The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-01-30 Info Packet� � 1 � �AL CITY 01 10VVA CITY www.icgov.org City Council Information Packet IP1. Council Tentative Meeting Schedule February 4 Work Session January 30, 2020 IP2. Work Session Agenda IP3. Memo from Associate Planner and Senior Planner, Neighborhood and Development Services: City/County Fringe Area Agreement Update IP4. Memo from City Manager: Aid to Agencies Grant Program Funding IPS. Memo from City Manager: 2020-21 Strategic Plan IP6. Pending City Council Work Session Topics Miscellaneous IP7. Memo from City Manager: Form -Based Code Stakeholder Meeting with the ICCSD IP8. DRAFT City Council, UISG and GPSG Joint Meeting Agenda: February 11 IP9. Quarterly Investment Report: October - December 2019 I11310. Joint Entities Meeting Minutes: January 13 IP11. Civil Service Examination: Cashier- Revenue IP12. Civil Service Examination: Maintenance Worker I I - Streets IP13. Civil Service Examination: Parking Enforcement Attendant Draft Minutes IP14. Climate Action Commission: January 6 January 30, 2020 City of Iowa City Page 1 Item Number: 1. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 30, 2020 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule ATTACHMENTS: Description Council Tentative Meeting Schedule I, r 1 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule _ . r� Subject to change CITY OF IOWA CITY January 30, 2020 Date Time Meeting Location Tuesday, February 4, 2020 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 11, 2020 7:00 PM Joint Meeting with UISG Iowa Memorial Union 125 N. Madison Street Second Floor Ballroom Tuesday, February 18, 2020 5:00 PM Iowa City Conference Board Mtg. Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 3, 2020 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 24, 2020 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, April 7, 2020 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, April 13, 2020 4:00 PM Reception City of University Heights 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting TBD Tuesday, April 21, 2020 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting �r p- CITY OE IOWA CITY www.iogov.org January 30, 2020 Work Session Agenda ATTACHMENTS: Description Work Session Agenda Item Number: 2. I L CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org City Council Work Session Agenda Tuesday, February 4, 2020 Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall 5:00 PM • Review staffs growth boundary analysis and discuss the update to the Johnson County Fringe Area Agreement [I P3] • FY 2021 Aid to Agencies Grant Funding [I P4] • Discuss 2020-21 Strategic Planning process [IP5] • Clarification of Agenda Items • Information Packet Discussion [January 23, January 30] Council Direction needed on the following items: 1. (1/23) IP2 -Memo from City Manager. Sister City Information 2. (1/23) IP3/IP4- Summer Meeting Schedule 3. (1/23) IP5 • Memo from City Clerk: 2020 Listening Post Tentative Schedule 4. (1/23) IP6 - Memo from Neighborhood Services Coordinator. Emergency Funding Criteria 5. (1/30) IP7 - Memo from City Manager. FomrBased Code Stakeholder Meeting with the ICCSD 6. (1/30) IP8 - DRAFT City Council, UISG and GPSG Joint Meeting Agenda: February 11 • Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees Item Number: 3. �r p- CITY OE IOWA CITY www.iogov.org January 30, 2020 Memo from Associate Planner and Senior Planner, Neighborhood and Development Services: City/County Fringe Area Agreement Update ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from Associate Planner and Senior Planner, Neighborhood and Development Services: City/County Fringe Area Agreement Update CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM UNESCO CITY OF LITERATl1RE Date: January 23, 2020 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner and Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood and Development Services Re: City/County Fringe Area Agreement Update Introduction In 2006, Iowa City and Johnson County executed a Fringe Area Agreement to establish the policies for the orderly growth and development of land within the area known as the City's "fringe area" in the County. This agreement enables both the City and the County to cooperate for their mutual benefit through coordinated land use planning. Such policies are necessary to more effectively and economically provide services for future growth and development, and to protect and preserve the fringe area's natural resources and its environmentally sensitive features. In December 2018, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors submitted a letter to the City Council requesting that the City Council direct staff to review the current Fringe Area Agreement and coordinate with County staff on the development of a new Fringe Area Agreement [Attachment 1]. After discussions with City Council in February 2019, staff has been coordinating with County Planning staff and working towards an updated Fringe Area Agreement. Recently, staff received correspondence from the County indicating that the Board of Supervisors would like to set up a working group of two Supervisors, two City Council members, and staff to further discuss the update to the Fringe Area Agreement. This memo provides a general overview of the Fringe Area Agreement [Attachment 2], outlines issues with the existing agreement, and provides a summary of a build -out analysis that assesses growth potential. Rationale is then provided for consideration of five new areas into the City's growth boundary. Finally, the memo outlines some questions for Council to consider as staff finalizes its draft revisions of the Fringe Area Agreement. Overview of the Fringe Area Agreement Land use regulation is under the authority of county governments for land outside of city limits. However, State law allows cities to establish a two-mile extraterritorial area, known as the fringe area, beyond city boundaries for the purpose of reviewing and approving subdivisions. State law also grants cities the authority to require that subdivisions within the fringe area adhere to the City's subdivision regulations, unless the City establishes alternative standards set forth in an agreement between the City and the County. The Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Its stated purpose is to: The Fringe Area Policy Agreement is intended to provide for orderly and efficient development patterns appropriate to a non -urbanized area, protect and preserve the fringe area's natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to area January 29, 2020 Page 2 with physical characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and economically provide services for future growth and development. The Agreement categorizes land into three fringe areas: Fringe Areas A, B, and C [Attachment 3]. These areas are further divided into two categories — land within Iowa City's growth boundary and land outside the City's growth boundary. The City's growth boundary defines the City's potential corporate limits and was established with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 2013. It includes land, that for the purposes of long-range planning, is projected to serve the City's growth need for 30-40 years. Per the existing agreement, the fringe area is fixed, and does not adjust as land is annexed and the City grows. Table 1 outlines how development projects are reviewed per the Fringe Area Agreement. TABLE 1. Summary of Review Authority per Fringe Area Agreement, Adopted 2006 Fringe Area Rezonings Subdivisions Commercial Zoned Properties in Fringe Area B If no Subdivision Required and Development >2 acres Inside Iowa - County has control - Review & approval - Subject to review City - Review & by both City and by both the City & Growth recommendation County County in Boundary from the City - Subject to City's accordance with subdivision each jurisdiction's regulations (Urban requirements Design Standards) Outside - County has control - Review & approval - Subject to the - No review by City Iowa City - Review & by both City and City's and County's unless associated Growth recommendation County site plan review with a rezoning Boundary from the City - Subject to Rural requirements (most Design Standards restrictive standards apply) The agreement also includes a conflict resolution policy for when the City and County disagree over a proposed subdivision, rezoning, or annexation. This conflict resolution policy was invoked in 2018 with the proposed rezoning of land located in unincorporated Johnson County south of American Legion Road and west of Wapsie Avenue SE (CZ18-00002). The Fringe Area Agreement renews automatically on an annual basis unless the City or the County object to the renewal. The agreement also includes a provision related to the review of the agreement. With the County's recent letter, the County has initiated that review. Issues with Current Fringe Area Agreement The Fringe Area Agreement has not been updated since it was adopted in 2006. Since that time the City updated its comprehensive plan (adopted 2013), and developed several new district plans. Specifically, the South District Plan and the Southeast District Plan, which abut the fringe area, were adopted in 2015 and 2011, respectively. In addition, the County has updated its comprehensive plan twice since 2006. The most recent update was in 2018. Based on the land use policies in the recently adopted County plan, there are inconsistencies between the policy direction identified in the plan and the Fringe Area Agreement. These inconsistencies will need to be addressed as the City and County work together on an updated Fringe Area Agreement. January 29, 2020 Page 3 Build -Out Summary Methods and Results To gain a better understanding of how the City may approach updates to the Fringe Area Agreement, staff conducted a build -out analysis to determine if the City's adopted land use policy and zoning designations have the capacity to accommodate the 2045 population and employment projections in the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County's Future Forward 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. The build -out analysis is an estimate of Iowa City's ability to accommodate population and employment growth within the City limits and City's identified growth boundary (as identified in the current Fringe Area Agreement) through the year 2045. The analysis begins by establishing buildable lands within the City limits and growth boundary by compiling a record of vacant and underutilized properties. Lands that are deemed to be vacant and/or underutilized then have either a City zoning designation or land use designation from the Comprehensive Plan applied to each lot. Staff calculated the maximum build -out at the highest possible density or intensity to each lot and then applied a discount factor to account for infrastructure, parking, sensitive areas, and other site constraints. The dwelling unit density of residentially -zoned lots was converted to a population estimate. The development potential of non -residentially zoned lots was converted to an employment estimate. The total population and employment estimates were compared to the growth projections from the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County's Future Forward 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. In short, staff found that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate population and employment growth within the City limits and current growth boundary through the year 2045. Table 1 compares the results of the build -out analysis to the 2045 growth projections. Table 1. Comparison of Build -out Results to Growth Projections Summary of Key Findings • The land currently in the City and growth boundary can accommodate an estimated increase in population of over 61,000 people, well over the projected population growth of 22,285 for 2045 in the MPO's Future Forward 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. • Assuming an efficiency factor of 70% on each residential lot, the City and growth boundary can accommodate more than double the projected dwelling units needed. Overall, there is enough land to satisfy projected commercial growth and employment by over 14,000 jobs through 2045. Est. Building Est. Est. Dwelling Square Ft. Employment Units Est. Population City Build -out Potential: 7,419,462 20,002 16,379 37,756 Growth Boundary Build- out Potential: 7,718,510 18,373 10,175 23,771 Total Build -Out Potential: 15,137,972 38,375 26,554 61,527 JC MPO Projections (Projected Increases from 2017 to 2045 )1 n/a 23,615 10,794 22,285 'Data comes from the Johnson County Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2017 Future Forward 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan Link Summary of Key Findings • The land currently in the City and growth boundary can accommodate an estimated increase in population of over 61,000 people, well over the projected population growth of 22,285 for 2045 in the MPO's Future Forward 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. • Assuming an efficiency factor of 70% on each residential lot, the City and growth boundary can accommodate more than double the projected dwelling units needed. Overall, there is enough land to satisfy projected commercial growth and employment by over 14,000 jobs through 2045. January 29, 2020 Page 4 Table 2 provides more detail on the build -out analysis within current jurisdictional boundaries and breaks down the non-residential and residential development potential by zoning district. Table 2. Build -Out Potential within Current City Limits Summary of Key Findings (City Limits) Assuming the University continues to employ 40% of all Iowa City workers', the City has abundant capacity to absorb projected demands in employment (through 2045). o On non -university property, Iowa City can absorb approximately 20,002 workers. o The Johnson County MPO projects an increase of 23,615 workers in Iowa City by 2045. o If the University continues to employ 40% of all Iowa City workers, Iowa City would need to absorb 14,169 workers on non -university property. o It is possible that the University might comprise a smaller proportion of Iowa City's total workforce in 2045. The City has the capacity to absorb projected gains in dwelling units and population; however, much of this capacity is dependent upon continued redevelopment of the Riverfront Crossings area. o Continued redevelopment (at current maximum base heights) is necessary to accommodate projected growth, as about 65% of all residential units are projected to come from the Riverfront Crossings area. • The analysis excluded Iowa City Local Landmarks, Local Historic Districts, and Local Conservation Districts, as well as the downtown area currently being pursued for designation in the National Register of Historic Places. With most of the downtown excluded from the analysis, there is little capacity for additional employment or residential growth. 1 Figure derived from the Johnson County MPO Long Range Transportation Plan 2017-2045. Total Est. Building Square Non -Residential Development Potential: Acres Ftg. Est. Employment Research Development Park 45.6 248,521 816 General Industrial (11) 96.2 1,047,871 2,083 Commercial Zones (CO -1, CN -1, CH -1, CI -1, CC -2) 228 4,316,853 12,434 Downtown (CB -2, 5, 10) 1.69 58,836 190 Riverfront Crossings 50 1,747,381 4,479 Total: 422 7,432,303 20,002 JC MPO Projections 2045: 23,615 Total Residential Development Potential: Acres Est. Dwelling Units Est. Population Single -Family (RR -1, RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, RNS- 12) 1,052 1,847 4,149 Multi -Family (RM -12, RM -20, RM -44, PRM) 22 167 375 Interim Development SF & MF 722 3,257 7,540 Downtown (CB -2, 5, 10) 1.69 423 976 Riverfront Crossings 50 10,648 24,631 Total: 1,848 16,379 37,756 JC MPO Projections 2045: 10,794 22,285 Summary of Key Findings (City Limits) Assuming the University continues to employ 40% of all Iowa City workers', the City has abundant capacity to absorb projected demands in employment (through 2045). o On non -university property, Iowa City can absorb approximately 20,002 workers. o The Johnson County MPO projects an increase of 23,615 workers in Iowa City by 2045. o If the University continues to employ 40% of all Iowa City workers, Iowa City would need to absorb 14,169 workers on non -university property. o It is possible that the University might comprise a smaller proportion of Iowa City's total workforce in 2045. The City has the capacity to absorb projected gains in dwelling units and population; however, much of this capacity is dependent upon continued redevelopment of the Riverfront Crossings area. o Continued redevelopment (at current maximum base heights) is necessary to accommodate projected growth, as about 65% of all residential units are projected to come from the Riverfront Crossings area. • The analysis excluded Iowa City Local Landmarks, Local Historic Districts, and Local Conservation Districts, as well as the downtown area currently being pursued for designation in the National Register of Historic Places. With most of the downtown excluded from the analysis, there is little capacity for additional employment or residential growth. 1 Figure derived from the Johnson County MPO Long Range Transportation Plan 2017-2045. January 29, 2020 Page 5 • Development of existing interim single-family and multi -family zoned parcels is projected to account for almost 20% of residential development within the city limits. Table 3 summarizes the results of the build -out analysis within the City's growth boundary. Table 3. Build -Out Potential within the Growth Boundary Summary of Key Findings (City Growth Boundary) Most of the undeveloped or underdeveloped non-residential land (81%) is planned as Industrial and Office Park. The land planned for Industrial uses is mostly in the Southeast District with some in the South Central District. The land planned for Office Park uses is all in the North Corridor north of 1-80 on either side of Highway 1. o There has been a decreasing trend in the use of suburban -style office parks and an increasing trend in bringing office jobs into more walkable, urban environments. • The land planned as Intensive Commercial is primarily south of the airport in the South Central District. Most of the residential areas (4,232 acres) are planned for densities between 1-8 dwelling units per acre. This is consistent with single-family zoning, and accounts for 79% of the residentially allocated land in the growth boundary. Total Non -Residential Uses Acres Est. Building Square Ftg. Est. Employment Office & Mixed -Use Commercial 27. 518,730 1,354 Intensive Commercial 104 1,127,090 2,053 Industrial 357 3,885,327 7,771 Office Park 201 2,187,363 7,195 Total: 688 7,718,510 18,373 JC MPO Projections 2045: 23,615 Total Residential Density Acres Est. Dwelling Units Est. Population 1 DU/Acre 2,586 1,533 3,557 2-8 DU/Acre 1,646 6,522 15,131 2-12 DU/Acre 87 422 979 8-13 DU/Acre 177 1,126 2,612 8-16 DU/Acre 36 381 884 12-24 DU/Acre 19 239 554 16-24 DU/Acre 2 23 53 Total: 4,552 10,175 23,771 JC MPO Projections 2045: 10,794 22,285 Total Public & Open Space Acres Total: 849 Summary of Key Findings (City Growth Boundary) Most of the undeveloped or underdeveloped non-residential land (81%) is planned as Industrial and Office Park. The land planned for Industrial uses is mostly in the Southeast District with some in the South Central District. The land planned for Office Park uses is all in the North Corridor north of 1-80 on either side of Highway 1. o There has been a decreasing trend in the use of suburban -style office parks and an increasing trend in bringing office jobs into more walkable, urban environments. • The land planned as Intensive Commercial is primarily south of the airport in the South Central District. Most of the residential areas (4,232 acres) are planned for densities between 1-8 dwelling units per acre. This is consistent with single-family zoning, and accounts for 79% of the residentially allocated land in the growth boundary. January 29, 2020 Page 6 • The most densely planned residential areas are in the South and Southeast districts, while the least dense area is the North Corridor (most of this area is unplanned, but due to topography and current development, it was estimated to be developed around 1 dwelling unit per acre). • There is a significant amount of land planned for either public uses or open space (848 acres), mostly in the South and Northwest districts. The Northwest District has a significant amount of public space planned east of Highway 218 and north of Rohret Road. Other Factors to Consider for Potential Growth Boundary Expansion Areas Although the build -out analysis indicates that there is enough capacity on vacant and underutilized land to accommodate the residential and employment growth projections, Council may want to consider expanding the growth boundaries for those areas likely to develop in the near future. Staff examined areas outside of the current City growth boundary that contain the following characteristics likely to foster an environment supportive of development. • Potential current or future gateways into the City; • Highway adjacency and access; • Planned commercial or industrial land uses from Johnson County; • Sewerability; • Adjacency to areas envisioned for residential or commercial development per the City's Comprehensive Plan; • Preservation of existing sensitive areas; and • Other factors that might promote future land development. Considering these factors, Staff is recommending extension of the City's growth boundary to include the following five areas [Attachment 3]: January 29, 2020 Page 7 Area 1 (Area near Hiahwav 1 & Sharon Center Road The first area is located southwest of Iowa City along either side of Highway 1 (outlined in black in Figure 1). This area is currently designated in the County's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for Residential, Commercial, and Intensive Commercial development. Non-residential growth for those areas shown in red and purple in Figure 1, is of high concern to Staff. First, a rezoning of these areas to commercial and industrial County zoning designations would present a stark conflict of potential uses next to the existing agricultural, and planned residential, land use and zoning designations. Second, the City has generally tried to direct commercial and industrial growth into the City limits to encourage more efficient development. This is done to take advantage of existing utilities and services that these more intense land uses often require, in addition to curbing urban sprawl and leapfrog development. Staff is proposing to include this area in the City's growth boundary, which will allow the City to be more involved in land use decisions and better ensure these planning principals are followed. The residential areas shown in Figure 1 lie directly south from the Rohret South Subarea from the City's Southwest District Plan. The Rohret South Subarea will be developable upon extension of the Abbey Lane trunk sewer west of Route 218, which is included in the City's capital improvement program for construction in 2023. Due to the adjacency of this area with the Rohret South Subarea, including it in the City's growth boundary would better ensure a smooth transition between City and County development. Specifically, inclusion in the growth boundary would mean that development must comply with the City's Urban Design Standards, which includes standards related to storm water, streets, and other public utilities. The Southwest District Plan envisions street connectivity from the Rohret South Subarea continuing southward. The area has limited sensitive areas and prime highway adjacency that will make it attractive for development once it is sewerable. Furthermore, the area would be a fitting southwestern gateway into Iowa City for those traveling northbound on Highway 1. Figure 1. Potential Growth Area Boundary Expansion — Area 1 0 125 0.25 0.5 0.75 January 29, 2020 Page 8 Area 2 (Area south of Route 218 and Riverside Drive The second area to consider adding to the City's growth boundary, outlined in black in Figure 2, is located south of Iowa City (south of Riverside Drive). The current Fringe Area Agreement identifies this area as appropriate for rural, agricultural uses. The County recently approved an amendment to its Future Land Use Map that designates this area as appropriate for commercial development. Although the area is currently zoned County Residential and Agricultural, there is a pending County Commercial rezoning application under consideration by the City and County for the southern portion of Area 2. Like Area 1, staff has concerns about commercial development taking place outside of the City limits. Because of its highway adjacency, commercial development of Area 2 is highly attractive. Should the County Board of Supervisors choose to rezone this area to County Commercial, the area will be allowed to develop with an array of retail and service-oriented uses. Staff feels it is prudent to include this land into the City's growth boundary so that commercial development in this area is limited until it is annexed into the City. In terms of City infrastructure, a water main is located to the immediate east of Area 2, where the southernmost property within the City limits has water service. The area is sewerable per the City's long-term sewer master plan, but the nearest sanitary line is located over 1 mile away near Colonial Lanes bowling alley. It is possible that extension of this sanitary line might open the area between Area 2 and the City limits for future redevelopment. Figure 2. Potential Area of Growth Boundary Expansion — Area 2 Miles 11 0.075 0.15 03 0.45 06 January 29, 2020 Page 9 Area 3 (Area north of Highway 6 to Taft Avenue) The third area to consider adding to the City's growth boundary is located southeast of Iowa City between 420th St on the north and Highway 6 on the south and west of Taft Ave (outlined in black, Figure 3). Including this area into the City's growth boundary would allow for the future expansion of Iowa City's industrial park if the need should arise. Figure 3. Potential Area of Growth Boundary Expansion — Area 3 0 0.075 0.15 0-3 0.45 0.6 January 29, 2020 Page 10 Area 4 (Area near Herbert Hoover Hiahwav & 1-80 The fourth area to consider adding to the City's growth boundary is located east of Iowa City at the intersection of Herbert Hoover Highway and 1-80 (shown in red and transparent white, outlined in black in Figure 4). The County's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map has identified this area as appropriate for highway commercial. Capital improvements to Taft Avenue are planned; however, construction is not anticipated for another five to 10 years. Once these improvements are completed, land to the east of Taft Avenue (which is currently in the City's growth boundary) will become more desirable for residential development. The area shown in red in Figure 4 is only'/2 mile east of the current growth boundary limit. It is possible that as the Taft Avenue corridor develops, and as residential growth continues eastward, the Herbert Hoover Highway interchange with Interstate 80 might be a logical place for commercial or highway commercial development. For similar reasons, directing commercial growth into the City limits, staff feels that incorporating Area 4 into the City's Growth Boundary makes sense. A portion of this area is already zoned for County commercial land uses and development would be able to occur in compliance with the existing zoning designation. Staff is proposing to include this area in the City's growth boundary, which will allow the City to be more involved in land use decisions. Figure 4. Potential Area of Growth Boundary Expansion — Area 4 0 0.0750.45 0.3 0.115 0.6 January 29, 2020 Page 11 Area 5 (Area off Highway 1, near Rapid Creek) The fifth area to consider adding to the City's growth boundary is located north of Iowa City on either side of Highway 1 north of the 1-80 (outlined in black in Figure 5). Area 5 is designated for agricultural uses east of Highway 1 NE and for residential uses west of Highway 1 NE with an emphasis on preserving 50% of the space for open space or agricultural uses in the current Fringe Area Agreement. The County's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map shows this entire area as appropriate for residential development. Currently, it is mostly zoned County Agricultural. Staff has recently received a residential rezoning application for a portion of this area west of Highway 1. Area 5 is bisected by Rapid Creek, and much of the area is in both the 100- and 500- year floodplain. Additionally, it is important to note that a portion of the area identified for County Residential growth overlaps with the City's current growth boundary. Staff recommends that this area be largely preserved for agricultural uses to help provide a transition from the planned commercial office and research park uses within the City limits to the south, to the larger lot residential uses in Johnson County. In revising the Fringe Area Agreement, staff recommends that the City control the amount of land that is developed for residential purposes in Area 5. Figure 5. Potential Area of Growth Boundary Expansion — Area 5 =;-A r W l = am CITY OF IOWA CITY 0 0.075 0 15 0.3 0.45 0.6 Y� Jah— C—ty Fd— Land U.. CeaWWWn �� Cmmerna� Caiv.r..mn De.wow�� . . Reee�+nMn _ Psir t Refidenva • a.o.><aiw•e� m..�arr � cm.N� eo�ony January 29, 2020 Page 12 Questions for the City Council At the City Council Work session on February 4, staff would like input from Council on the build -out analysis and proposed expansions to the growth boundary. Specifically, staff is interested in Council's thoughts on the following questions: 1. Are there any concerns with the proposed expansions (Areas 1-5) to the City's growth boundary? If so, what are those concerns? 2. Are there areas that staff has not considered including in the City's growth boundary that should be considered? 3. Does Council wish to create a working group to further collaborate with the County on this endeavor prior to staff providing you with recommended policy language for the updated Fringe Area Agreement? Next Steps Staff will continue to work with County planning staff on updates to the Fringe Area Agreement. At a future meeting staff will present a draft update to the Fringe Area Agreement that outlines the proposed land use policy direction, as well as land development processes for areas within City/County fringe area. In terms of the timeline, staff hopes to have an updated Fringe Area Agreement adopted by October 2020. Attachments 1. Letter from the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, December 27, 2018 2. Fringe Area Policy Agreement between Johnson County and Iowa City, Adopted 2006 3. Fringe Area Map, Adopted 2006 4. Potential Areas of Growth Boundary Expansion Johnson County December 27, 2018 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mike Carberry, Chairperson Janelle Rettig Lisa Green -Douglass, Vice Chairperson Rod Sullivan Mayor Jim Throgmorton and City Council City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor Throgmorton and Iowa City City Council, Pursuant to Section IV of the existing Fringe Area Agreement (FAA) between Iowa City and Johnson County, initially adopted in 2006, please accept this as notice that the Johnson County Board of Supervisors requests leadership of the City of Iowa City to review and jointly undertake consideration of needed modifications to the FAA. In May of 2018, the Board adopted the Johnson County 2018 Comprehensive Plan. This is the second iteration of a comprehensive plan for unincorporated Johnson County since we agreed to the FAA. The 2018 plan includes a Future Land Use Map which anticipates non-agricultural development in areas of the county that were not designated as growth areas over a decade ago. This has caused—and will likely continue to cause—conflict in reviewing development requests within the Fringe Area. The language in the current FAA references land use documents in effect in 2006 and does not allow the necessary flexibility to account for evolution in comprehensive planning over time. It is important to the Board that this process be initiated in the near future and progress to completion in a timely manner. Please direct City staff to take appropriate steps to review the current Fringe Area Agreement and the City's future land use plans with a goal of both City and County staff meeting to begin initial work on a new Fringe Area Agreement no later than March 1, 2019, Sincerely, Lisa Gree uglass Vice Chairperson 913 South Dubuque Street ♦Iowa City, Iowa 52240 ♦ 319-356-6000 ♦ www.johnson-county.com FRINGE AREA POLICY AGREEMENT BETWEEN JOHNSON COUNTY AND IOWA CITY WHEREAS, Chapter 354, Code of Iowa (2005) allows the City of Iowa City to establish an extraterritorial area, known as the fringe area, within two miles of the city boundaries for the purpose of reviewing and approving subdivisions; and WHEREAS, Chapter 354 further grants the City the authority to require that subdivisions within the fringe area adhere to the City's subdivision standards and conditions, unless the City establishes alternative standards and conditions for review and approval of subdivisions via a 28E agreement between the City and the County; and WHEREAS, Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa (2005) enables two or more local governments to enter into agreements to cooperate for their mutual advantage; and WHEREAS, the Johnson County Land Use Plan adopted December 31, 9998 calls for the preparation and adoption of development plans and agreements between the County and the City regarding the municipality and its environment; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan Update adopted in December, 1957 outlines the extent of urban development expected within the next 20 years; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of Johnson County (the "County") and the City of Iowa City (the "City") to establish policies for the orderly growth and development within the City's fringe area; and WHEREAS, Johnson County and the City of Iowa City mutually agree that such policies are necessary to more effectively and economically provide services for future growth and development and to protect and preserve the fringe area's natural resources and its environmentally sensitive features. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. FRINGE AREA DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The parties accept and agree to the following development policies regarding annexation, zoning, and subdivision review for the Iowa Cigr'fdnge area as authorized by Chapter 354, Code of Iowa (2005). Purpose: The Fringe Area Policy Agreement Is intended to provide for orderly and efficient development patterns appropriate to a non -urbanized area, protect and preserve the fringe area's natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas with physical characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and economically provide services for future growth and development. In light of these • objectives, the City and the County examined the development capabilities of the Iowa City fringe area and determined that development within this fringe area Is to occur in accordance with a) the Land Use Plan attached to this Agreement, b) development standards contained in Section B of this agreement, and c) the fringe area development policies contained in Section C of this -Agreement. The development policies of this Agreement are intended to be consistent with the policies of the adopted Johnson County Land Use Plan and the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. -2- A. Land Use. Plan The Land Use Plan, attached to this Agreement as Attachment 1, illustrates the land use patterns for the fringe area. B. Development Standards The following general standards apply to unincorporated development in the fringe area. 1. Discourage development in areas which conflict with the Johnson County Land Use Plan which considers CSR (Corn Suitability Rating), high water table, wetlands, floodplain, non -erodible soil, and road suitability. 2. Protect the public health by requiring developers to meet or exceed minimum standards for water and wastewater systems in all developments within the Iowa City Fringe Area pursuant to Johnson County Public Health Department Regulations. 3. Encourage cluster development which preserves large tracts of open space including environmentally sensitive areas and farm land, results in compact development which requires less infrastructure, and is more efficient for provision of services. C. Fringe Area Development Policies The parties agree to apply the following fringe area development policies. FRINGE AREA A Land within Iowa City's Growth Area. Land in Area A which is presently zoned for residential development, and within Iowa City's growth area, may develop in conformance with existing zoning, provided subdivisions and development projects shall conform to City Urban Design standards contained in Title 14, Chapter l of the City Code of Iowa City, Including but not limited to City specifications for streets and roads, sanitary sewer lines, stormwater management facilities and water lines. Developments which are approved prior to annexation shall be required to be served by a package sanitary sewage treatment plant and common wells, with sanitary sewer and water collection and distribution systems which are constructed to City standards and can be connected to municipal systems upon annexation. Subdivisions and development projects which are approved prior to annexation shall be required to be cluster developments with a minimum of 50% of the development designated as an outlot for open space, agriculture, or future development upon annexation. Prior to annexation, any zoning changes in Iowa City's projected growth area shall be consistent with the City's adopted land use plan. 2. Land ou side Iowa City's Growth Area but in the County's No h Corridor. Residential uses are the preferred use in this area. Any re -zonings in this area will be considered on the basis of conformity with the Johnson County Land Use Plan and other related policies. On a case-by-case basis, proposals to rezone land In this area to RS -3 (one dwelling unit per three acres of lot area) may be considered. RS zoning will be considered if the application to rezone includes a concept pian showing a minimum of 50% of the property designated as an outlot for open space or agriculture. Development must comply with City Rural Design standards contained In Appendix A. On the. balance of land outside the North Corridor, agricultural uses are preferred. -3- 3. Any development on property governed by the Iowa City/Coralviile Agreement Providing for Future Annexations and Extraterritorial Review of Subdivision Plats (Sept. 1999) shall be consistent with said agreement. Such agreement shall take precedence over this Fringe Area Policy Agreement. 4. If land is annexed within Fringe Area A, the City agrees that it will not automatically extend its fringe area authority to review and approve all subdivisions, which it exercises pursuant to Iowa Code §354.9 and Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. The City will review the extension of its fringe area as a result of annexation on a case-by-case basis in consultation with Johnson County. FRINGE AREA B As set forth in Iowa City's adopted growth policy, the City will likely annex land within one mile of Iowa City to the east and within two miles of Iowa City to the south in the short-range. It is therefore consistent with the purpose of this agreement that rural subdivisions within these areas of high annexation potential be required to meet City Urban Design Standards contained in Appendix A. Land within Iowa City's Growth Area. As applications are received to develop land contiguous to and within the growth limits of the city, the City will give favorable consideration to the voluntary annexation of this land and its development at an urban density in conformance with the City's adopted land use plan. Prior to annexation, any zoning changes in Iowa City's projected growth area shall also be consistent with the City's adopted land use plan. Subdivisions and development projects within Iowa City's projected growth area shall conform to City Urban Design Standards contained in Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of Iowa City, including but not limited to City specifications for streets and roads, sanitary sewer lines, stormwater management facilities and water lines. Developments which are approved prior to annexation shall be required to be served by a package sanitary sewage treatment plant and common wells with sanitary sewer and water collection and distribution systems which are constructed to City standards and can be connected to municipal systems upon annexation. Subdivisions and development projects which are approved prior to annexation shall be required to be cluster developments with a minimum of 50% of the development designated as an outlot for open space, agriculture, or future development upon annexation. 2. Land outside Iowa City's Growth Area. On the balance of land in Area B that lies outside Iowa City's projected growth area, agricultural uses are preferred. Until otherwise changed by amending this agreement, this area shall be restricted to those uses consistent with a Rural/Agricultural area as indicated in the Johnson County Land Use Plan, and as designated for a Rural/Agricultural area in chapter 8:1.8. Class A District of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance as amended. Farmstead splits are permitted per Chapter 8:1.6.1.4.c of the'Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance. Given the existence of commercially zoned property and the demand for commercial uses at the I-80/Herbert Hoover Highway Interchange, rezonings to County CH -Highway Commercial District of property abutting the interchange, as shown on the attached fringe area map, will be considered. However, the only uses that will be allowed will be: Auto and truck oriented uses„ Hotels, motels, and convention facilities, Office buildings and -4 - studios, restaurants, and any accessory use normally associated with the permitted principal use. All existing commercially zoned property and any properties rezoned to CH -Highway Commercial shall be subject to the City's and the County's Site Plan Review Requirements with the most restrictive standards applying in instances where the two standards dilt'en 3. Upon annexation of land within Fringe Area B, the City agrees that it will not automatically extend its fringe area authority to review and approve all subdivisions, which it exercises pursuant to Iowa Code §354.9 and Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, The City will review the extension of its fringe area as a result of annexation on a case-by-case basis in consultation with Johnson County. FRINGE AREA C 1. Land within Iowa Cltsr's Growth Area. Land in Area C, which is presently zoned for residential development and within Iowa City's growth area, may develop in conformance with. existing zoning, provided subdivisions and development projects shall conform to City Urban Design standards contained in Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of Iowa City, including but not limited to City specifications for streets and roads, sanitary sewer lines, stormwater management facilities and water lines. Developments- . which are approved prior to annexation shall be required to be sere by a package sanitary sewage treatment plant and common wells with sanitary sewer and water collection and distribution systems which are constructed to City standards and can be connected to municipal systems upon annexation. Subdivisions and development projects which are approved prior to annexation shall be required to be cluster developments with a minimum of 50% of the development designated as an outlot for open space, agriculture, or future development upon annexation. Upon annexation to Iowa City, commercial and/or industrial development is encouraged south and southwest of the Iowa City Municipal Airport as shown on the attached Land Use Plan and in the portion of Section 20 of West Lucas Township that is located in the east and south quadrants of the Highway 1 and Highway 218 interchange. It is consistent with the purpose of this agreement na a .prove commercial and/or industrial level s within this area prior to annexation. A o nson aunty Lan Use Pian, com mus me will be encouraged to locate in the interchanges of paved roads. Commercial and/or industrial development will be discouraged in all other areas of Fringe Area C. As applications are received to develop land contiguous to Iowa City and within this portion of the City's growth area, the City will give favorable consideration to the voluntary annexation of this land and its development for uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Land outside Iowa CiWs Growth Area. In the portions of Area C which are not within Iowa City's growth area and which are zoned for non-farm development, development may occur in conformance with Johnson County's. Unified Development Ordinance and City Rural Design Standards. Until otherwise changed by amending this agreement, this area shall be restricted to those uses consistent with a Rural/Agricultural area as Indicated In the Johnson County Land Use Plan, and as designated for a Rural/ Agricultural area in Chapter 8:1.6 Class A District of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance as amended. Farmstead splits are permitted per Chapter 8:1;6.1.4.c of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance. .5- 3, Upon annexation of land within Fringe Area G, the City agrees that it will not automatically extend its fringe area authority to review and approve all subdivisions, which it exercises pursuant to Iowa Code. §354.9 and Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. The City will review the extension of its fringe area as a result of annexation on a case-by-case basis in consultation with Johnson County. SECTION II. PROTECTING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS Any regulations in the Fringe Area Agreement will not interfere with the Right to Farm, as contained in the Code of Iowa Chapter 335.2, Farms Exempt; and as noted in the Johnson County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 8.2, Protecting Agricultural Operations. SECTION III. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES As a rule, zoning regulation is the county's prerogative if a county has adopted a zoning ordinance. The City, however, exercises authority over subdivision regulation in a city's fringe area. Annexation Is also primarily under exclusive rule of cities. Each of these activities, however, affects both jurisdictions and produces a dear need for coordination and joint administration. To that end, the City of Iowa City and Johnson County agree to the following procedures for administration of land use regulations. A. Zoning Re ulation: 1. Zoning regulation for all unincorporated territory will remain under the authority of the Johnson County Zoning Ordinance and the provisions of Chapter 335, Code of Iowa (2005), the enabling legislation for the County's zoning powers. 2. Pursuant to Section 8:1.23 of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance, any person may request a variance to the lot area regulations of the zoning ordinance or appeal the decision -of any officer of the County as that decision relates to enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The County will forward each request for rezoning of property within the Fringe Areas specified in this Agreement to the City for review and comment prior to the public hearing before the County Planning and Zoning Commission. Any zoning change will conform with the policies. identified for the Area in which the property is located. 4. Properties zoned for a classification which is inconsistent with this Agreement, at the time this Agreement is executed, shall retain the rights under that zoning, unless and until such zoning is changed through due process. B. Subdivision ReauWion: 1. Subdivision of land within Iowa City's fringe area will be required to conform to either City Rural Design Standards or the City Urban Design Standards in accordance with the policies specified In this Agreement. 2. Persons wishing to subdivide land within the fringe area specified in this Agreement shall be required to simultaneously fife a subdivision application with both the City and the County. The City and the County shall coordinate the processing of the application to ensure concurrent review by both the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the County Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. Subdivisions of land into fewer than three lots will continue to be regulated by the County. C. Development pro!Ws not requiring, subdivision: Any development projects larger than 2 acres within the City's growth area shall be subject to review by both the City and the County in accordance with the procedural requirements of each jurisdiction. ) D. Annexation: 1. Iowa City will annex territory only in accordance with the policy statements specked in this Agreement. 2. The City will, upon receipt, forward applications requesting annexation or severance (de - annexation) of property within the fringe area specified in this Agreement to the County for review and comment prior to consideration by the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. As - appropriate and necessary, the City may extend the two-mile extraterritorial subdivision plat review area. Prior to any such extension, the City will forward to the County a proposal which includes the extension of the City's plat review authority for any distance up to the two mile limit provided by State law. The County will have a specified time within which to respond in affirmative agreement, negatively or with an alternative proposal. The City will take the County's response under advisement when determining the extension of extraterritorial review. E. Conflict Resolution: If the City and County are in conflict over a proposed subdivision, rezoning application, or annexation that may violate this agreement, a review committee, comprised of members of the City Council, Board of Supervisors and. staff, shall be established to negotiate a resolution prior to final action being taken by either body to subdivide, rezone, or annex property. SECTION IV. AGREEMENT REVIEW At any time during the term of this Agreement, either the Chair of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors or the Mayor of the City of Iowa City may initiate review of the policies of this Agreement by contacting the other party to this Agreement. Both parties to this Agreement shall consider modifications of this Agreement, as appropriate. ECTION V. EFFECTIVEEP RIOD This Agreement shall become effective upon acceptance and execution by the parties, and shall be in effect for five (5) years after the date of execution of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed unless the County or the City objects to such renewal prior to the renewal date. SECTION Vl.. REC RDATION This Agreement shall be filed with the Secretary of the State of Iowa, and with the Johnson County Recorder in compliance with Chapter 28E, Code of low@ (2005). Dated this L& day of 0 6T o & C 2006. ..7_ ,JOHNSON COUNTY By: - — Chairperson, Board of Supervisors �ed by. •I County Atton Attest: f ...- County Auditor Dated this413 On ay of p �� —12006 CORPORAT CITY OF IOWA CITY BY". Mayor Attest: _ J /l • 75 • 4144zl� City Nerk CORPORATE SEAL Approved by: City Attorney's Office ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Land Use Map for the Iowa City Fringe Area. 2. Appendix A: Definition of Standards APPENDIX A Definition of Standards City Urban Design Standards: Those standards enumerated in Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of Iowa City which the City imposes on any subdivision within the corporate limits of Iowa City. City Rural Design Standards: 1.0 Streets 1.1 Streets shall be designed for a minimum surface width of 22 feet. Curb and gutter will not be required. 1.2 The right-of-way for local streets without curb and gutter shall be 60 feet to enable retrofit of.sewer, water, and sidewalk In the future as necessary; otherwise, the right- of -way for local streets with curb and gutter and storm sewer shall be 50 feet. The right-of-way for arterial, industrial, and collector streets for the developed area shall be determined in conjunction with the Planning and Zoning Commission. 1.3 The maximum street grade for local streets shall be 12%. 1.4 The pavement cross section for all pavements will be a 2% parabolic crown. This cross slope is equivalent to i/ -inch per foot. 1.5 The pavement slab shall be constructed of a 6" rolled stone base and a 22 -foot wide chipseal surface. 1.6 Minimum corner radii shall be 20 feet. 1.7 The minimum ditch grade shall be 1.0%. In addition, it will be necessary to place a 12 -inch diameter (minimum) culvert, either reinforced concrete pipe or corrugated metal pipe, through all drive approaches constructed over a drainage ditch. The exact size of pipe required will be a function of the area to be drained. 1.8 Drive approaches shall be hard surfaced within the right-of-way. 2.0 Water Distribution System 2.1 Well(s) shall conform to the requirements of -the Johnson County Health Department and the distribution system, if installed, (water main) shall be either ductile cast Iron pipe (ANSI A21.50 manufactured in accordance with ANSI A21.50) or poly vinyl chloride pipe (PVC -ASTM D1784, Type 1, Grade 1, 200 psi design stress and SDR of 17 or less). 2.2 It shall be the responsibility of the Developers Engineer to establish a fire rating for the area being developed. Prior to plat approval, there shall be a letter of transmittal from the appropriate Fire Protection District approving spacing, location, number of fire hydrants, size of mains, pressure, etc. 2.3 Connection to the City of Iowa City Water Distribution System is subject to City Council consideration based on availability. Generally, annexation is a criterion which must be met. N 3.0 Sanita Sewer All methods of sanitation shall conform to the 1989 Johnson County Board of Health Rules and Regulations Governing On-site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems and to the 1990 Iowa City Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Policy. 4.0 Storm Sewers 4.1 With the exception of developments located in the Old Man's Creek watershed, the City Storm Water Management Ordinance shall apply to new developments located outside the City limits of Iowa City but within the City's area of extraterritorial jurisdiction. 4.2 All storm sewers shall conform to revised Section VII (Storm Sewers) of the Design Standards for Public Works Improvements in Iowa City, Iowa. 4.3 Culverts shall be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter; either reinforced concrete pipe or corrugated metal pipe (minimum gauge 18 and corrugations 2'. x Ile, 20" x %x', and 3"x1") shall be used. Culverts shall conform to the Standard Specifigpdons, for Hi hwa and Bridge Construction Series of 1977. Minimum cover over *the top of culvert shall be six inches. 5.0 Underground Utilities 5.1 Whenever a subdivision shall be laid out such that a new street is required, telephone and electric utilities shall be underground. It is not intended that small subdivisions which would use an existing county road would follow this requirement since overhead utilities are probably directly adjacent to the property. ppd9dn0n%defstsndapp.doc � � �1��Ti i rl I I I S Ji Potential Areas of Growth Boundary EXDansion r .; toni r �, 0 Q ITIS 01 IM -VA ITY � c1ty rte • �" .. w' 11 s � moo l�ti• ry � may, �~ - ! �. N �A� tat�•ey .rl r ■ r ■ ■ ■ FE VL ,y. Potential New Growth Areas Iowa City Boundary' - Johnson County Future Land Use Designation. Commercial-' Conservation Development- ■ Industrial Y AWIntensive Commercial -? Preservation Public Residential Fringe Area K n g L Outside Growth Boundary Growth Boundary r --- �►.. `,, •r / ■-'� Source: Esri, DigitalGiobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, C« Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 c—" Item Number: 4. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 30, 2020 Memo from City Manager: Aid to Agencies Grant Program Funding ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from City Manager: Aid to Agencies Grant Program Funding CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: January 30, 2020 To: Mayor and Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Aid to Agencies Grant Program Funding At your January 21, 2020 joint work session with the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC), the City Council requested that staff provide additional information on past social service funding. This memo provides such history and outlines a recommended source of funds if the City Council decides to increase funding for the Aid to Agencies program. It should be noted that outside of the federal dollars used to support the Aid to Agencies program, this memo does not review how the City uses other federal monies to assist many non-profit agencies every year. Aid to Agency Grant Program History The chart below provides a history of funding for the Aid to Agencies program: Aid to Agencies Funding FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 request 4 Cs $2,000 $2,000 $1,850 $5,000 $15,000 $14,909 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 Arc of SEI $2,000 $2,163 $5,000 $20,000 $20,000 Big Brothers/Big Sisters $35,000 $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 $29,325 $30,000 $30,000 $25,000 $14,909 $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 Compeer $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $3,313 Consortium for Youth Emp./Youth Works $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 CommUnity (Crisis Center) $36,500 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $38,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $39,756 $40,000 $66,000 $69,300 DVIP $52,000 $52,000 $52,000 $50,000 $47,500 $45,000 $45,000 $40,000 $39,756 $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 Horizons (Elder Services) $54,055 $54,000 1 $54,000 $52,000 $48,819 $30,010 $30,000 $25,000 $24,849 $20,000 $40,000 $44,000 Four Oaks 1 $1,000 January 27, 2020 Page 2 Free Lunch Program $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $5,000 $15,000 $16,000 1 $15,903 $15,000 $16,000 $18,000 Free Medical Clinic HACAP $7,263 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $12,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $15,000 $15,000 $17,500 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 HTFJC $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $23,855 $24,000 ICARE $8,950 $8,950 $8,950 $8,950 ICCSD Family Resource Centers $10,000 $15,000 Inside Out Reentry $14,909 $15,000 $30,000 $40,000 IV Habitat for Humanity $5,000 $25,000 $25,000 Red Cross $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 JC Social Services $6,000 MYEP $14,000 $10,000 $10,000 $6,000 NCJC $55,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $51,000 $50,000 $50,000 $43,700 $43,434 $34,300 $55,000 $55,000 Pathways $4,879 $4,000 $5,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 Prelude (MECCA) $27,000 $10,000 $18,950 $16,880 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $16,000 $20,000 $40,000 RVAP $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $10,325 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $20,000 $23,000 $25,000 Shelter House $35,500 $36,500 $36,500 $36,500 $32,525 $45,000 $45,000 $50,000 $49,696 $50,000 $85,000 $85,000 Table to Table $15,000 $20,000 $31,000 UAY $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $53,500 $49,000 $39,700 $40,000 $34,788 $27,400 $33,000 $33,000 Emerging Agencies I 1 $19,000 TBD Total Grant Dollars Legacy Agencies Emerging Agencies $425,268 $415,950 $412,950 $405,779 $378,700 $397,510 $378,700 $378,700 $376,400 $391,700 $614,500 $660,300 15 16 19 17 19 17 13 14 15 17 18 TBD 3 TBD The Aid to Agencies program has historically been funded with General Fund, CDBG and utility account funds. CDBG funds available for this type of program vary based on annual congressional allocations and have ranged from $91,000 to $120,000 over this funding period. Utility funds have hovered around $30,000 annually with the balance of funding coming from the General Fund. In the FY21 budget proposal, staff increased the General Fund contribution from pre-FY20 levels and also transferred utility fund contributions to the General Fund. In total, the FY21 budget proposal provides an estimated $458,000 for the grant program. This number is subject to change based on final congressional CDBG allocations. Over this period, there has been a couple of significant changes to the grant program. In FY16, the City began requiring a minimum award of $15,000. This was intended to increase the impact of individual awards and to reduce the growing administrative burden of managing small federal January 27, 2020 Page 3 grants to a growing number of agencies. This change had its intended effect with larger, more impactful awards being made to fewer agencies in FY16. However, the City kept expanding the number of agencies receiving awards after FY16, thus reducing the overall size of most awards. The only agency funded in FY17 through Aid to Agencies that is no longer funded is the Housing Trust Fund. It should be noted that the City is now funding the Housing Trust Fund through the Affordable Housing Fund, thus our support for that organization has not changed, it simply comes from a different pot of money. The trend of expanding the number of agencies was exacerbated in FY20 with the creation of the Emerging Agencies program. This program sets aside 5% of funding for new agencies and aims to provide smaller awards to a larger number of agencies. The City Council needs to understand that there will always be pressure to expand the pool of social service agencies that receive funds from the City. We recently experienced this with a funding request from Houses into Homes, and it is likely that we will continue to see requests from both new and established organizations in the future. It will be difficult under normal budget circumstances to provide annual increases for "Legacy Agencies" while also continuing to follow the historical trend of adding to the number of agencies that are funded (inside or outside of this process) every year. Recent Targeted Efforts to Support Social Service Agencies In recent years, staff used the City Council's Strategic Plan to guide new investments, both internally in terms of staff and programming expansions, and externally in support of community organizations. These investments have been prioritized over many needs in the budget, including growing demands from our many departments that have experienced increased calls for services, expanded maintenance responsibilities, increased program attendance/membership, etc. Below is a summary by year showing larger financial commitments from the General Fund that have been added to the budget further strategic plan goals and invest in social service agencies, non-profit community organizations or targeted issues facing the community. Program FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 (proposed) 1105 Project* $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Winter Shelter* $20,000 $20,000 $29,236 $20,585 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 SJRE Grants* $24,450 $28,200 $74,421 $75,000 $75,000 Climate Grants* $9,068 $25,000 $25,185 $23,830 $50,000 Affordable Housing Fund* $650,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Bench Contribution* $10,000 Access Center $2,500,000 Total General Fund Contribution $40,000 $40,000 $82,754 $743,785 $1,149,606 $3,618,830 $1,145,000 * - denotes that some funds have supported `Legacy Agencies' It should be noted that these funds tend to be program specific and thus do not provide the same flexibility in use as the Aid to Agency funds. However, the funds are clearly being used to tackle issues deemed most pressing by the City Council. January 27, 2020 Page 4 FY 2021 Budget Proposal and Increased Funding Scenarios Below are a few funding scenarios that the City Council can consider: * As presented at HCDC's Sept 19 meeting The City Council is free to choose any of the scenarios presented above or alter the funding amount as deemed appropriate. The increase in funding will come from the General Fund. Recommended Source of Funding for Bolstered FY 2021 Funding Should City Council wish to increase the Aid to Agencies grant funding beyond what is outlined in the FY21 budget proposal, staff recommends that utilizing unassigned fund balance in the General Fund. The proposed FY21 budget anticipates a 36% General Fund reserve which slightly exceeds the top end of our reserve policy of 35%. Using this unassigned balance is the same approach that the City used to bolster the affordable housing fund, contribute to the access center and pursue expanded capital projects. It is essentially a commitment of available one-time funds, which in this case the City would use to achieve the City Council's funding goal for this program. When preparing the FY22 budget, the City would then prioritize this program over other needs to ensure that the program stays at the elevated level. This approach carries some risk, particularly if the City experiences unexpected financial challenges in the coming year. However, at this time, staff is optimistic that an increase could be maintained long- term as long as Council understands that it will need to take priority over other demands on the General Fund. Le ac 95% Emerging 5% Total FY 19 $391,700 $0 $391,700 FY 20 $595,500 $19,000 $614,500 Staff Proposal $435,000 $23,000 $458,000 Agency Coalition Proposal* $539,980 $28,420 $568,400 HCDC Proposal $641,250 $33,750 $675,000 Modified Scenario #1 $475,000 $25,000 $500,000 Modified Scenario #2 $522,500 $27,500 $550,000 Modified Scenario #3 $570,000 $30,000 $600,000 * As presented at HCDC's Sept 19 meeting The City Council is free to choose any of the scenarios presented above or alter the funding amount as deemed appropriate. The increase in funding will come from the General Fund. Recommended Source of Funding for Bolstered FY 2021 Funding Should City Council wish to increase the Aid to Agencies grant funding beyond what is outlined in the FY21 budget proposal, staff recommends that utilizing unassigned fund balance in the General Fund. The proposed FY21 budget anticipates a 36% General Fund reserve which slightly exceeds the top end of our reserve policy of 35%. Using this unassigned balance is the same approach that the City used to bolster the affordable housing fund, contribute to the access center and pursue expanded capital projects. It is essentially a commitment of available one-time funds, which in this case the City would use to achieve the City Council's funding goal for this program. When preparing the FY22 budget, the City would then prioritize this program over other needs to ensure that the program stays at the elevated level. This approach carries some risk, particularly if the City experiences unexpected financial challenges in the coming year. However, at this time, staff is optimistic that an increase could be maintained long- term as long as Council understands that it will need to take priority over other demands on the General Fund. Item Number: 5. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 30, 2020 Memo from City Manager: 2020-21 Strategic Plan ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from City Manager: 2020-21 Strategic Plan r �`,® CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: January 30, 2020 To: Mayor and Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: 2020-21 Strategic Plan With FY21 budget deliberations wrapping up, it is time for the City Council to consider adoption of a new two-year strategic plan. Staff would like to start planning for the meeting time needed to update the plan and thus is seeking Council feedback. Based on conversations to date, it does not appear that the City Council intends to drastically overhaul the existing seven goals from 2018-19 (attached). If that is accurate, it is likely that the update can be accomplished with a special informal work session in February or early March and perhaps some follow-up at regularly scheduled work sessions in March, if needed. If significant changes are not anticipated we can likely accomplish the update without the services of a paid facilitator. The City Manager's Office is prepared to assist the Council through this process. At this time, we are seeking direction from the Council on a preferred process and desired timeline for completion. The sooner any new areas of emphasis can be identified the more quickly staff will be able to adjust work priorities. IOWA CITY�S 2018-2019 STRATEGIC PLAN I ", 1 u ji LS for a more Inclusive, Just and Sustainable Iowa City: Promote a Strong and Resilient Economy Encourage a Vibrant and Walkable Urban Core Foster Healthy Neighborhoods throughout the City Maintain a Solid Financial Foundation Enhance Community Engagement and Intergovernmental Relations Promote Environmental Sustainability Advance Social Justice and Racial Equity Item Number: 6. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 30, 2020 Pending City Council Work Session Topics ATTACHMENTS: Description Pending City Council Work Session Topics CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS January 23, 2020 February 18, 2020 1. City Conference Board Meeting 2. Discuss development proposal on 400 block of N. Clinton Other Topics: 1. Evaluate need for a Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) 2. 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. 3. Discuss alcohol usage policies in City parks 4. Discuss possible changes to residential zoning classifications to allow and/or require a greater diversity of housing types (i.e. missing middle) 5. Joint meeting with the ICCSD regarding the South District form -based code Item Number: 7. �r A�� CITY OE IOWA CITY www.iogov.org January 30, 2020 Memo from City Manager: Form -Based Code Stakeholder Meeting with the ICCSD ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from City Manager: Form -Based Code Stakeholder Meeting with the ICCS D I _1p4 CITY OF IOWA CITY `Q�P MEMORANDUM Date: January 30, 2020 To: Mayor and Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Form -Based Code Stakeholder Meeting with the ICCSD The ICCSD Board and Staff have indicated a desire to learn more about the City's ongoing effort to develop a new form -based zoning code for Iowa City's South District. Staff believes that the ideal time to have this discussion is during Opticos' next visit to Iowa City, February 19-20. Opticos has been hired to develop the draft of the code as well as the associated regulating plan. Thus, they are best able to describe their work product to date, answer questions, and detail the remaining steps before the City Council considers adoption of the new code. At Tuesday's City Council work session, I should have a specific date and time worked out with the ICCSD. Given the limited window of availability, we are suggesting that a small work group consisting of staff and no more than 3 elected officials from each entity participate. am requesting that the City Council identify two or three members to participate in this meeting. Item Number: 8. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 30, 2020 DRAFT City Council, UISG and GPSG Joint Meeting Agenda: February 11 ATTACHMENTS: Description City Council, UISG and GPSG Joint Meeting Agenda: February 11 UISG, GPSG, and Iowa City Council Joint Meeting IMU 2"d Floor Ballroom February 11, 2020 7:00 PM I. Call to Order— Elli Lenz, UISG Speaker of the Senate II. Quorum Call A. UISG — Elli Lenz, UISG Speaker of the S�"nate B. GPSG —Thomas Pak, GPSG Vice Pre,5,1dent III. Old Business A. None IV. New Business A. Could we get a few people in GR to cobble a resolution or two together calling for increased cooperation with UISG/City or for increased action on the topics of -discussion listed below? —Austin V. Op € VI. Adji New Business: • Student priorities: • Lack of affordable, high quality housing • Climate action • Carbon output • Citywide waste management • Public transit, safe and accessible bike lanes • Physical Safety • Sexual assault/violence • Snow/ice removal • Steps the city could take to address racial inequality Open Forum: • Opportunities for Collaboration, • Encourage students to bring up other issues not inckidW in the formal agenda, items that were listed on A ® Ex. Support for individuals experiencingiel ss, accessibility for bikes, lighting in dark pedestrian areas ODW.r town, ineg Mies facing individuals with disabilities, food desert in lowot4 downtown area, availability and affordability 't NOTE: staff experts from the City wi provide an current updates sp&61 subjects (ex. Physical safety) to Item Number: 9. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 30, 2020 Quarterly Investment Report: October - December 2019 ATTACHMENTS: Description Quarterly Investment Report: October - December 2019 CITY OF IOWA CITY QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT October 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 Finance Department Prepared by: Brian Cover Senior Accountant OVERVIEW The City of Iowa City's investment objectives are safety, liquidity and yield. The primary objective of the City of Iowa City's investment activities is the preservation of capital and the protection of investment principal. The City's investment portfolio remains sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet operating requirements that cash management procedures anticipate. Investments purchased by the City of Iowa City for the second quarter of this fiscal year had an average return of 1.810%. Rates on new investment purchases in our operating cash portfolio for the second quarter were 51 basis points lower than investments purchased at this time last year. The decrease is due to the decline in the federal reserve target rate from 2.50% to 1.75%. In investing public funds, the City's cash management portfolio is designed with the objective of regularly exceeding the average return on the six-month U.S. Treasury Bill. The Treasury Bill is considered a benchmark for riskless investment transactions and therefore comprises a minimum standard for the portfolio's rate of return. Since the city's investments are mostly between the six- month and twelve-month range, the yield curve for the twelve-month U.S. Treasury Bill has been added to the chart. The rolling average return on the six-month U.S. Treasury Bill for the prior 365 days was 2.110% and the twelve-month return was 2.055%. The investment program seeks to achieve returns above this threshold, consistent with risk limitations and prudent investment principles. The rate of return on the City's entire portfolio for the quarter was 2.031 %. (See exhibit A) City of Iowa City vs. 6 and 12 Month Treasury Bill 3.0 2.5 C 3 2.0 O 0! M C 1.5 V d a 1.0 0.5 ti`b 41 hOw `1`a 4 h� O� `1`a �J hQ' el +City of Iowa City --f-6 Month T-bill 12 Month T-bill Treasury bills and fed funds are competing investments in the money market. The federal funds rate is highly influential and often has a direct effect on the U.S. economy, because it serves as a base for interest rates offered by various financial and credit institutions to businesses and consumers. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which banks lend to each other. In the October 30th meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, the Committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate to 1.75 percent due to implications of global developments for the economic outlook as well as muted inflation pressures. As the Committee contemplates the future path of the target range for the federal funds rate, it will continue to monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook and will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion, with a strong labor market and inflation near its symmetric 2 percent objective. Federal Funds Rate 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 J. cd c Q c 4Q �� a� �� o� �� aQ City of Iowa City Investments by Fund December 31, 2019 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND SUMMARY BY FUND 12131119 FUND INVESTMENT TYPE AMOUNT OPERATING EQUIPMENT RESERVE HEALTH INSURANCE RESERVE LANDFILL RESERVE LANDFILL CLOSURE SEWER RESERVE BOND PROCEEDS WATER RESERVE PARKING OPERATIONS TOTAL SmERRESEWLS 1.d ■ LA'"OPILL nPLACENEWT RESERVE 11.22W W, WATI RESERVES 1I.M.) LA%DFfLL CLOSUR* REQ- Z s,3 12/31/18 INVESTMENT AMOUNT $ 193,873,283.98 $ 176,563,507.83 $ 3,998,029.20 $ 6,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 6,000,000.00 $ 2,500,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 3,525,000.00 $ 3,510,000.00 $ - $ 4,729,082.00 $ 2,205,000.00 $ 2,500,000.00 $ - $ 602,843.00 $ 212,101,313.18 $ 205,905,432.83 Cedar Ra Trust(8.' Bankers Trust Piper Jaffray(11.6 Great Wi (14.0%) City of Iowa City. Investments by Institution December 31, 2019 ]nils Bank & Trust Co. (1.0%) Iowa Public Agency Invt Trust(17.6%) CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND LISTING BY INSTITUTION MidWestOne Bank (37.8%) 12/31/19 12/31/18 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT INVESTMENT DEPOSITORY NAME AMOUNT AMOUNT LIMIT MIDWESTONE BANK $ 80,136,050.66 $ 59,605,181.34 $100,000,000.00 PIPER JAFFRAY & CO $ 24,628,467.82 $ 40,070,000.00 N/A IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST $ 37,192,439.76 $ 41,510,446.90 N/A GREAT WESTERN BANK $ 29,872,802.33 $ 31,157,271.30 $100,000,000.00 CEDAR RAPIDS BANK & TRUST $ 17,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 50,000,000.00 GREEN STATE CREDIT UNION $ - $ 11,600,000.00 $ 50,000,000.00 HILLS BANK & TRUST $ 2,099,428.08 $ 6,098,932.28 $ 25,000,000.00 BANKER'S TRUST $ 21,172,124.54 $ 4,760,758.01 $ 50,000,000.00 TWO RIVERS BANK $ - $ 602,843.00 $ 15,000,000.00 CBI BANK & TRUST $ - $ 6,500,000.00 $ 15,000,000.00 TOTAL $ 212,101,313.18 $ 205,905,432.83 Item Number: 10. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 30, 2020 Joint Entities Meeting Minutes: January 13 ATTACHMENTS: Description Joint Entities: January 13 Joint Meeting Johnson County Board of Supervisors - Iowa City Community School District - City of Iowa City - City of Coralville - City of North Liberty - Other Johnson County Municipalities and School Districts Monday, January 13, 2020 North Liberty City Council Chambers 1 Quail Creek Circle Reception 4:00 p.m. Meeting 4:30 p.m. Minutes Call to order North Liberty Mayor Terry Donahue called the January 13, 2020 Joint Meeting of Johnson County entities to order at 4:30 p.m. Present: Coralville: Mayor John Lundell, Councilor Megan Foster. Hills: Mayor Tim Kemp, Councilor Cathy Knebel. Iowa City: Mayor Bruce Teague, Councilor Laura Bergus, Councilor Susan Mims, Councilor Janice Weiner, Councilor Pauline Taylor. North Liberty. Mayor Terry Donahue, Councilor Brent Smith. University Heights: Mayor Louise From. Johnson County: Supervisor Rod Sullivan, Supervisor Lisa Green Douglass, Supervisor Janelle Rettig, Supervisor Royceann Porter. Iowa City Community School District: Board members Charlie Eastham, Lisa Williams, Janet Godwin. Welcome and Introductions The group introduced themselves. Discussion/update of the following Update on the Johnson County Access Center (Johnson County) Matt Miller, Johnson County Access Center, provided an update on the project. The building is under construction, but has stopped for the winter. The draft 28E will be coming to the cities soon for consideration. The name, branding and logo have been created. Johnson County will be considering the proposal, of Guide Link Center. Staffing is being put together. The elected officials discussed the presentation with Miller. Discuss proposed 2BEAgreementfor theJohnson County Access Center (Johnson County) Sullivan provided an update and reminded elected officials to keep it on the front burner. The group discussed the agenda item. Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Report (Iowa City) Pauline Taylor summarized the report. She gave thanks to the Mobile Home Task Force and to University of Iowa law students. Sara Barron, Director of the Affordable Housing Coalition, offered additional information on the report and the issue. Superintendent Steve Murley reported that approximately 1,700 ICCSD students live in mobile home parks. General entity updates Coralville Mayor Lundell invited all to attend community open houses on the progress of the arena construction. The next meeting is Thursday, January 16 at the Vue at 4:30 p.m. Iowa City Mayor Bruce Teague reported that Iowa City has created a Climate Action Commission. They have a 100 -day report for Council. He urged all to watch for this. Iowa City Community School Board Member Janet Godwin reported that the ICCSD has collected emissions data. The plan will be reported tomorrow at board meeting and includes goals for now to 2030. North Liberty Mayor Terry Donahue spoke regarding the Choirs for a Cause event. Johnson County Supervisor Rod Sullivan reported that the County is working the FY 21 budget. North Liberty Mayor Terry Donahue reported that the Police Department building is on schedule with a move in date in April. The St. Andrews Drive project will be bid this month. The SW Growth Area will be going out for bid in the near future opening 500 acres for development. North Liberty City Councilor Brent Smith offered information on the upcoming Beat the Bitter festivals. Johnson County Supervisor Royceann Porter invited all to join the celebrations happening for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. week. Next meeting date and time The next joint Meeting will be held on April 13 hosted by University Heights. Public comment No public comment was offered. Adjournment At 5:14 p.m., Mayor Donahue adjourned the meeting. Item Number: 11. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 30, 2020 Civil Service Examination: Cashier - Revenue ATTACHMENTS: Description Civil Service Examination: Cashier - Revenue 1 r i CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (3 19) 356-5009 FAX www. ICgov. Org January 8, 2020 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Cashier — Revenue 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 Cashier — Revenue. David Sterling IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Rick Wyss, Chair Item Number: 12. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 30, 2020 Civil Service Examination: Maintenance Worker II - Streets ATTACHMENTS: Description Civil Service Examination: Maintenance Worker I I - Streets I r 1 �;41 �41 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 January 27, 2020 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Worker II — 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 II — Streets. Ethan Krob Mark Ridenour IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �kj 4,1, � � � Rick Wyss, 6air Item Number: 13. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 30, 2020 Civil Service Examination: Parking Enforcement Attendant ATTACHMENTS: Description Civil Service Examination: Parking Enforcement Attendant � r Zinc'q � M1, CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org January 8, 2020 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Parking Enforcement Attendant 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 Parking Enforcement Attendant. Paul McMorris IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Rick Wyss, Chair Item Number: 14. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 30, 2020 Climate Action Commission: January 6 ATTACHMENTS: Description Climate Action Commission: January 6 MINUTES PRELIMINARY IOWA CITY CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION JANUARY 6, 2020 — 3:30 PM — FORMAL MEETING IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, MEETING ROOM A MEMBERS PRESENT: Madeleine Bradley, John Fraser (via phone), Stratis Giannakouros, Kasey Hutchinson, GT Karr, Matt Krieger, Jesse Leckband, Katie Sarsfield, Becky Soglin, Eric Tate MEMBERS ABSENT: Grace Holbrook STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Ashley Monroe, Brenda Nations OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Falk, Ben Grimm, Paul Pomrehn RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None CALL TO ORDER: Krieger called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 2, 2019 MINUTES: Karr moved to approve the minutes of December 2, 2019 with revisions that will be send to Nations. Leckband seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 10-0. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Ben Grimm (representative Iowa City Community School District) noted that in December they got a summary report on the carbon footprint of the City schools. Grimm reminded everyone that the Iowa City Schools are actually in five different cities and the report represents the entire school district. According to the report, if they stay on course and continue with the projects they have planned and facilities master plan version one, they will actually exceed the expectations the City has set out for objectives for reducing their carbon footprint. Grimm added they're going to actually go back in history and see what their school district looked like before they started this process. In the school district all but four schools that have geothermal so that is where a lot of their carbon footprint went down when converted to geothermal, so he believes they have four sites left that still need to be converted. And as they work forward into facilities master plan 2.0, they're going to look at other ways that they can reduce that and get as close to zero as possible. The two big ticket items for the school district are energy for the building and to have the bus fleets all on diesel. So those are the two big things that they're going to be looking at the next few years. Climate Action Commission January 6, 2020 Page 2 of 12 REQUEST FROM COUNCIL FOR COMMISSION TO RESEARCH AND ADVISE COUNCIL ON THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF BUILDINGS OF VARYING DENSITY AND SCALE: Krieger noted this item will continued to be deferred to future meetings as it has a longer timeline than some of the other items, they are discussing with the 100 -day report. This was assigned to the buildings working group to address so that's something to look at an upcoming meetings and discussion. REQUEST FOR COMMISSION TO GET PUBLIC INPUT ON 100 -DAY REPORT: Krieger suggested to roll this into item six B, which is more detailed feedback and review of the report. BASICS OF OPEN MEETINGS AND OPEN RECORD LAWS: Sue Dulek (Assistant City Attorney) presented to the Commission some basics of open meetings, open records, meeting agendas and why there might be something on the agenda and doesn't really make sense, and to answer any questions. Dulek noted she can always come back to another meeting for a refresher or to answer questions, or feel free to call or email her directly if there are questions. Regarding open meetings, there must be 24 hours' notice, so for example, if everybody thought it was a good idea to meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock it can't be done absent an emergency. An example of an emergency would be City Council meeting immediately because the landfill caught on fire or something like that. For all meetings the agendas are posted on the internet and given out to the media. That is why public comment on items not on the agenda is on every agenda, it's for the public to comment, it's not for the Commission to comment, it's not for staff to comment. If there needs to be discussion from something that is bought up in public comment, it can be put on the next agenda and then staff, and Commissioners can have those discussions. It is an open meeting with a quorum anytime there are six commission members talking about a climate matter. While it's unlikely that six members would all find themselves at the Java House or something like that, but if so, the last thing you want to do is have all six of you sit down at the table and start talking about the climate. There will be times when six or more of you will be at public event, those things do happen, they happen with City Council as well, but just be conscious to not talk about something like the 100 -day report while you're all together. Dulek also noted the Commission might get something from Nations and see a response that will say do not reply all, that's because it can actually be a simultaneous meeting if everybody's going back and forth on the internet and that would be a meeting and the public hasn't been notified nor can participate. Regarding agenda items, such as when there are commission member reports, it is just a time for a report on what was done but not a time to have a substantive discussion because specific Climate Action Commission January 6, 2020 Page 3 of 12 matters are not on the agenda. It would be a time to suggest putting the item on a future agenda for a substantive discussion. Dulek next talked about open records. 99% of the things that happen at the City is public, personnel records are not but almost everything else is. As an example, if the City got an open records request about something having to do with climate action and there were two projects and some folks wanted to do project A and some want to do project B and they were both great projects and it's kind of split evenly. The IT department could search Nation's emails coming and going for project A and project B, however it can't with the Commission because you use your own computers. Therefore, the Commission would get an email from Dulek saying she needs all the emails having to deal with project A and project B, just because it's on a home computer, or a work-related computer, if it's City business, its City business. That's is also a reminder about making comments that you wouldn't want read by the public. Dulek also talked about their charge as a Commission and about conflicts that may be of interest. The resolution that City Council set up the Commission sets forth the duties and responsibilities. There may be some point in time where a member of either the public or a member of the group wanting to do something, and the topic will come back to is that within the charge and within the duties and responsibilities. Dulek noted it's always good to review the resolution because this is what Council charged the Commission with. Council can change or amend the resolution per your requests. Lastly Dulek discussed conflicts of interest, noting it probably won't happen very often but again, for example there were those two proposals and one of the proposals you were going to advocate to Council to purchase something from a business and your spouse was employed by that business, that should be disclosed to Nations who would have a conversation with Dulek. A lot of times they are not legal conflicts just more kind of comfort or appearances of conflicts to the public. There are times when a Commission member will recuse himself or herself from the discussion. Krieger asked about the working documents the Commission is producing, likely those are often in draft form as we're working on them so do we just want to need to make sure that we're labeling all of those documents. Dulek stated that's the easiest way, but draft documents are not public, they can be held back. Krieger asked what's considered a draft document versus a non -draft? Dulek responded a draft document would be something when you're prepared to have that discussion, but if you've got some working groups or smaller groups and are just kind of going back and forth and haven't brought it to the Commission yet, it would be considered a draft. When a document is ready for action, as opposed to something that's floating around internally, then it becomes a public document. Soglin asked if the Commission is able to use a Google Drive for working draft documents. Dulek confirmed they can as long as staff has access as well. Fraser asked about working groups, if there are only two members of the Commission on a working group and eight other people, does that meeting has the same requirements to be public because there are more than six or are there only two. Dulek stated if six members of the Climate Action Commission January 6, 2020 Page 4 of 12 Commission are present and discussing a topic then it must be an open meeting. Working groups don't have to be public, meetings do not have to be published, and there doesn't have to be minutes. Additionally, you don't have to allow members the public to sit in and they don't have to be notified 24 hours in advance right. Fraser asked if in the end the outreach working group comes to a huge document and want to introduce that document to the entire Commission, or more than six people on the Commission, at that point, everything that's discussed regarding the work of the working group is now public. Dulek confirmed that was correct. REQUEST FROM COUNCIL FOR THE COMMISSION REVIEW AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK OF THE 100 -DAY REPORT, "ACCELERATING IOWA CITY'S CLIMATE ACTIONS": Krieger noted during the last meeting they had charged the working groups with reviewing and providing feedback on the actions within the report. He would like to go group by group and provide what were the recommendations and discussions from those. Soglin stated she was a little uncomfortable making recommendations when they don't yet have public comments if that's considered an important part of what we're supposed to deliver, to making recommendations without that in her mind is just preliminary discussion. Krieger agreed and noted the discussion last time was that if we wanted to try to provide recommendations rather quickly this feedback would be recommendations and feedback directly from the members of the Commission and not the public. This is an attempt to make sure it's clear to the Council we're not ignoring them. Buildings: Krieger noted the buildings working group wasn't able to schedule an in-person meeting since the last meeting, but they did request feedback from the people that were interested in being on that group. The six individuals who provided feedback were Krieger, Soglin, Jeff Falk, Ben Grimm, Karr and Martha Norbeck. Each of them individually reviewed it and provided some feedback and that feedback was different per person. Sometimes it was priorities or recommendations, other times it was just discussion questions or things to consider so it's kind of hard to provide an overall summary but what he did was took the feedback each person provided around the actions that were identified and there were five that kind of floated to the top that people prioritized similarly. Those items were: education item number one, which is promoting energy efficiency and performance tips to the public; education item number two, which was partner with stakeholders promote green building; rehab incentive number one, which was operating free home energy assessments through Green Iowa AmeriCorps; regulation number one, creating more robust energy code inspection program; and regulation number two, incorporating stricter energy standards into tax increment financing policies. Soglin stated since the buildings group didn't have a chance to talk about it amongst themselves and although there's some clear things that are coming to the top with some discussion there may be some shifts. Karr noted he and Norbeck spoke this afternoon about this and approached it as it's great to get all the ideas out there but to frame it as what are the top three achievable goals that they can Climate Action Commission January 6, 2020 Page 5 of 12 get off the ground, get done, and then move to a second and third priority. He noted with regards to the public input the people that are giving us input now have had opportunities to give input many times. He would personally love to see them partner with somebody do something, get something checked off, and then continue to get public input. Soglin wanted to clarify that what she is asking is that at least the six of them just get on the same page, some of the recommendations just broadly could be a quick win but they were asked also for a long-term recommendation. Also, they were concerned about equity and connecting with programs and efforts already underway. Perhaps with a little more discussion they will be ready to share something. Krieger suggests the goal of the meeting today is to just kind of flushed out and whittle it down a little bit and then put together more of a formal draft document for the Commission to vote on and to send to the Council as recommendations. Transportation: Leckband noted they had a meeting on December 19, a conference call, to discuss this and their charge sheet. They haven't really distilled what their discussions were yet but noted the committee is just Giannakouros, Leckband and Nations right now so if anyone else would like to join please let him know Leckand noted their discussion was on the education components and the outreach campaigns, if that's going to happen this year it would be nice to get a little bit more information about that. Most of the transportation goals in the near term are City actions so it might be helpful to get Public Works representation for green initiatives, idle policies and things like that, what those tracking metrics mean, etc. Giannakouros noted the discussion was about sharing fleet information, they discussed the transit study as something we would have called for if it wasn't happening right now, in order to understand some of the key things. When looking through the 100 -day Action Plan the action items did depend upon a robust amount of data to understand what the needs of the citizens are. The other thing they discussed was that there's a clear link between equity and achieving transportation goals. For example, if you are a lower income household, you spend a disproportionately high amount of your income just in transportation. This is not to say that we should target communities that are lower income in our city but that, in fact, is a way to achieve our climate goals. Lower incomes are going to drive generally higher polluting cars, they're generally people that need public transit, and that can be incentivized. So the free fare thing that is listed in here is a wasted target unless we make sure that the transit study and our efforts link up to understanding what the needs of those communities are. Giannakouros noted that's where the outreach piece comes in, they have to find a way to get the people to say if they are in a certain community in the city and in a certain demographic, socially strategically challenged status, such as young people that are grade school age, or people in the community, that would be a primary target for better transportation, that's going to reduce emissions. It is hard to make an appeal to someone who already is going to go to buy a new EV or a Prius, they have the money and the ability to transition fast with new technology. If you're poor and you have a very old car, and that car is undependable, those are the people we want to make sure are really heard in this.The link between the equity group and transportation has to be made more Climate Action Commission January 6, 2020 Page 6 of 12 profound, to understand how our transportation policies affect people who are economically disadvantaged. Nations added is that the transportation section goals are dependent on what is found in the in the transit study and the EV readiness plan. There will be more clear path one those are doing and we will be waiting to get those done to see recommendations. Giannakouros noted in planning, in general, the thing that's going to change is how people move themselves and how we think about mobility. Complete Streets is a policy that exists, but people don't understand how comprehensive if done correctly, we don't have to invent the wheel on that we just have to make sure that Complete Streets is implemented properly. It's not just saying "hey it would be nice if more people used like their bikes", that's not realistic. It's saying that people should be able to get from point A to point B in a way that's low carbon and that enhances quality of neighborhoods. All these things that can come together to disproportionately impact low income residents. When the City plans neighborhoods, plans roads and access, having a policy like Complete Streets that's enforced is going to get us 90% of the way there without having to think too hard about what transit means. An absence of planning is planning of a different sort. Not to pick on certain subdivisions or areas of Iowa City that are that are sort of low density and spread out and haven't thought about this, but once those go into place on the back end, trying to figure out how to build everything in is really challenging. Therefore if over the next 20 or 30 years, we're serious about decarbonizing our transit structure there has to be an emphasis from the City to think about planning in a more robust and proactive way that targets low economic social communities and also make sure that the planning that's going on is structured for EV charging stations, for public transit, for access otherwise, but there's not a lot that you can do on the back end to fix that. Nations added they are budgeting for a transportation data analysis. Monroe stated they are arranging for when the consultant comes back to hold a public announcement of the transit study results, and they will encourage people from all neighborhoods and community to come to the meeting and they'll be sending transit into the neighborhoods to get those people to and from the meeting. Krieger asked what is the timing of the transit study completion and do some of the issues that Giannakouros is bringing up need to be incorporated into the study to make sure they are reaching the communities that we want to have incorporated and included in the feedback. Giannakouros stated they discussed that in their group, how to get everyone take the transit survey. Nations said the transit study should be done in summer 2020. Monroe added the consultants got rider feedback by riding on the buses and collected close to 1300 individual responses from people who are already riding busses. Then they also have the survey that went out, they'll probably announce more about those results at this upcoming meeting. Climate Action Commission January 6, 2020 Page 7 of 12 Sarsfield noted she sent the survey link to her work HR department and asked if they need to have their contractor services at the next transit meeting because they do talk at work sometimes about how it'd be nice if there was a bus route that went to certain areas, etc. Sarsfield suggested they need to have the transit study consultants reach out to employers, like HyVee, because they know a lot of people take the bus to get groceries, and reach out to people who would have people come in to their places from transit if it was more accessible. Monroe noted at this upcoming public meeting the consultants will have coordinated all the data from the survey and compile it to have three different looks at what the system could look like and then keeping gathering feedback on that. Giannakouros noted an urban planning class did a study, it didn't have a huge end use data set, but for Iowa students at least some of the reasons why they wouldn't use transit or be leery of it aren't things that are directly related to efficiency of time. So, for people of color or females in particular, one of the things that came up repeatedly was feeling safe. So, it may not be a question of is there a bus available, it is a question of is it a well -lit spot. Planners need to think about how to get people within a three-mile radius, for sure two-mile or one -mile radius of their cars to take the bus every day to work. He added while it is more efficient to use the there's a huge learning curve. Krieger asked if through their interactions with this work do they have an understanding of how important the co -benefits are for the decision making here versus the straight direct costs versus revenues. Giannakouros stated that based on just reading the actions, it's hard to understand exactly what all surrounds those to be able to make a recommendation. What is the potential impact from a metric standpoint, are there are other factors, how much is it going to cost, what are the other benefits that would make you want to recommend that action? Some of that research was done into the original 35 actions, more broad actions that were incorporated within the overall action plan. Giannakouros asked if the Commission is able to have any influence on the direction of the transit study or the actions based on what we come up with as recommendations related to transportation. Or are these completely separately moving. Soglin stated she had to apply an equity lens to what they're doing and hopes they all agree that they should run each working group, buildings, transportation, waste and adaptation, and outreach through an equity lens, equity meaning separate. Tate noted he studies natural disasters and there's place after place and planning processes in cities, they have comprehensive plans and then they have hazard planning, and they never talked to each other. So, he wants to know are the things that they're doing is going to intersect with these other actions that are happening? Nations stated the goal in the City is to have climate action be institutionalized within all of their things as well as equity. That's the goal, it's something that the City Manager supports, to have Climate Action Commission January 6, 2020 Page 8 of 12 equity be part of everything the City does, as well as climate. She added the person that's in charge of running the transit study went to a meeting in Oregon with her and the whole meeting was about equity and co -benefits around transit. The whole goal with all the City's plans is to have them merge, so climate action is part of the transit study. Sarsfield asked how practically speaking how does that look. Are the Commission's inputs going to be acknowledged at the January 27 transit study meeting, or should the consultant be invited to a Commission meeting. Nations agrees to inviting the Transit staff to a Commission meeting but encourages the Commission also to go to the Transit study meeting. Giannakouros stated he bracketed his comments as sort of isolated in the transit discussion but noted throughout all discussions if the City's going to spend money on climate action it needs to be primarily targeted towards groups that are disadvantaged, it's a chance to rectify those constraints and those problems, and it also is a smart way to spend the dollars. That's transportation, it's buildings, everything they do. So, the co -benefits are huge when they're spent in the right segments. Nations agrees noting everything shows that when you help the people that need it the most you actually help everybody. Soglin acknowledged she agrees with Giannakouros however should consider there could be a project or one of the action steps that the immediate benefit is not potentially to lower income or disadvantage of by doing that actually then frees up other money somewhere and has a major impact overall. Fraser stated he is struck by the ethical lapses and that all the subcommittees need to work on equity, but there needs to be somebody that's making sure that all the subcommittee ethical ideas are put together in one chunk, someone who follows through on it with legislation, because without legislation or some sort of guidance or punitive message, people will fall back into misbehavior. Nations noted when presented with the 100 Day report, one Council member said if we do all these things, even if we weren't looking at climate, it will just make our City better. We'd have cleaner air, people walking more, people being healthier. We would support people who need it most. Fraser agreed but noted it's the unintended consequences of do gooders that sometimes cause a lot of problems so what we're really looking at is how do we prevent unintended consequences as we're doing good. Waste: Nations noted she was invited to go to Friday night meeting by the people that were putting on the LENA Project and that is a woman and some university students who originally came to the City Council about reducing straws in restaurants downtown. This group is really interested in talking about waste and climate. They seem like very dedicated people from all different places, restaurant owners and recycling people, etc. so she thought that it would be a perfect group to be a waste working group because they were knowledgeable and wanting to Climate Action Commission January 6, 2020 Page 9 of 12 really make positive changes as far as waste citywide and composting and they had different backgrounds. Bradley stated she attended that meeting as well and would be willing to be the Commission member that would be in charge of the waste working group and engage the members of the LENA Project. She said she found the meeting really interesting, because we've been talking about how much of an impact buildings and transportation have kind of the disconnect that people have with how important waste is. But as a working group it could be a good way to get more people involved in the environmental discussion. Nations noted an interesting article that talked about what actions people will have the biggest impact on climate and everybody thinks recycling is the biggest thing but it's not however, it's the gateway drug. Recycling is the gateway drug to and even though we didn't think about having a waste group because it's only 2% of our all of our emissions, as far as the City portion goes, we have a goal to reduce what's going into landfill by 50%. Bradley agreed to be the liaison and the group would be composed of private interest groups and individuals within the community expressed an interest in talking about these issues. Giannakouros asked if City staff can sit on the working groups. Krieger noted the idea was as the groups identify what expertise for the tasks that their dealing with move to invite staff for feedback, but they would not have to be a permanent member of the working group Monroe stated if staff can offer those connections to the working groups, even if they're not a formal member of the group, please reach out to them. It could be a conversation with a staff member on certain issues or a presentation at a meeting, that is how they want to help. The waste group can also discuss sustainable lifestyle because it seems like that group is very interested in sustainable lifestyle and it speaks to things like food and waste compost. Sarsfield made a motion to form a Waste Working Group led by Bradley, Krieger seconded the motion, a vote was taken, and the motion passed 10-0. Sarsfield suggested moving from equity the waste group because she works at manufacturing plant and represents three plants in town. She agreed to also be on the waste working group. Adaptation: Tate noted they haven't met yet, they are scheduled to meet on Thursday. They will be discussing individual takeaways from the 100 -day report and trying to identify low hanging fruit things they should prioritize early. Tate did question how all the working groups will work as a whole to handle these cross -cutting issues, so the cross -cutting things aren't subsumed and lost. Soglin noted she has seen presented at conferences, definitely an equity lens, which she thought the City had a version of it at one point, it's a list and used as a check. Perhaps a few other concepts could be added to that and then we all use it for our groups. Climate Action Commission January 6, 2020 Page 10 of 12 Nations stated the City does have and equity toolkit, the people that were on the original steering committee had that as part of their documents. She will email it to everybody. Soglin stated she would be happy to edit it and add the topic intersections that they might want to be thinking about beyond intersection. Nations will work with Soglin to come up with a checklist for non -economic co -benefits and it will be on the agenda for the next meeting so the Commission can discuss. There was discussion on non -economic benefits as all benefits have economic benefits. Tate noted that because this is Iowa City, because this is a public entity, they serve all citizens and have to be aware the systems set up don't unintentionally disenfranchised people in a way that impoverishes them or causes economic insecurity. But it really is about using this as an opportunity to give people access to the system. If they're more integrated, they have a say, they're at the table, and they're benefiting in ways that make their life better. Yes, you can quantify all of that eventually, but that's indirectly, and also contributes to a better democracy. Fraser stressed the importance of making sure all parts of the City are equally maintained when it comes to things like tree planting as to benefit everyone. Nations noted the City has a tree canopy map, and there is a grant that the City got where they're going to be planting trees where they are lacking in the neighborhoods that don't have them and cross referencing that with census tract. Karr asked if there is a way to take the expertise that they have, come up with three or four priorities before they recommend and give themselves time to almost take care of it in the working groups rather than just brainstorming here. Tate questioned the group adaptation and equity and with the 100 -day Report it's a more concrete sort of formulation of adaptation actions, and this is what equity means versus whatever the first report was from two years ago. He feels there is limited overlap between these two, they can certainly push forward and address both but also seems like they're a bit different too. Sarsfield noted it just keeps coming back to equity overarching over all of the groups. Maybe equity should be the whole Commission and forget the sub business. Fraser feels that is dangerous because they don't have representation on this group to be smart enough to catch all the inequities that might come out of the wonderful ideas. Tate states they are smart enough to figure out where to get the information when they are trying to answer questions. Outreach: Krieger noted they have met twice since the last meeting because it feeds into almost everything else with education components and awareness components. The top four items that were discussed were having the realtors agreeing on the MLS was an important one because that impacts multiple things at the same time, the green business program, and then educating and coordinating with local agencies on health impacts, because health is a potential, Climate Action Commission January 6, 2020 Page 11 of 12 another gateway to reach people, other populations that don't normally want to think about climate change. UPDATE ON WORKING GROUPS: Krieger noted they need to continue having some more input with the working group level to feed back into the discussion next time. The working groups will need their reports ready to go out in the next agenda packet, so they are due to Nations by January 27 to get in the next agenda. UPDATE ON CLIMATE FESTIVAL SEPTEMBER 18-20.2020: Nations sent out an email requesting if there any other Commission members interested in serving on the Climate Festival Planning Committee. STAFF/COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: Krieger noted at the next meeting as part of the agenda they will have the election of the Chair and Vice Chair. Being Chair was temporary for him and they have to do these elections at the beginning of each year. Krieger also stated one of the other things they will put on the agenda is to address meeting times and potential scheduling issues. For instance, because the meetings are Mondays at 3:30 there is a potential conflict for people who are students or teachers because it's during the day and they're not going be able to make it. We can discuss if we want to think about shifting the date or the time of these recurring meetings to evening or trying to be more accommodating. Soglin questioned if they wanted to discuss the next meeting, it is the same day as the caucus, so she suggests they be prepared to really wrap up at 5:OOpm to get to the caucus. Soglin moved to change the February meeting to Monday, February 10 at 3:30pm. Giannakouros seconded the motion, a vote was taken, and the motion passed 10-0. ADJOURNMENT: Krieger made a motion to adjourn. Giannakouros seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 10-0. Meeting adjourned 5:06pm. Climate Action Commission January 6, 2020 Page 12 of 12 CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2019-2020 (Meeting Date) NAME TERM EXP. O N O v A N N O O Madeleine Bradley 12/31/22 -- -- X X John Fraser 12/31/20 X X X X Stratis UI Rep X X X X Giannakouros Grace Holbrook 12/31/21 X X X O/E Kasey Hutchinson 12/31/22 -- -- X X GT Karr 12/31/20 X X X X Matt Krieger 12/31/20 X X X X Jesse Leckband MidAmerican X X X X Re Katie Sarsfield 12/31/20 1 X X O/E X Becky So lin 12/31/22 -- -- X X Eric Tate 12/31/21 X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting -- -- = Not a Member