change in Medicaid payment was known to the agencies and some likely prepared for it better than others. Alter feels this application was a creative attempt at a solution to the problem at least for the year and was thinking of the people who are impacted by the care from Successful Living but acknowledges Harms' point that this is not a permanent solution. Padron noted these funds are for emerging agencies and Successful Living has been around for 20 years and some of the other applicants, like the energy project (Johnson Clean Energy), is very new and interesting. Vaughan noted she would like to see more details on what Johnson Clean Energy will be using the funding for and be able to target their ideas, they appear to have a lot of goals, which are all great, but it is a lot to accomplished and they need to be more focused. Padron suggested allocating $5,000 to Successful Living and $5,000 to Center for Worker Justice and the remaining $9,000 to Grow Johnson County. Grow Johnson County has never been funded before and is helping many people. Harms noted Grow Johnson County had come before the Commission before but set aside their funding request when hearing another agencies needs and acknowledging that agency needed the funding more. Harms moved to recommend to City Council the following allocation of FY20 Emerging Aid to Agencies funds: $9,000 to Grow Johnson County, $5,000 to the Center for Worker Justice, and $5,000 to Successful Living. Alter seconded the motion, a vote was taken and motion passed 5-0 (Eastham and Fixmer-Oraiz recused). RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FY2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENTS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) APPLICATIONS: Lehmann shared a handout with the Commission that had the CDBG/HOME allocations ordered by average score, projects with more than $50,000 should get first consideration and per the City's Consolidated Plan they can only fund two public facilities projects. Additionally, there are staff comments, one is Successful Living has unspent funds from the past fiscal year and if additional funds are allocated they may have difficulty meeting their commitment deadlines, therefore staff recommends not funding Successful Living until they spend down the current funding. Also for new organizations without a lot of history, staff recommends starting with small funding amounts as there may be concerns with compliance and the five year reversion of assets requirement. If a new organization does not last for five years, then the City has to pay back those funds to the federal government and if the organization doesn't own their facility they must be able to lease it for the five year compliance period. Lehmann said this may affect the applications from Little Creation Academy and Old Brick. City Staff will monitor all CDBG/HOME funded projects and work with agency staff to make sure they meet compliance. Eastham asked about the Successful Living application and how much were they allocated and have left unspent. Lehmann said they have approximately $30,000 from the FY18 rehab allocation unspent, for the FY19 acquisition they have spent around $60,000 and will spend approximately $75,000 shortly which Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 4 of 11 leaves approximately $60,000 in additional funds they have not spent. The rehab project is the one they have had more delays on, not as much with acquisition projects. Lehmann noted this is a concern staff wanted the Commission to be aware of as they award funds, the Commission can still allocate funds as they see best and staff will work with those agencies to make sure there are no issues moving forward. Eastham noted that the new Successful Living rehab project could get funded and move forward even though the current rehab project is having issues. Roger Goedken (Successful Living) stated with regards to the FY18 rehab project they anticipate the work being done in April, weather has been some of the hold-up. With the home acquisition funds they have purchased one home and have residents moving in, the other they just closed on and they anticipate to spend those remaining funds by the end of the fiscal year as they are actively looking at houses. He explained there were many issues with the rehab project including when federal agencies shut down, rental moratorium, and issues with finding contractors. He added that even when they have acquisition projects they sometimes have to do limited rehab to those houses to make them accessible for their clients. Lehmann stated there were also some delays with the FY18 acquisition but staff had amended the Annual Action Plan for it and it was completed a couple months back. Goedken said the current application is for a kitchen/bathroom remodel and new HVAC on a house they purchased a few years ago, they do have residents currently living there but the repairs are needed. Lehmann stated regarding the HUD guidance for the boiler issue for Little Creations Academy, HUD requested additional clarification and Lehmann supplied it but has yet to hear back. Vaughan began with the public facilities projects (CDBG) and noted they can fund no more than two projects. Lehmann noted they have $100,000 to allocate and also that CDBG funds can be used for housing projects but HOME funds cannot be used for public facility projects. Vaughan stated when looking at the commissioner's allocations it appears everyone was in favor of funding Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Shelter Repair and additionally the Old Brick — ADA/Structural Fortification Improvements. Alter proposed allocating $90,000 to DVIP and $10,000 for Old Brick. Eastham noted the DVIP application is strong in terms of the need to repair the shelter as well as the need to repair the parking lot however he feels financing the repair to the parking lot could be done in another way and the Commission's priority should be on the repairs to the shelter interior. He noted Council has the ability to provide additional funds to these organizations and the Council should pay for the parking lot repair. Alter agrees however noted that Council just funded a larger allocation in the Aid to Agencies based on Commission recommendation and may point to the fact the Commission indeed has funds to support this application in this case. McKinstry noted with the recent consolidation, DVIP now has to cover a larger geographic area and that is stretching their already dwindling funds. If they had the money to do these repairs, such as the parking lot, they would have done it — they do not have additional funding to support this repair. Padron agreed with McKinstry and noted that what Eastham stated about DVIP is how she feels about Old Brick, perhaps Old Brick could find funding elsewhere. Fixmer-Oraiz agreed with Alter and noted if we send any of these applications to Council they may not fund anything. She also agrees with Padron that Old Brick could have more avenues for funding. Harms feels the Commission should support Old Brick and noted it is always hard for the Commission because there are applications for historical preservation and others for necessary community services. For that reason she feels comfortable with the allocation of $90,000 to DVIP and $10,000 to Old Brick. Vaughan noted the Commission is to only review what is in the application before them, they are not here to make recommendations on how other agencies might run their business, they are to look at the applications and make recommendations based on the information in those applications. Eastham noted he is fine with the allocation of $90,000 to DVIP and $10,000 to Old Brick but will keep advocating for City Council to step up and help agencies, we should not solely rely on federal funding. Lehmann noted that Old Brick is also applying for local and state historic preservation grants as well. Vaughan next moved to housing applications, there are $540,000 in HOME funds to allocate. Looking at the Commission's individual allocations it appears if they went with the averages for application they Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 5 of 11 would be slightly under their allocated amount Eastham noted he is uneasy allocating money to Habitat for new homes when there are other agencies such as Successful Living and MYEP who have clients living in homes in need of repair. Padron agrees. Lehmann noted The Housing Fellowship - Rental Rehabilitation would need to be allocated $70,000 based on the estimated funding required for CHDO reserve funds. Eastham stated Successful Living and MYEP had a clear plan and need for adding to their group homes, they both have waiting lists, both run stellar group home programming for the residents, the rehab amounts seemed reasonable. Eastham added he would be fine not allocating any CHDO operating funds to The Housing Fellowship, he feels that organization would be fine without those funds and would prefer giving MYEP and Successful Living amounts closer to what they applied for. Vaughan noted her concern with Successful Living having challenges meeting timeframes and payroll (since they requested paying employees from the emerging agencies grant). She is also concerned about the future of Medicaid funding from the State and feels more local aid will be needed for these agencies. McKinstry agrees with Eastham on the issue of need for affordable rental versus affordable ownership and noted he did not allocate as much to Habitat for Humanity because the money could help more individuals in rentals rather than ownership. He also values the need for affordable homeownership and it addresses historic imbalances and therefore would want to see some homeownership in the mix which should be supported by some public funds as well as private funds. Fixmer-Oraiz was swayed by the presentation Habitat gave at the last meeting and learned about the overall impact homeownership has on the community. She allocated the full amount but equally can see the need for assisted living as well and will support those as well. Alter noted that Habitat said they could purchase a lot and get started on a new home with a $50,000 allocation so that is what she feels they should be awarded. That will open up more monies for Successful Living or WEP. She does strongly support funding Habitat for the reasons McKinstry noted. Eastham asked if there was any support from other commissioners to reduce The Housing Fund allocation and therefore not fund their CHDO operating request. He stated he has seen their budget and feels this amount requested is not a make or break amount in their overall budget. Those funds from the CHDO operating request could better be served in Successful Living and MYEP to expand the number of residents they could serve. Fixmer-Oraiz did not agree and felt CHDO operating funds should be funded. Padron agreed and also feels the Habitat allocation should be lowered to $50,000 and any additional funds be split amongst Successful Living and MYEP. The Commission discussed the reallocations and staff presented a new allocation table for the Commission to vote on. They also discussed what to do in the event the federal funding was different than what they based the allocations on. Lehmann said in the past, staff has prorated the allocations among the agencies unless it was more or less than a 20% difference. Eastham suggested no positive prorated amounts be added to The Housing Fellowship. Vaughan noted they could add if prorated up but to make sure the allocation is not more than the asking amount. McKinstry moved to recommend to City Council the following allocation of FY20 CDBG/HOME funds: CDBG HOME Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program - Lot Acquisition/Rental Construction $176,000 Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 6 of 11 Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity - Lot Acquisition/Homebuyer Assistance $50,000 Successful Living - Rental Acquisition $164,000 The Housing Fellowship - Rental Rehabilitation $70,000 Successful Living - Rental Rehab $59,000 The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Operating $21,000 Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Shelter Repair $90,000 Old Brick — ADA/Structural Fortification Improvements $10,000 In the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by 20% or less, these amounts will be prorated accordingly, subject to federal caps/requirements and requested amounts; in the event federal funds are higher or lower than budgeted by more than 20%, another funding round will begin. Fixmer-Oraiz seconded. Passed 7-0 PRESENTATION ON FAIR HOUSING STUDY: Lehmann presented the Fair Housing Choice Study staff began working on some time ago, beginning with introduction, public input received and initial observations. Fair Housing Choice is the ability to choose housing free from unlawful discrimination, it applies to owners and renters, and to people providing other housing services as well such as financing. There are many protected classes based on Iowa City's Human Rights Ordinance including age, disability, color, class, race, nation of origin, creed or religion, sex, gender or identity or sex orientation, marital/familial status, presence or absence of dependents and most recently added public assistance as a source of income including Housing Choice Vouchers. The City strives to further fair housing in everything it does, it is a requirement of HUD funds but also applies to all the City's programs. This means the City tries to take meaningful actions to overcome patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice and ultimately to foster inclusive communities. Lehmann pointed out that fair housing is different than affordable housing although there is a lot of overlap because often affordability is a barrier to housing choice. However, fair housing is the idea that housing is available to all residents of the community whereas affordable housing is housing costs that match incomes. Often protected classes have lower incomes so providing affordable housing is important to fair housing but it is not sufficient to affirmatively further fair housing. The Fair Housing Choice study is being conducted by Neighborhood Services and the Office of Equity and Human Rights. It includes both qualitative (getting narrative) and quantitative (looking at data) components. In terms of public input so far (qualitative) City staff held a public meeting and six focus groups of different representative groups (a total of 83 attendees), and then also did a public survey for broader public perspectives, which got 234 responses. For the quantitative analysis they looked at private and public data, most of which is from the census. The goal is to complete the study in May 2019 so it is ready for review when the Consolidated Plan is updated. Staff will share a copy of the study draft with Commissioners in May. For the survey, 234 individuals responded, skewing towards higher incomes. The survey was made available online and hard copies were provided through the public library and social service agencies. They received good feedback in terms of getting representation of protected classes. 70% of respondents were females, 17% were nonwhite or Hispanic, 5% were foreign -born, 20% had a disability, 12% spoke another language, 12% had a Housing Choice Voucher. One big thing that stuck out were only 43% of respondents said they felt they understood their fair housing rights while 26% felt they experienced discrimination. Somewhat shocking but not surprising, was only 3% of those filed a complaint. Most stated they didn't know what good it would do (70% of respondents) while others were unfamiliar with Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 7of11 how to do it or afraid of retaliation. In terms of barriers cited, affordable housing was overwhelmingly cited as the primary barrier to fair housing choice, including all for types of households (large families, small families, persons with disabilities, etc.) and the most common source of discrimination people noted was having a Housing Choice Voucher. In terms of public policies that were identified as barriers none received a majority, but the top ones were City funding practices followed by zoning and housing codes. At focus groups and the public meeting, the comments mirrored many results from the survey. Iowa City was noted as an expensive housing market, and incomes don't necessary match the cost of the market and it is especially problematic where there is not a diversity of housing choices within a neighborhood (if it is all single family it can be challenging for different groups to find housing). This includes both City assisted housing and privately affordable housing because it is just not City assisted housing that is affordable. For the housing stock it was also mentioned that there are low quality rentals, especially near downtown, which can be problematic for persons who are in protected classes as well as accessibility challenges in older parts of the City with properties not built to visitability standards. There were several public policy challenges raised, development codes can increase costs and limit flexibility, especially where design review is involved. Policies need to better align with goals and funding that is allocated should match up with the goals the City has (it doesn't always). The City should also streamline processes wherever they can including rental permitting, and the City needs to make sure they enforce their rental housing standards so there is quality housing. Coordination was also cited as an issue, between the City and surrounding jurisdictions and also with other actors (tenants, builders, landlords, etc.) or educational institutions such as the school district and university. Overall education is generally needed for tenants and landlords to better understand what fair housing rights are, what the responsibilities of different parties are in the housing market and to better information people on neighborhoods (people can be informally or formally steered towards certain neighborhoods) and the survey corroborated that. In terms of data observations, Iowa City is a college town and has more young people, fewer families, and fewer children especially near downtown. Generally, near downtown there are fewer persons with disabilities because it is a younger population, it is more ethnically, racially and culturally diverse, a lot due to immigration into Iowa City especially from Asian populations, but also black/African American populations as well. There are some racial/ethnic concentrations across the City, specifically Black/ Hispanic groups south of Highway 6 and Asian groups concentrated on the west side. None of these concentrations meet the standard HUD for being a racially and ethnically concentrated area of poverty however. Those areas do tend to have lower incomes but the lowest income areas tend to be nearer to the university where students are. There are large limited English proficiency populations, especially Spanish (3100 speakers) and Mandarin (2400 speakers). Segregation by race or ethnicity is considered low in Iowa City based on the dissimilarity index standards, but it has been increasing over time. For the economy, it is focused around education and healthcare, there is a high proportion of low-income households due to student populations and that is increasing as well. Minority households tend to have lower incomes in Iowa City, primarily outside downtown, and LMI (low moderate income) areas are primarily to the south and west but there is a large LMI area downtown as well. The majority of housing in Iowa City is rental, concentrated in around downtown and near the university. Minority groups tend to have lower homeownership rates in Iowa City, which especially true for Black households and households of two or more races. There has been a large increase in multifamily building permits, peaking in 2016, much of it is downtown, and there are correspondingly higher vacancy rates with that. That being noted, rents have increased faster than incomes or housing values. Housing values have actually been closer to increases in income lately but rents increased more quickly. In terms of cost burden (which means they are paying more than 30% of their income on housing), 16% of homeowners and 64% of renters are cost burdened, a lot of whom are students based on non -familial status. Minority households tend to experience housing issues at higher rates including housing cost burden and other issues such as overcrowding and the quality of facilities. Lehmann noted there is limited data on fair housing because things don't get reported, but of the data they do have in Iowa City there tends to be around 10-12 fair housing complaints per year. Most of those are based on discrimination by race, disability or sex. 1/3 tend to be outside the City's jurisdiction so they Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 8 of 11 get referred to the correct jurisdiction, 1/3 get closure at the City or withdrawn due to resolution and the remaining 113 require further various levels of investigation. Data from the State or Federal level is even more limited, most is based on Johnson County. Progress since the last plan, there were five findings and while the City was making progress some of these findings have cropped up again. For example, racial ethnic concentrations is still there, outreach and education is still an issue and a huge need. Staff next looked at policies, public sector policies in addition to private sector policies and Lehmann discussed those and where staff found impediments. For City development codes there is no reasonable accommodation policy for persons with disabilities which is basically a streamlined approach for, say someone in a wheelchair to put a ramp outside their house in a historic district where there are many levels of complex policies to deal with. Staff is looking to adopt some sort of reasonable accommodation policy to ensure people can be housed in older parts of the City without running into bureaucratic barriers. Also staff is looking at generally increasing opportunities or choices for housing by allowing diverse housing throughout the City. That will focus on increasing density because single family can be affordable depending on construction but allowing more multifamily by right in residential areas would be good. They are also looking at bedroom caps in multifamily as that can restrict large families and student living. Finally looking at how permanent supportive housing is currently treated in the community because it is treated as separate use only allowable in specific zones (essentially the Cross Park Place project where it is long-term housing, more than a year lease). Housing Code has new requirements like rental permit cap, increased inspections, which may affect protected classes, these changes are relatively new as of 2018 so it is hard to know the impact or results but it will be tracked. Vaughan asked if those new requirements were federal requirements. Lehmann replied it was a State requirement change where a city could not distinguish between nonfamily and family households in the zoning code which was a way the City was trying to balance student housing downtown. When the State made that change the City reviewed the process and put a cap on areas near the university and also increased inspections for certain types of units. For affordable housing assistance, Lehmann stated the City put more local funding towards affordable housing initiatives but it doesn't have the same federal requirements, so staff has not been tracking protected characteristics for beneficiaries. As such, impacts are difficult to ascertain for all City assistance because more than half the units created aren't being tracked. With new funding comes new programs and lots of requirements and staff is making sure administrative rules are well coordinated. For site selection and neighborhood revitalization, Lehmann stated the Affordable Housing Location Model and rental permit cap interact in complex ways; both affect certain types of housing in certain areas at certain times. Staff is working to identify those affects for affordable housing and service providers, how they impact choices for protected classes and seeing if there are ways to streamline some of these programs as they come into play. Currently there are 1215 Housing Choice Vouchers, about 850 of which are in Iowa City. Within Iowa City, Housing Choice Vouchers are still relatively concentrated in certain neighborhoods, typically the more affordable neighborhoods thus the concentration. However based on the survey there is also some evidence landlords may still be discriminating against Housing Choice Voucher recipients. Therefore providing more information to Housing Choice Voucher recipients is needed, further alerting them of their rights and encouraging them to live in other areas of the City is something staff is recommending. Also The Housing Authority has a preference categories with families, persons with disabilities, and elderly with residency in Iowa City as the first group to receive vouchers. Staff recommends an equity analysis to make sure the policy is targeting the correct populations for service as based on the CITY STEPS Consolidated Plan. With regards to home lending, Lehmann noted the data showed Black and Hispanic households have elevated rates of denials, however a study that was conducted a year ago showed there are discrepancies in data entry and there are issues with a small sample size. Staff wants to follow up to make sure this is not discrimination and will continue to monitor. Additionally they recommend additional fair housing education for lenders and borrowers. Alter asked if the City has anyone that works with lenders and people who are applying to help them through the process. Lehmann stated the City does trainings for lenders but is unsure of how regularly it Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 9 of 11 is done. These trainings are also provided for the general public. Kubly added if a person is part of The Housing Choice Voucher program they are assigned a case worker to help them navigate the process. Eastham asked about impediments related to realtors. Lehmann said he had no data on it but based on the focus groups it doesn't seem to be much of an issue, it seems the larger issues for steering people to certain locations is word of mouth from others in the community. Eastham said he hears anecdotal statements about realtors engaging in steering certain people to certain locations of town. McKinstry noted when he has talked to realtors it appears everyone is super sensitive to steering and know it is illegal and unethical and are hypervigilant in not steering people to certain locations of town. He was startled to find there are four or five protected classes here in Iowa City more than in other areas of the State or Nation. He stated that two woman in Missouri, this year, were denied the opportunity to live in a retirement center because they were married to each other. Because of situations like that McKinstry is so glad Iowa City has these additional protected classes. Lehmann noted for the rental market there is a mismatch between the cost of rentals and incomes and staff recommends more rentals in high demand areas, especially downtown, and considering ways to reduce the cost of housing such as group living options. The also recommend more education on the protections for renters and keeping landlords apprised of the protected classes and education of best practices. Additionally staff needs to make sure all fair housing complaints are dealt with in a timely manner and resolved quickly. Since there is a lack of metrics for policy impacts staff will need to make sure they measure these fair housing impacts on protected classes. Lehmann noted staff does not do a lot of testing in Iowa City but it is one of the better ways identify discrimination or steering. Finally Lehmann talked about other observations worth noting. There are ethnical and racial concentrations so encouraging a range of housing throughout the City while continuing to invest in minority, LMI or protected class neighborhoods is important. Homeownership rates are lower for minority groups so it is important to encouraging homebuyer programs in targeted areas for protected classes. For elderly households and persons with disabilities, especially those with ambulatory issues who cannot walk around easily, there is a need to focus on areas of town with accessibility barriers to help ensure aging in place is possible. Student populations have the lowest incomes, so there is a need to ensure all, especially those who are LMI or in protected classes, can afford to live in the community. In terms of next steps, Lehmann stated staff is working on the internal review of the draft of the Fair Housing Study, hoping to get a draft to stakeholders in April and start to let the document be public for adoption process, there will be a public meeting with HCDC on May 16 and then go before Council either May 21 or June 4 and have the document adopted prior to June 30. Eastham stated he wanted to see the data behind this study for the HCDC review. Harms noted that when someone has an issue, time constraints for resolving the issue is enormous, especially for working individuals. Perhaps the City could increase hours of availability to help the public. Fixmer-Oraiz noted a recurring theme in the Study is a need for education and outreach and there definitely needs to be more for renters, landlords and potential homeowners. Eastham stated if the City is going to put resources toward this education and outreach it should be for consumers, realtors and banks already have some educational opportunities. Fixmer-Oraiz noted the university does a freshman intake and perhaps the City can provide education on fair housing. Lehmann noted the university does a "Renter 101" event and Iowa City provides information at that. Vaughan suggested something other than just a written brochure, it doesn't often speak to a lot of people, and is easily tossed. She noted it should be written to speak to all individuals, regardless of the level of education. Padron noted it is important to remember not every resident has a computer or internet and much of what comes from the City is via email or directs one to a website. Harms noted with the elderly or others they may not want to use a computer and the City needs to be cognizant of that. Lehmann noted they did hand out hard copies of the survey in the senior living areas, agencies and also at the library for those that did not want to use a computer. The surveys were provided in multiple languages. Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 10 of 11 Vaughan asked if there was educational pieces created do they have to be done by staff or can volunteers assist. Lehmann said they would welcome volunteers and partners. McKinstry is happy to see the interest in collecting data on housing in the City. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if the City could partner with the school district and send information home in back packs. Lehmann stated the school district has tightened up on allowing things to be handed out but improved coordination between the City and schools is needed. Any additional comments or questions can be directed to Lehmann. STAFFICOMMISSION COMMENT: Lehmann noted that Council has appointed Peter Nkumu to the Commission, he is the president of the Congolese Community of Iowa and will be a great addition to the Commission. Staff is interviewing consultants for the Consolidated Plan this month. Staff, Padron and the head of the Human Rights Commission had a brief discussion on the ways to revamp the Aid to Agencies process, conversations will continue in April. The next HCDC meeting will be April 18 where we will discuss projects not conforming to the unsuccessful delayed project policy which will include a report from The Arthur Street Healthy Living Center. They will also have HCDC monitoring reports and begin Aid to Agency visioning process and also a background information presentation on the Affordable Housing Model. Staff will present the Annual Action Plan and continue the Fair Housing Study review. Eastham noted he heard from an agency partner some agencies are having discussions with the City Manager on Aid to Agency funds and what those agencies feel the City should be funding. Lehmann said this will be part of the discussion at the next meeting. Lehmann stated Community Development Week is April 22-26, there will be some type of proclamation and Vaughan suggested doing some type of tour of projects that are complete, to see the impact. Lehmann noted there is a new tenant education program that the local Homeless Coordination Board is putting together, it is intended as a possible alternative to eviction for tenants. It will start April 9 in the Iowa City Public Library and be held every Tuesday through May 14 for a total of six modules. Fixmer-Oraiz had a question on monies from other sources and specifically The United Way who gives out all kinds of money to agencies. Lehmann noted the application process does go through The United Way along with Coralville, Johnson County and United Way. ADJOURNMENT: Fixmer-Oraiz moved to adjourn. Alter seconded. Passed 7-0 Housing and Community Development Commission March 14, 2019 Page 11 of 11 Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record Name Terms Exp. 7/10 9/20 10/11 11/15 12/20 1/17 2/21 3/14 Alter, Megan 7/1/21 X X X X X X X X Brouse, Mitch 7/1/21 X X X X X X X O/E Eastham, Charlie 7/1/20 X X X X X X X X Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa 7/1/20 X O/E X X X O/E X X Harms, Christine 7/1/19 X X X X X X X X Lamkins, Bob 7/1/19 O/E O/E X O/E O/E McKinstry, John 7/1/17 X X X X X X X X Padron, Maria 7/1/20 X X O/E O/E X X X X Vaughan, Paula 7/1/19 X X X X X X X X • Resigned from Commission Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Vacant Item Number: 22. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission: April 4 ATTACHMENTS: Description Planning and Zoning Commission: April 4 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2019 —7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin, Mark Signs STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DISCUSSION ON THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, AND REZONING CRITERIA: Russett noted this discussion came up during the March 12 City Council/Planning & Zoning Commission consult meeting where the Mayor requested the Commission discuss some of the items presented at that meeting, mainly related to the Good Neighbor Policy application requirement and rezoning criteria. Russett noted this evening the Commission doesn't need to recommend any items, this is just the start of the conversation and in May the City Council will also discuss this item so any information discussed this evening will be shared with Council and Council will then make any specific recommendations to staff next month. Russett stated the Good Neighbor Meeting Policy was established in 1998 and reviewed in 2013 and at that time both staff and City Council felt Good Neighbor Meetings should be kept voluntary, and today staff recommends meetings remain voluntary as well for a variety of reasons. 1. The projects that come before the Commission and that staff review are all very different, some are large scale with large impact, some are small with small impacts. 2. Some meetings happen early in the process of the rezoning stage and don't happen at platting. 3. There are notification requirements the City sends out as well as postings on the site for notification to neighbors. Russett shared a table that showed some of the applications the Commission reviewed in the last few months and whether or not a Good Neighbor Meeting was held. The Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2019 Page 2 of 8 results are varied, there were a couple of rezonings (Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 rezoning and the 2130 Muscatine Avenue rezoning) that did not hold Good Neighbor Meetings, the vacation the Commission reviewed a few weeks ago did not hold a Good Neighbor Meeting but the larger scale projects like Forest View, Cherry Creek and the affordable housing project on the east side did hold Good Neighbor Meetings. Russett noted the Commission has expressed some concerns about the number of people who are notified of the Good Neighbor Meetings. The requirement is for notification for neighbors within 300 feet of the project area. Russett showed a map of an area to show what 300 feet looks like, the example property was 2130 Muscatine Avenue. Staff has not done a comprehensive review of what other local jurisdictions require, but based on the cities staff is aware of the 300 foot requirement is comparable, they are aware of one other jurisdiction that does use a much larger area because it is rural in nature. Russett next presented some background on rezonings and how staff looks at rezonings. Rezonings are requests to use the land differently and are not always tied to a specific project. When staff receives an application for a rezoning they review that rezoning against all of the uses that are permitted in that zone district. They look at the intensities that are permitted, the densities, and they review whether they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan vision as well as whether or not they would be compatible with the neighborhood. She noted sometimes it is difficult to separate the rezoning of the land from the specific development project that is being proposed. Often both the Commission and the City Council want more information on the project, staff does as well, particularly for the larger projects. In terms of application requirements for rezonings, there are two types of rezonings. First is the standard rezoning which is one base zone to another base zone designation (i.e. RS -5 to RM -12 or CO -1 to CC -2). The other type is the OPD or Planned Development Overlay where there is a base zoning designation and then an actual overlay. These are often done when there are sensitive areas on the site. The application requirements for these two different types of rezonings vary. There are more details on OPD rezonings required (landscaping, elevations, concept plans) than on standard rezonings. Russett showed another table of projects the Commission has reviewed over the past few months along with the level of detail provided for those rezonings. Different levels of detail are provided depending on the project. The Lower West Branch Road and Taft Avenue and the Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 rezonings only provided concept plans whereas the rezoning of the multifamily housing on the east side provided a concept plan, elevations and landscaping. In terms of criteria, Russett stated the criteria is different between a standard rezoning and a Planned Development Overlay rezoning. The general criteria for standard rezonings is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the neighborhood. For OPD rezonings they look at those two criteria but also specific criteria related to density, design, impact to streets and utilities, etc. Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2019 Page 3 of S It is staff's goal to have a consistent message to applicants in terms of what is required at the application stage for various application types, particularly rezonings. Staff must often times provide advice to applicants on what they should provide so the Commission can make an informed decision and that should be a consistent message. If they are asking for concept plans or landscaping plans that are not required as part of the application the applicant has the right to question why they need to provide it. It is also staff's goal to not require too much detail that the process becomes increasingly burdensome. Baker asked if the area of notification and the lack of a requirement for a Good Neighbor Meeting is the same no matter what the type of application. Russett confirmed that was correct. Baker suggested that perhaps the larger the development the wider the area of notification ought to be as well as the requirement of a Good Neighbor Meeting. He feels the impact of the project should dictate a different standard. Parsons questioned how to clarify a size of a project. Does that mean acres it covers, because in the example of the Chauncey project, it has a huge impact but yet only covers a small area. Baker suggested possibility density as a measure as well as size of acres involved. In most cases number of acres involved would create a higher density. Hektoen noted the State Code allows people who live within 200 feet of a rezoning have the authority to protest rezonings and trigger a super majority vote from Council. Baker is not sure that addresses the issue, he still sees a bigger difference in the projects on Muscatine Avenue and one the size of Forest View and how the community input and notifications for each of those projects should perhaps be different. Russett said for a project such as Forest View staff would, and has, told the applicant they should hold a Good Neighbor Meeting as it is very important for the project. Baker appreciates that, noting if they don't hold a Good Neighbor Meeting then they will hear from the neighbors at the Commission meeting. He also asked if there is any interest in having the area of notification larger for larger scale developments. Hensch noted there are a couple common things the Commission hears from the public at meetings, they say they are never notified (but they are usually outside of the circle or just ignored their mail) or they were not invited to a Good Neighbor Meeting. Hensch said he does struggle with an application that chooses to not hold a Good Neighbor Meeting, philosophically he is opposed to that because it is a good communication tool, it shows concern for the neighbors and respect to the neighbors. It does not mean the applicant has to do or change anything to appease the neighbors but maybe small things can be changed and problems avoided. He does not see a downside of requiring a Good Neighbor Meeting for a rezoning. He does not see it as necessary for a vacation or plat, but for a rezoning, when someone moves into a neighborhood they know what the neighborhood should look like, but with a rezoning it brings a choice of changes for land uses and could change a character of a neighborhood and therefore the neighbors should be involved in that decision. Part of the role of the Commission is to do what is best for the community. He feels requiring a Good Neighbor Meeting and expanding the notification area is a good thing. He understands it won't solve all the problems but there does need to be changes. Putting notification in the newspaper is not the solution, no one reads newspapers anymore, and it is time to rethink how these notifications are being presented. Perhaps they should be done via social media. Hensch did note he does not want to create more work for staff so it must be put on the responsibility of the developer Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2019 Page 4 of 8 Hektoen asked what Hensch would envision the consequence being if a developer doesn't hold a Good Neighbor Meeting. Hensch said the developer then could simply not proceed with the rezoning. Parsons asked if notice goes out, no one responds, then what it the purpose of holding a Good Neighbor Meeting. Hensch said that is fine, at least the option was there. Parsons asked what would constitute a Good Neighbor Meeting, could the developer hold it at their office at an inconvenient time. Hensch said there are already rules for Good Neighbor Meetings set from Neighborhood Development Services on what constitutes a meeting. Russett said the current process is the applicant would set up the meeting, staff would work with the applicant on developing the letter to the neighbors and creating the list of the people who would get the invitation. She noted staff does attend the meetings, they do not moderate them, but are there in case there are questions related to processes. Dyer also agrees that Good Neighbor Meetings should be required and also there has to be better notice for projects with bigger impacts for the community at large and especially the neighborhood. In the case of Forest View they did hold Good Neighbor Meetings and that was good but there was not good notification of the meetings. Additionally that project will affect everyone on the Peninsula not just those within 300 feet. In earlier meetings the people living in Idyllwild came to express their concern about drainage and therefore a whole lot of work was done regarding drainage as a consequence. The project affects whole neighborhoods, not just 300 or 500 feet from the edge of the project. She also agreed there has to be better ways of notifying neighbors, more visible ways. In the case of big buildings, such as the ones downtown, that concerns everyone, not just those within 300 feet. It will affect the skyline, traffic, and aesthetics for the entire city. She is not sure what the answer is regards who to decide which projects are large (area, density, dollar value, etc.). In the example of the Chauncey there were lots of people at the zoning meetings and Council meetings because those people were not in the area of which to be invited to the Good Neighbor Meetings. Russet asked Dyer about projects that are downtown and affect the skyline does that concern include Riverfront Crossings. Dyer confirmed she would include Riverfront Crossings when discussing downtown skylines. Hensch noted the issue of if the Commission receives a report from the Good Neighbor Meetings has also come up in the past. Sometimes they occur but the Commission does not get a report. He also discussed the inconsistency in requirements and the Commission decisions and that is true, sometimes the Commission is aggressive on a project developer and sometimes back off regarding elevations, concept drawings and construction material lists. He agrees there needs to be consistency and developers deserve the right to know what is required, but these items are what helps the Commission make their decisions. It helps the Commission make a correct decision for a neighborhood if they can see exactly what the developer wants to do with the rezoning. Baker noted that was one of the problems with Forest View is there are design standards and guidelines but that doesn't really show what will actually be built on that area. Hensch said there were some concepts with that application, they just didn't have any elevations. He understands some of the big projects will be phased in over time so all details may not be available but to deal in trust and hope doesn't always work out. He also knows that sometimes it does require the developer to have certain drawings created and that costs money, but if they want the development they should be willing to invest in the process. Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2019 Page 5 of 8 Baker questioned however if a developer shows a drawing or elevations at the rezoning. how obligated are they to follow those. Hensch noted they are not obligated but it shows a good faith effort. Hektoen noted the drawings or elevations can be made as a condition of the rezoning, to say they must have substantial compatibility with concept plans show. Dyer noted that some of the OPDs they have reviewed over the past few years have required changes before approval and the developers have ended up being happy with the changes suggested by the Commission and ended up being better projects for the community. Sometimes it is providing more open space in a family development or changes in building materials to add distinction. She feels strongly that multifamily projects and OPDs need to have concept drawings and elevations. Hensch also said often a developer comes before the Commission, the 45 -day clock is ticking, and they don't have concept drawings or elevations it can seem like a "rubber-stamp" being pushed though. He feels in many cases the projects get so much better when there has been this input by the Commission and the public and developers come back with better solutions. Townsend noted that when there is a rezoning, there are the signs that go up, so it would be nice to have Good Neighbor Meetings so the community can find out more details and an opportunity to ask questions. Otherwise people see the signs and have to call City Staff and ask the questions, staff may or may not have the answers to. Dyer asked if the wording on the signs is legislative or could there be more information put on the signs. Hektoen doesn't feel the wordage is codified. Dyer said an attachment to the sign could post when the Good Neighbor Meeting is being held. Baker feels the consensus is a recommendation to require a Good Neighbor Meeting for all rezonings and elevations for all projects. Hensch said this is just an initial discussion meeting and they can come back to this at the next meeting after some thought. He would like the suggestions to be thoughtful, not detrimental to staff time, and helpful to citizens. Hektoen noted that requiring site plans or concept plans it is important to note that all projects are different and the stage of which they are in when they come before the Commission are different so it is important to keep in mind within the zoning context the Commission has the tool to impose conditions to address public needs that are created by the rezoning. So if there is an application that is very nebulous or will be a 15 year build -out and the Commission can articulate the public need, they can impose a design review as a condition of the rezoning to come back before the Commission with a concept plan. Baker asked if that could have been imposed on the Forest View project. Hektoen said the condition of a design review was imposed. Dyer said that would be a staff review though, not Commission. Russett said for the project at 12 East Court Street, they did add the condition of a design review by the Commission. The project is in Riverfront Crossings, Pentacrest Gardens apartments. Baker asked if the Council could also impose such a condition and Hektoen said they can. Russett will have this discussion topic on the next meeting agenda as well for continued discussion. Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2019 Page 6 of 8 Parsons stated his reservations of making Good Neighbor Meetings required. he doesn't feel they are necessary for all rezonings. He feels the trust is in staff, they know the rules and see all the applications and they know what the Commission wants and what the public would or would not want in their neighborhoods. He feels requiring such meetings for small projects would be a burden on staff. Townsend agrees with Parsons but does feel there should be a way people in the neighborhood could find out more information, such as having a link posted on the site, etc. Parsons asked when the notices of rezonings go out to the public. Russett said it must be a minimum of seven days but they try to have them out at least two weeks prior. Dyer noted if the neighbors are to have an impact, they need to be part of the process long before the rezoning meeting. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 21, 2019 Dyer moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 21, 2019. Townsend seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave an update from the Council meeting on Tuesday where the Council discussed a few things pertinent to the Commission. First, staff presented Council with a residential infill analysis and she will send out the PowerPoint presentation to the Commission. Staff has been directed by Council to work with the consulting firm, Opticos Design, to think about ways to address out of scale or oversized infill residential. Also the City has executed a contract with Opticos to work on a Form -Based Code for the South District. Council has asked staff to explore an amendment to the contract to include a visioning session for the North Side Marketplace as well as a parking study for the North Side Marketplace. That area is Linn Street east to Gilbert Street and Market Street to Bloomington. In terms of recent applications sent to Council. 2130 Muscatine Avenue rezoning was adopted as well as Rollins Pass preliminary plat. Council had the Forest View public hearing on Tuesday and was continued to the April 23 meeting, staff has received some protest petition so are running the numbers to see if a super majority vote is needed. Hektoen mentioned there will be two people coming from Minneapolis to discuss the Race, Place and Land Use Minneapolis 2040 Plan. They have eliminated single-family zoning and will be speaking about that at the Iowa Memorial Union on April 25 at 7:30pm. Baker asked when Council would vote on Forest View. Parsons said that is not known for sure. Baker asked if there was time as a Commission to have discussion at the next meeting on whether they wanted to recommend to Council to impose a condition of their vote to have elevations and design review to come back before Council for approval. Russett said the Commission has already made their recommendation to Council on that application. Hektoen noted that Planning & Zoning's review of the application has passed, the recommendation has Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2019 Page 7 of 8 been made. Hensch said they can reach out to the Councilors as citizens Baker noted that the Forest View project is such a long-term project with three distinct components and he wondered if a developer could do one of the components and not do the others. Russett said there are times where things are platted as outlots or zoned ID (interim development) but once you have the zoning designation and it's platted that is what is done. There could be a scenario where nothing gets built. Baker is concerned about the commercial area being developed but the residential is deferred, delayed or whatever. Russett agreed that could happen. Hektoen noted they should not be discussing the Forest View project as it was not on the agenda, but it was noted in the recommendation they must provide the replacement housing in the first phase of the project. Baker will not be at the May 16 meeting Adiournment: Dyer moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018-2019 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 3/15 (W.S.) 4/2 4/5 (W.S) 4/16 4/19 5/3 5/17 6/7 6/21 7/5 8/16 9/6 9/20 10/18 12/20 1/3 BAKER, LARRY -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X O/E X X DYER, CAROLYN O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X O O/E O X X X FREERKS, ANN X X X X X O/E X X X `-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HENSCH, MIKE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X O/E -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X O/E X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 1/17 (W.S.) 2/4 2/21 3/7 3/21 BAKER, LARRY X X X X X DYER, CAROLYN O/E X X X X FREERKS, ANN -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E X X X PARSONS, MAX X X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X O/E X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member Item Number: 23. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 18, 2019 Telecommunications Commission: March 25 ATTACHMENTS: Description Telecommunications Commission: March 25 PRELIMINARY Iowa City Telecommunications Commission 03/25/2019 Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 4 Minutes Iowa City Telecommunications Commission March 25, 2019 — 5:30 P.M. City of Iowa City Cable TV Office, 10 S. Linn St. - Tower Place, Level 3A Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 5:34 P.M. Members Present: Matthew Brenton, James Pierce, Adam Stockman Members Absent: Gina Reyes Staff Present: Ty Coleman Others Present: Bond Drager Recommendations to Council: None Approval of Minutes: Stockman moved and Pierce seconded a motion to approve the February 25, 2019 minutes as presented. The motion passed unanimously. Announcements of Commissioners: Commission member Pierce and newly -appointed member Adam Stockman exchanged introductions. Short Public Announcements: None. Post -franchise role of the Telecommunications Commission: Brenton noted that commission member Gowder was resigning from the Commission and that Brenton would be taking over his role within the subcommittee to draft a proposal to the City Council regarding the future role of the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission (ICTC). Brenton and Pierce agreed that they should have something ready for review and discussion for the next ICTC meeting. Stockman said to let him know if there was anything he could contribute. Coleman said that any input could be sent to him from Stockman so that it could be presented in the next meeting's packet for other members of the ICTC and for the public to view. Consumer Issues: Brenton noted that all of the issues listed in the consumer issues reports found in the meeting packet had been resolved. Coleman referred to the issue listed in the report involving internet service at Cross Park Place, noting that service wasn't available at that location yet, but that it was in the works and should be ready sometime in April. Mediacom Report: Brenton mentioned the Connect2Compete letter, found in the meeting packet, that had been PRELIMINARY Iowa City Telecommunications Commission 03125/2019 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4 sent by Mediacom to the City. Brenton said he was somewhat surprised that only fifteen families in Iowa City were using the program. He said the group had discussed the program at an earlier meeting and recalled that some of the eligibility restrictions for the program were somewhat arbitrary and punitive to potential customers, such as the requirement that one not already be a Mediacom customer. Stockman agreed that due to the necessity of internet service, there is a chance that people are already customers, despite meeting other eligibility factors. Brenton wondered if the Commission could request that the City ask if Mediacom would consider removing the restriction of not having been a Mediacom customer for the past 90 days. Brenton said Mediacom doesn't have a real incentive to offer the low-cost service to someone who is already paying the normal price for service. Stockman asked if the program was fairly new. Drager estimated that it had been around for at least two to three years. Coleman said that perhaps not many people know about the availability of the program. Stockman said that it may be tough to get the word out about the program, but noted that it would be good for Mediacom from a public relations perspective. Coleman offered that perhaps the entity that oversees the free and reduced school lunch program would be able to provide those accepted into the lunch program with information about the availability of the Connect2Compete program, noting that they would have a targeted audience. Drager said that it can sometimes be difficult to get external items promoted through the school district. Brenton asked if the Commission could send a recommendation to the City Council that the City consider requesting that Mediacom remove some of the eligibility requirements and promote the program more. Coleman suggested that the Commission could come up with a request and send it to the City Council, asking for them to sign off on it before it is sent to Mediacom, similar to what the Commission did when expressing its opposition to the "Restoring Internet Freedom" proposal back in 2017. Brenton said that the group should return to a discussion on what it wants to request after it has completed its proposal for the Commission's future role. Coleman said members of the group could continue to think about the topic and bring ideas to the next meeting. He offered that perhaps the Cable TV Office would be able to help with drafting the request, based on the Commission's ideas and suggestions, and that the Commission could review and approve the draft before sending it to Council. Coleman said that another reason he had included Mediacom's letter in the meeting packet was for the Commission's consideration as it drafted a proposal to Council regarding its future role, which was focusing on greater accessibility to broadband services. Brenton said that Mediacom's program could be seen as working towards providing access to services for those with low incomes. Local Access Reports: Drager reported the Library has begun embedding live stream programming links into the calendar events on the Iowa City Public Library (ICPL) online calendar. She said that after the event has taken place, the same link will allow viewers to watch the archived program at a later PRELIMINARY Iowa City Telecommunications Commission 03125/2019 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4 time. City Cable TV Office Report: Coleman referred to the report the Cable TV Office had submitted in the meeting packet. He noted that the Cable TV Office was currently working on creating the City's third podcast episode, focusing on public transit opportunities in the area. Adjournment: Stockman moved and Pierce seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 5:54 p.m. PRELIMINARY Iowa City Telecommunications Commission 03125/2019 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4 TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 12 -MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD (x) = Present (o) = Absent (o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused) Gowder Bergus Brenton Johnk Pierce 04/23/2018 x x x x x 05/21/2018 x o/c x x x 06/25/2018 x x x o/c x 07/23/2018 Meeting not held due to lack of quorum. vacant vacant 08/27/2018 Meeting not held due to lack of quorum. vacant vacant 9/24/2018 x vacant x vacant x Paterson 10/22/2018 x o x vacant x 11/26/2018 Meeting not held due to lack of quorum. vacant 12/17/2018 x o x vacant x 01/22/2019 Meeting not held due to inclement weather and lack of quorum. vacant Stockman 02/25/2019 x vacant x x o/c Reyes 03/25/2019 resignation o/c x x x (x) = Present (o) = Absent (o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused)