HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-02-06 Info Packet# � 1
'p-
CITY OE IOWA CITY
ww.icgov.org
City Council Information Packet
IP1. Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
February 6, 2020
UISG, GPSG and City Council Joint Meeting - January 11
IP2. UISG, GPSG and City Council Joint Meeting Agenda
Miscellaneous
IP3. Memo from Budget & Compliance Officer: City of Iowa City FY19 Continuing
Disclosures
IP4. Memo from Historic Preservation Commission Chair and Historic Preservation
Planner: Historic Preservation Commission Annual Planning Session Report and
Work Plan for Calendar Year 2020
IPS. Email from Jennifer Baum: Sharp Shooters [Staff Response Included}
I P6.
I P7.
2020 Building Statistics
Draft Minutes
Planning & Zoning Commission: January 16
February 6, 2020 City of Iowa City Page 1
Item Number: 1.
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 6, 2020
Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
r
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Subject to change
CITY OF IOWA CITY
February 6, 2020
Date
Time
Meeting
Location
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
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
3:00 PM
Joint Meeting with ICCSD
Emma J. Harvat Hall
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
Tuesday, May 5, 2020
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, May 19, 2020
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, June 9, 2020
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, June 30, 2020
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, July 21, 2020
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 4, 2020
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 18, 2020
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Item Number: 2.
INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 6, 2020
UISG, GPSG and City Council Joint Meeting Agenda
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
UISG, GPSG and City Council Joint Meeting Agenda - January 11
UISG, GPSG, and Iowa City Council Joint Meeting
Second Floor Ballroom, Iowa Memorial Union
11 February 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 Senate
B. GPSG: Thomas Pak, GPSG Vice President
III. Old Business
A. None
IV. New Business
A. Discussion of student priorities
i. Housing affordability and quality
ii. Climate action
1. Waste management, composting in multifamily housing units
2. Expanding public transit options and bicycle infrastructure
iii. Safety concerns
B. Discussion of student perceptions of planned development at 12 E. Court Street
V. Open Forum
A. Opportunities for future collaboration
B. Public comment on items not previously listed on the formal agenda
VI. Adjourn
NOTE: staff experts from the City will be present for specific subjects (for example, physical safety)
to provide additional detail and current updates
Item Number: 3.
>< _ 4
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 6, 2020
Memo from Budget & Compliance Officer: City of Iowa City FY19 Continuing
Disclosures
/_1Al_Ta:ILTA I W11111 RI
Description
Memo from Budget & Compliance Officer: City of Iowa City FY19 Continuing Disclosures
r
� ,:,® CITY OF IOWA CITY
��,M 4 � T4
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 31, 2020
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Jacklyn Fleagle, Budget & Compliance Officer
RE: Long-term Debt Disclosure Report
On October 6, 2015, the City Council adopted a new Debt Management Policy. As part of that
policy, an annual debt report was to be submitted within 210 days after the fiscal year-end to the
City Manager and the City Council. The City's fiscal year 2019 ended on June 30, 2019, and
this report is intended to provide information in regards to that fiscal year. According to the
policy, the annual debt report should include, at a minimum, the following information:
• General Long-term Debt Obligations:
• Property valuations and trend valuations for total actual and taxable valuations
• List of the City's 10 largest taxpayers
• Summary of all of the City's direct, long-term debt obligations
• Debt per capita (GO Debt and TIF Revenue Debt)
• Debt per total assessed value (GO Debt and TIF Revenue Debt)
• City's debt versus the legal debt limit
• Revenue -Secured Debt Obligations:
• Summary of the system
• Summary of the system's rates and charges
• The historical trend of system's sales and charges
• Coverage ratios for system
• Number of system customers, if applicable
• List of system's 10 largest users, if applicable
According to the policy, the annual debt report should also include a list of any potential
upcoming debt issues and a summary of any material events that have occurred in the past
year. The report may also include any other relevant information that is significant to the City's
debt program or ability to repay its debt obligations.
During fiscal year 2019, the City incurred the following significant events related to its bond
obligations:
• Principal and interest payment delinquencies: None
• Non-payment related defaults, if material: None
• Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties: None
• Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements relating to the Bonds reflecting financial
substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform: None
• Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform: None
• Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final
determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701-TEB) or
January 31, 2020
Page 2
other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax-exempt status of the
Series Bonds, or material events affecting the tax-exempt status of the Bonds: None
• Modifications to rights of Holders of the Bonds, if material: None
• Bond calls (excluding sinking fund mandatory redemptions), if material, and tender
offers; a Notice of Material Event was timely filed for each of these events:
i. 2010A Sewer Revenue bond maturities called on July 1, 2018
ii. 2011C GO bond maturities called on July 1, 2018
• Defeasances of the Bonds; a Notice of Material Event was timely filed for this event:
None
• Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds, if material:
None
• Rating changes on the Bonds: None
• Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the Issuer: None
• The consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the Issuer or the
sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Issuer, other than in the ordinary
course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action
or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than
pursuant to its terms, if material: None
• Appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if
material: None
• Incurrence of a Financial Obligation of the Issuer, if material, or agreement to covenants
events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a Financial
Obligation of the Issuer, any of which affect security holders, if material: None
• Default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms or similar events
under the terms of a Financial Obligation of the Issuer, any of which reflect financial
difficulties: None
In the next 180 days, we are currently anticipating the following potential bond issues:
• 2020 General Obligation Bonds — 2020 CIP Program - $12,240,000
Other potential debt issues include: None
Attached to this memo are summaries that include the additional financial and debt information
mentioned above. This information along with our Fiscal Year 2019 Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR) will be provided to our bondholders and will be posted on the
Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) web site in accordance with Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (MSRB) rules. This information must be posted by January 26, 2020 in
order to comply with the continuing disclosure certificates on our outstanding bonded debt.
We are not aware of any material or significant events that will prevent the City from meeting its
current outstanding bonded debt obligations.
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE SUBMISSION
FINANCIAL AND OPERATING REPORT
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JUNE 30, 2019
Relating to
CITY OF IOWA CITY
'ZZIJohnson County, Iowa
CITY OF IOWA CITY
GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT
CUSIP NO. 462308
To the extent not included in the City's Financial Statements, all information the City of Iowa City has agreed to
provide in its annual reports, as it relates to its outstanding general obligation debt is included in this report.
Attached is additional information as required to be submitted under previous disclosure undertakings of the City.
Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12
For further information please contact:
Dennis Bockenstedt
Director of Finance
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Telephone: (319) 356-5053
January 24, 2020
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 12
DEBT LIMIT
Article XI, Section 3 of the State of Iowa Constitution limits the amount of debt outstanding at any time of any
county, municipality or other political subdivision to no more than 5% of the actual value of all taxable property within the
corporate limits, as taken from the last state and county tax list. The debt limit for the City, based on its 2017 valuation
currently applicable to the Fiscal Year 2018-19 is as follows:
2017 Actual Valuation of Property ......................................... $5,907,660,998
Legal Debt Limit of 5% .......................................................... 0.05
Legal Debt Limit.................................................................... $ 295,383,050
Less: TIF Revenue Debt Subject to Debt Limit ...................... (14,930,000)
Less: Total G.O. Debt Subject to Debt Limit .......................... (52,470,000)
Less: Other Loans................................................................. (603,000)
Less: Other Legal Indebtedness (TIF Rebates) ..................... (27,704,000)
Total Applicable Debt............................................................ (95,707,000)
Net Debt Limit....................................................................... $ 199,676,050
DIRECT DEBT
General Obligation Debt Supported by Property Taxes and Tax Increment
Date of
Original
Final
Principal Outstanding
Issue
Amount Issued
Purpose
Maturity
As of 6/30/19
June 2012
$ 9,070,000
City Improvements
6/22
$ 2,935,000
July 2013
7,230,000
City Improvements
6/23
3,380,000
June 2014
11,980,000
Refunded City Improvements
6/24
4,875,000
June 2015
7,785,000
City Improvements
6/25
4,915,000
June 2016
8,795,000
City Improvements
6/26
6,785,000
June 2017
9,765,000
City Improvements
6/27
7,960,000
June 2018
8,895,000
City Improvements
6/28
8,085,000
June 2018
3,100,000
Taxable City Improvements
6/20
1,000,000
June 2019
12,535,000
City Improvements
6/29
12,535,000
Total General Obligation
Bonds
$52,470,000
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
City oflowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 13
GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT(])
(Principal Only)
Fiscal Year
Ending
Series
Series
Series
Series
Series Series
Series
Series
June 30
2012A
2013A
2014A
2015A
2016A 2017A
2018A
2018B
2020 ...........................................
$ 955,000
$ 820,000
$ 925,000
$ 765,000
$ 910,000 $ 920,000
$ 825,000
$1,000,000
2021 ...........................................
975,000
835,000
950,000
785,000
930,000 940,000
840,000
0
2022 ...........................................
1,005,000
855,000
970,000
805,000
950,000 955,000
855,000
0
2023 ...........................................
0
870,000
1,000,000
830,000
965,000 980,000
875,000
0
2024 ...........................................
0
0
1,030,000
850,000
985,000 1,000,000
895,000
0
2025 ...........................................
0
0
0
880,000
1,010,000 1,025,000
915,000
0
2026 ...........................................
0
0
0
0
1,035,000 1,055,000
940,000
0
2027 ...........................................
0
0
0
0
0 1,085,000
960,000
0
2028 ...........................................
0
0
0
0
0 0
980,000
0
2029 ...........................................
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
Total .........................................
$2,935,000
$3,380,000
$4,875,000
$4,915,000
$6,785,000 $7,960,000
$8,085,000
$1,000,000
Fiscal Year
Total
Ending
Series
General Obligation
Cumulative Retirement
Principal &
June 30
2019
Debt
Amount
Percent
Interest
2020 ...........................................
$ 4,125,000
$11,245,000
$11,245,000
21.43%
$12,441,696
2021 ...........................................
905,000
7,160,000
18,405,000
35.08%
8,103,923
2022 ...........................................
925,000
7,320,000
25,725,000
49.03%
8,106,163
2023 ...........................................
955,000
6,475,000
32,200,000
61.37%
7,103,413
2024 ...........................................
985,000
5,745,000
37,945,000
72.32%
6,220,513
2025 ...........................................
875,000
4,705,000
42,650,000
81.28%
5,051,513
2026 ...........................................
905,000
3,935,000
46,585,000
88.78%
4,175,700
2027 ...........................................
940,000
2,985,000
49,570,000
94.47%
3,132,325
2028 ...........................................
960,000
1,940,000
51,510,000
98.17%
2,012,600
2029 ...........................................
960,000
960,000
52,470,000
100.00%
981,600
Total .........................................
$12,535,000
$52,470,000
$57,329,446
Note: (1) Source: the City
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 14
INDIRECT GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT
DEBT RATIOS
STATEMENT OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS(1)(2)
City Actual Value, January 1, 2017............................................................................................................................................................. $5,907,660,998
City Taxable Value, January 1, 2017.......................................................................................................................................................... $3,745,477,705
PerCapita Actual Value................................................................................................................................................................................ $87,054.04
PerCapita Taxable Value.............................................................................................................................................................................. $55,192.56
Notes: (1) Source: the City, Audited Financial Statements and EMMA for the County, School Districts and Community College.
(2) As of June 30, 2019.
(3) Excludes $32,315,000 in Industrial New Jobs Training Certificates, which are expected to be paid by proceeds from anticipated job credits
from withholding taxes.
OTHER OBLIGATIONS
OTHER DEBT
The City has revenue debt payable solely from the net revenues of the City's Urban Renewal Areas as follows:
Date of
Original
Final
Principal Outstanding
Issue
Per Capita
Purpose
Maturity
Applicable
Nov 2012
Ratio to City
Ratio to City
(2010 Pop.
$ 2,125,000
Total
Percent
Amount
Actual Value
Taxable Value
67,862)
Direct Bonded Debt .......................................
$ 52,470,000
100.00%
$ 52,470,000
0.89%
1.40%
$ 773.19
TIF Revenue Debt .........................................
14,930,000
100.00%
14,930,000
0.25%
0.40%
220.00
Overlapping Debt:
Iowa City Community School District .............
$115,095,000
57.24%
$ 65,880,378
1.11%
1.76%
970.80
Clear Creek-Amana Community School Dist.
81,155,000
0.04%
32,462
0.00%
0.00%
0.48
Kirkwood Community College(3) ...................
80,231,000
14.19%
11,384,779
0.19%
0.30%
167.76
Johnson County ............................................
5,145,000
42.22%
2,172,219
0.04%
0.06%
32.01
Total Overlapping Bonded Debt ...................
$349,026,000
$ 79,469,838
1.34%
2.12%
$1,171.05
Total Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt ................................................$146,869,838
2.48%
3.92%
$2,164.24
PerCapita Actual Value................................................................................................................................................................................ $87,054.04
PerCapita Taxable Value.............................................................................................................................................................................. $55,192.56
Notes: (1) Source: the City, Audited Financial Statements and EMMA for the County, School Districts and Community College.
(2) As of June 30, 2019.
(3) Excludes $32,315,000 in Industrial New Jobs Training Certificates, which are expected to be paid by proceeds from anticipated job credits
from withholding taxes.
OTHER OBLIGATIONS
OTHER DEBT
The City has revenue debt payable solely from the net revenues of the City's Urban Renewal Areas as follows:
Date of
Original
Final
Principal Outstanding
Issue
Amount Issued
Purpose
Maturity
As of 6/30/19
Nov 2012
$ 2,655,000
Developer Grant
6/32
$ 2,125,000
Sept.2016
12,805,000
Developer Grant
6/36
12,805,000
Total
5,910,000
Water Refunding
7/25
$14,930,000
The City has revenue debt payable solely from the net revenues of the Municipal Parking System as follows:
Date of Original
Issue Amount Issued Purpose
April 2017 $15,400,000 Parking
Final Capital Lease Obligation
Maturity As of 6/30/19
6/37 $ 9,413,024
The City has revenue debt payable solely from the net revenues of the Municipal Water System as follows:
Date of
Original
Final
Principal Outstanding
Issue
Amount Issued
Purpose
Maturity
As of 6/30/19
June 2012
$ 4,950,000
Water Refunding
7/22
$ 2,100,000
June 2016
3,650,000
Water Refunding
7/24
2,865,000
June 2017
5,910,000
Water Refunding
7/25
5,300,000
Total
$10,265,000
The City has revenue debt payable solely from the net revenues of the Municipal Sewer System as follows:
Date of
Original
Final
Principal Outstanding
Issue
Amount Issued
Purpose
Maturity
As of 6/30/19
June 2016
$9,360,000
Sewer Refunding
7/21
$5,600,000
June 2017
4,550,000
Sewer Refunding
7/22
4,275,000
Total
$9,875,000
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 15
IOWA PROPERTY VALUATIONS
In compliance with Section 441.21 of the Code of Iowa, as amended, the State Director of Revenue annually directs
all county auditors to apply prescribed statutory percentages to the assessments of certain categories of real property. The
final values, called Actual Valuation, are then adjusted by the County Auditor. Taxable Valuation subject to tax levy is
then determined by the application of State determined rollback percentages, principally to residential property.
Beginning in 1978, the State required a reduction in Actual Valuation to reduce the impact of inflation on its
residents. The resulting value is defined as the Taxable Valuation. Such rollback percentages may be changed in future
years. Certain historical rollback percentages for residential, multi -residential, agricultural and commercial valuations are
as follows:
PERCENTAGES FOR TAXABLE VALUATION AFTER ROLLBACKS(/)
BUILDING PERMITS
City Building Permits(1)
(Excludes the Value of Land)
Calendar
Year: 2015
New Construction
Multi-
Ag Land
Valuation: ..................................................
Fiscal Year
Residential
Residential(2)
& Buildings
Commercial
2010/11 ................
46.90949%
N/A
66.2715%
100.0000%
2011/12 ................
48.5299%
N/A
69.0152%
100.0000%
2012/13 ................
50.7518%
N/A
57.5411%
100.0000%
2013/14 ................
52.8166%
N/A
59.9334%
100.0000%
2014/15 ................
54.4002%
N/A
43.3997%
95.0000%
2015/16 ................
55.7335%
N/A
44.7021%
90.0000%
2016/17 ................
55.6259%
86.2500%
46.1068%
90.0000%
2017/18 ................
56.9391%
82.5000%
47.4996%
90.0000%
2018/19 ................
55.6209%
78.7500%
54.4480%
90.0000%
2019/20 ................
56.9180%
75.0000%
56.1324%
90.0000%
Notes: (1)
Source: the Iowa Department of Revenue.
(2)
New category beginning with fiscal year 2017.
BUILDING PERMITS
City Building Permits(1)
(Excludes the Value of Land)
Calendar
Year: 2015
New Construction
No. of New Permits ....................................
184
Valuation: ..................................................
$106,350,572
Remodeling Repair and Additions:
No. of New Permits: ...................................
461
Valuation: ..................................................
$ 31.960.941
Total Permits .............................................
645
Total Valuations .........................................
$138,311,513
Note: (1) Source: the City
2016 2017 2018 2019
262 211 151 120
$295,339,497 $108,285,647 $115,872,543 $134,485,833
532 507 467 484
$ 93.087,526 $108.532,366 $ 76.942,267 $ 97,036,048
794 718 618 604
$388,427,023 $216,818,013 $192,814,810 $231,521,881
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 16
PROPERTY VALUATIONS AND TREND OF VALUATIONS
ACTUAL (100%) VALUATIONS FOR THE CITY(1)(2)
Fiscal Year:
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Property Class Levy Year:
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Residential........................................................
$3,495,700,460
$3,617,590,930
$3,893,541,900
$4,011,317,530
$4,279,194,820
Agricultural........................................................
3,680,920
3,553,520
3,736,510
3,443,020
2,626,150
Commercial.......................................................
1,157,640,090
1,155,761,766
856,972,664
877,491,737
964,588,039
Industrial...........................................................
80,494,880
76,495,918
79,053,598
79,474,988
74,013,639
Multi-residential(3).............................................
0
0
415,208,021
420,082,751
482,118,763
Railroads...........................................................
3,827,506
4,015,580
4,096,577
3,984,932
3,549,414
Utilities without Gas and Electric ........................
9,599,528
8,239,789
7,375,066
6,734,894
7,099,293
Gas and Electric Utility ......................................
78,642,915
87,728,294
92,987,351
94,582,279
97,050,716
Less: Military Exemption ...................................
(2,939,122)
(2,828,002)
(2,727,994)
(2,635,396)
(2,579,836)
Total................................................................
$4,826,647,177
$4,950,557,795
$5,350,243,693
$5,494,476,735
$5,907,660,998
Percent Change +(-) ........................................
3.39%(4)
2.57%
8.07%
2.70%
7.52%
Notes: (1) Source: Iowa Department of Management.
(2)
Includes tax increment finance (TIF) valuations used
in the following amounts:
(2) Includes tax increment finance (TIF) valuations used
in the following amounts:
January 1: 2013
January 1:
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
TIF Valuation ...............................
$21,131,574
$42,307,287
$72,650,838
$80,559,947
$85,379,369
(3) New Class as of January 1,
2015, previously reported as Commercial Property.
(4)
See "PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION - Utility Property Tax Replacement" herein.
(4) Based on 2012 Actual Valuation of $4,668,318,992.
(5)
Based on 2012 Taxable Valuation of $3,036,012,368.
For the January 1, 2017 levy year, the City's Taxable Valuation was comprised of approximately 64% residential,
23% commercial, 2% industrial, 10% multi -residential, 1% utilities and less than 1% agriculture and military exemption.
PROPERTY VALUATIONS AND TREND OF VALUATIONS
TAXABLE ("ROLLBACK") VALUATIONS FOR THE CITY(1)(2)
Fiscal Year: 2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Property Class Levy Year: 2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Residential........................................................
$1,901,667,703
$2,016,210,314
$2,165,817,742
$2,284,007,603
$2,380,126,625
Agricultural........................................................
1,597,501
1,588,496
1,706,955
1,618,090
1,429,547
Commercial.......................................................
1,099,758,752
1,040,185,590
771,275,414
789,742,578
868,129,247
Industrial...........................................................
76,470,143
68,846,326
71,148,238
71,527,489
66,612,275
Multi-residential(3)
............................................. 0
0
358,117,010
346,568,385
379,668,606
Railroads...........................................................
3,636,130
3,614,022
3,686,919
3,586,439
3,194,473
Utilities without Gas and Electric(4) ................... 9,599,528
8,239,789
7,375,066
6,734,894
7,099,293
Gas and Electric Utility(4).................................. 47,004,994
46,785,426
44,986,783
41,702,196
41,797,475
Less: Military
Exemption ................................... (2,939,122)
(2,828,002)
(2,727,994)
(2,635,396)
(2,579,836)
Total................................................................
$3,136,795,629
$3,182,641,961
$3,421,386,133
$3,542,852,278
$3,745,477,705
Percent Change +(-) ........................................ 3.32%(5)
1.46%
7.50%
3.55%
5.72%
Notes: (1)
Source: Iowa Department of Management.
(2)
Includes tax increment finance (TIF) valuations used
in the following amounts:
January 1: 2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
TIF Valuation ............................... $21,131,574
$33,331,128
$72,650,838
$80,559,947
$85,379,369
(3)
New Class as of January 1, 2015, previously reported as Commercial Property.
(4)
See "PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION - Utility Property Tax Replacement" herein.
(5)
Based on 2012 Taxable Valuation of $3,036,012,368.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 1 7
LEVIES AND TAX COLLECTIONS(])
The following shows the trend in the City's tax extensions and collections.
Levy
Fiscal
Amount
Amount
Percent
Year
Year
Levied
Collected(2)
Collected
2010 ...............
2011-12..............
$49,589,988
$49,543,860
99.91%
2011 ...............
2012-13..............
50,407,375
50,419,618
100.02%
2012 ...............
2013-14..............
50,307,189
50,051,577
99.49%
2013 ...............
2014-15..............
51,608,730
51,496,353
97.70%
2014 ...............
2015-16..............
52,033,966
52,020,805
99.97%
2015 ...............
2016-17..............
55,330,223
55,357,357
100.05%
2016 ...............
2017-18..............
56,458,399
56,525,799
100.12%
2017 ...............
2018-19..............
59,173,825
59,252,017
100.13%
Notes:
(1) Source:
the State of Iowa Department
of Management and the City. Does
not include Levies or Collections for
Utility Replacement. Does not include
levies and
collections for the City's tax increment finance district.
(2) Includes
delinquent taxes.
LARGER TAXPAYERS(])
Notes: (1) Source: Johnson County.
(2) Every effort has been made to seek out and report the largest taxpayers. However, many of the taxpayers listed
contain multiple parcels and it is possible that some parcels and their valuations have been overlooked.
LEVY LIMITS
A city's general fund tax levy is limited to $8.10 per $1,000 of taxable value, with provision for an additional $0.27
per $1,000 levy for an emergency fund which can be used for general fund purposes (Code of Iowa, Chapter 384, Division
I). Cities may exceed the $8.10 limitation upon authorization by a special levy election. Further, there are limited special
purpose levies which may be certified outside of the above described levy limits (Code of Iowa, Section 384.12). The
amount of the City general fund levy subject to the $8.10 limitation is $8.10 for Fiscal Year 2018-19. The City does levy
costs for operation and maintenance of publicly owned Transit, tort liability and other insurance, support of the public
library, police and fire retirement, FICA and IPERS and other employee benefits expenses in addition to the $8.10 general
fund limit as authorized by law. In addition, the City has not established an emergency fund levy for Fiscal Year 2018-19.
Debt service levies are not limited.
Levy Year 2017
Taxpayer Name
Business/Service
Taxable Valuation(2)
American College Testing, Inc (aka ACT, Inc.) ..............
Commercial.................................................................
$ 50,377,182
MidAmerican Energy .....................................................
Utility...........................................................................
39,501,682
BBCS-Hawkeye Housing LLC .......................................
Real Estate Management/Apartments..........................
25,227,744
Ann S Gerdin Revocable Trust ......................................
Commercial.................................................................
22,903,407
MidWestOne Bank .........................................................
Banking.......................................................................
20,850,984
Dealer Properties IC LLC ...............................................
Commercial.................................................................
19,318,887
Procter & Gamble LLC ...................................................
Industrial......................................................................
16,805,285
Vesper Iowa City LLC....................................................Apartments..................................................................
15,123,579
AlplaInc........................................................................Industrial......................................................................
14,019,426
National Computer Systems Inc .....................................
Commercial.................................................................
13.673.205
Total.................................................................................................................................................................
$237,801,381
Ten Largest Taxpayers as Percent of City's 2017 Taxable Valuation ($3,745,477,705) ....................................
6.35%
Notes: (1) Source: Johnson County.
(2) Every effort has been made to seek out and report the largest taxpayers. However, many of the taxpayers listed
contain multiple parcels and it is possible that some parcels and their valuations have been overlooked.
LEVY LIMITS
A city's general fund tax levy is limited to $8.10 per $1,000 of taxable value, with provision for an additional $0.27
per $1,000 levy for an emergency fund which can be used for general fund purposes (Code of Iowa, Chapter 384, Division
I). Cities may exceed the $8.10 limitation upon authorization by a special levy election. Further, there are limited special
purpose levies which may be certified outside of the above described levy limits (Code of Iowa, Section 384.12). The
amount of the City general fund levy subject to the $8.10 limitation is $8.10 for Fiscal Year 2018-19. The City does levy
costs for operation and maintenance of publicly owned Transit, tort liability and other insurance, support of the public
library, police and fire retirement, FICA and IPERS and other employee benefits expenses in addition to the $8.10 general
fund limit as authorized by law. In addition, the City has not established an emergency fund levy for Fiscal Year 2018-19.
Debt service levies are not limited.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 18
TAX RATES
Levy Years 2013 - 2017(1)(2)
(Per $1,000 Actual Valuation)
PROPERTY TAX LEGISLATION
From time to time, legislative proposals are pending in Congress and the Iowa General Assembly that would, if
enacted, alter or amend one or more of the property tax matters described herein. It cannot be predicted whether or in what
forms any of such proposals, either pending or that may be introduced, may be enacted, and there can be no assurance that
such proposals will not apply to valuation, assessment or levy procedures for taxes levied by the City or have an adverse
impact on the future tax collections of the City. Purchasers of the Bonds should consult their tax advisors regarding any
pending or proposed federal or state tax legislation. The opinions expressed by Bond Counsel are based upon existing
legislation as of the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds and Bond Counsel has expressed no opinion as of any date
subsequent thereto or with respect to any pending federal or state tax legislation.
During the 2019 legislative session, the Iowa General Assembly enacted Senate File 634 (the "2019 Act"). This bill
modifies the process for hearing and approval of the total maximum property tax dollars under certain levies in the county
budget. The bill also includes a provision that will require the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the board of supervisors when the
maximum property tax dollars under these levies exceed an amount determined under a prescribed formula.
The 2019 Act does not change the process for hearing and approval of the Debt Service Levy pledged for repayment
of the Bonds. It is too early to evaluate the affect the 2019 Act will have on the overall financial position of the City or its
ability to fund essential services.
During the 2013 legislative session, the Iowa General Assembly enacted Senate File 295 (the "2013 Act"). Among
other things, the Act (i) reduced the maximum annual taxable value growth percent, due to revaluation of existing residential
and agricultural property to 3%, (ii) assigned a "rollback" (the percentage of a property's value that is subject to tax) to
commercial, industrial and railroad property of 90%, (iii) created a new property tax classification for multi -residential
properties (apartments, nursing homes, assisted living facilities and certain other rental property) and assigned a declining
rollback percentage to such properties for each year until the residential rollback percentage is reached in the 2022
assessment year, after which the rollback percentage for such properties will be equal to the residential rollback percentage
each assessment year, and (iv) exempted a specified portion of the assessed value of telecommunication properties.
Fiscal Year: 2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Levy Year: 2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
City:
General Fund .....................................................
$ 8.10000
$ 8.10000
$ 8.10000
$ 8.10000
$ 8.10000
Emergency Levy .................................................
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Debt Service Fund ..............................................
4.12963
3.92833
3.82846
3.57846
3.22846
Employee Benefits .............................................
2.96331
3.11277
3.14415
3.14415
3.34415
Capital Improvement ..........................................
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Other..................................................................
1.51226
1.50986
1.51044
1.51044
1.51044
Total City..........................................................
$16.70520
$16.65096
$16.58305
$16.33305
$16.18305
Johnson County .................................................
$6.74168
$6.90337
$6.77140
$6.85143
$6.53594
Iowa City Community School District .................. 13.69999
13.86773
13.98935
13.95855
14.85629
Kirkwood............................................................
1.05754
1.06125
1.08048
1.13174
1.20354
Other..................................................................
0.32315
0.32784
0.32450
0.33036
0.30557
Total Tax Rate(3).............................................
$38.52756
$38.81115
$38.74878
$38.60513
$39.08439
Notes: (1) Source:
Iowa Department of Management.
(2) Does not include the tax rate for agriculture.
(3) Taxpayers in the Iowa City Community School District area.
PROPERTY TAX LEGISLATION
From time to time, legislative proposals are pending in Congress and the Iowa General Assembly that would, if
enacted, alter or amend one or more of the property tax matters described herein. It cannot be predicted whether or in what
forms any of such proposals, either pending or that may be introduced, may be enacted, and there can be no assurance that
such proposals will not apply to valuation, assessment or levy procedures for taxes levied by the City or have an adverse
impact on the future tax collections of the City. Purchasers of the Bonds should consult their tax advisors regarding any
pending or proposed federal or state tax legislation. The opinions expressed by Bond Counsel are based upon existing
legislation as of the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds and Bond Counsel has expressed no opinion as of any date
subsequent thereto or with respect to any pending federal or state tax legislation.
During the 2019 legislative session, the Iowa General Assembly enacted Senate File 634 (the "2019 Act"). This bill
modifies the process for hearing and approval of the total maximum property tax dollars under certain levies in the county
budget. The bill also includes a provision that will require the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the board of supervisors when the
maximum property tax dollars under these levies exceed an amount determined under a prescribed formula.
The 2019 Act does not change the process for hearing and approval of the Debt Service Levy pledged for repayment
of the Bonds. It is too early to evaluate the affect the 2019 Act will have on the overall financial position of the City or its
ability to fund essential services.
During the 2013 legislative session, the Iowa General Assembly enacted Senate File 295 (the "2013 Act"). Among
other things, the Act (i) reduced the maximum annual taxable value growth percent, due to revaluation of existing residential
and agricultural property to 3%, (ii) assigned a "rollback" (the percentage of a property's value that is subject to tax) to
commercial, industrial and railroad property of 90%, (iii) created a new property tax classification for multi -residential
properties (apartments, nursing homes, assisted living facilities and certain other rental property) and assigned a declining
rollback percentage to such properties for each year until the residential rollback percentage is reached in the 2022
assessment year, after which the rollback percentage for such properties will be equal to the residential rollback percentage
each assessment year, and (iv) exempted a specified portion of the assessed value of telecommunication properties.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 19
The Act includes a standing appropriation to replace some of the tax revenues lost by local governments, including
tax increment districts, resulting from the new rollback for commercial and industrial property. Beginning in fiscal year
2018 the standing appropriation cannot exceed the actual 2017 appropriation amount. The appropriation does not replace
losses to local governments resulting from the Act's provisions that reduce the annual revaluation growth limit for residential
and agricultural properties to 3%, the gradual transition for multi -residential properties from the residential rollback
percentage (currently 53% of market value), or the reduction in the percentage of telecommunications property that is subject
to taxation.
Given the wide scope of the statutory changes, and the State's discretion in establishing the annual replacement
amount that is appropriated each year commencing in fiscal 2018, the impact of the 2013 Act on the City's future property
tax collections is uncertain and the City has not attempted to quantify the financial impact of the 2013 Act's provisions on
the City's future operations.
Notwithstanding any decrease in property tax revenues that may result from the 2013 Act, Iowa Code section 76.2
provides that when an Iowa political subdivision issues bonds, "[t]he governing authority of these political subdivisions
before issuing bonds shall, by resolution, provide for the assessment of an annual levy upon all the taxable property in the
political subdivision sufficient to pay the interest and principal of the bonds within a period named not exceeding twenty
years. A certified copy of this resolution shall be filed with the county auditor or the auditors of the counties in which the
political subdivision is located; and the filing shall make it a duty of the auditors to enter annually this levy for collection
from the taxable property within the boundaries of the political subdivision until funds are realized to pay the bonds in full."
From time to time, other legislative proposals may be considered by the Iowa General Assembly that would, if
enacted, alter or amend one or more of the property tax matters described in this Official Statement. It cannot be predicted
whether or in what forms any of such proposals may be enacted, and there can be no assurance that such proposals will not
apply to valuation, assessment or levy procedures for the levy of taxes by the City.
CITY FUNDS ON HAND (Cash and Investments as of June 30, 2019, in thousands)
City Operating Funds $175,028
City Restricted Funds 48,703
Total $233,731
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
City oflowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 110
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES(])
(Amounts Expressed in Thousands)
ASSETS:
Equity in Pooled Cash and Investments ..................................
Receivables:
PropertyTax..........................................................................
Accounts and Unbilled Usage ................................................
Interest..................................................................................
Notes.....................................................................................
Internal Balances.....................................................................
Due from Other Governments ..................................................
PrepaidItem............................................................................
Inventories...............................................................................
Assets Held for Resale............................................................
Restricted Assets:
Equity in Pooled Cash and Investments .................................
Other Post Employment Benefits Asset ...................................
Capital Assets:
Land and Construction in Progress ........................................
Other Capital Assets (Net of Accumulated Depreciation).........
TotalAssets.......................................................................
Audited as of June 30
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
$ 63,571
$ 84,052
$111,030
$109,860
$111,645
52,240
55,482
56,639
59,538
60,529
718
953
820
817
941
364
284
428
920
967
17,308
16,252
5,524
5,304
5,209
(12,127)
(13,688)
(15,494)
(16,069)
(20,055)
10,298
5,987
4,519
4,067
7,584
0
10
811
810
907
656
688
730
602
650
2,170
582
750
562
689
45,981
36,914
24,560
26,108
18,553
25
40
35
0
0
48,032
48,275
52,545
73,176
51,291
151,620
158,947
173,598
174,835
210,302
$380,856
$394,778
$416,495
$440,530
$449,212
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES:(2)
Pension Related Deferred Outflows ......................................... $ 6,767
OPEB Related Deferred Outflows ............................................ 0
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources ................................. $ 6,767
LIABILITIES:
Accounts Payable....................................................................
Contracts Payable...................................................................
Accrued Liabilities...................................................................
InterestPayable......................................................................
Deposits..................................................................................
Advances from Grantors..........................................................
Due to Other Governments......................................................
NotesPayable.........................................................................
Noncurrent Liabilities:
Due Within One Year:
Employee Vested Benefits ...................................................
BondsPayable....................................................................
Due in more than One Year:
Employee Vested Benefits ...................................................
Net Pension Liability............................................................
Other Post Employment Benefits Liability ............................
NotesPayable.....................................................................
BondsPayable....................................................................
Total Liabilities...................................................................
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES:
Unavailable Revenues:
$ 7,192 $ 13,131 $ 11,477 $ 11,255
0 0 637 1,467
$ 7,192 $ 13,131 $ 12,114 $ 12,722
$ 2,296
$ 3,374
$ 2,127
$ 5,168
$ 3,399
5,468
2,773
2,521
3,663
5,864
4,145
4,143
4,182
4,193
5,231
168
110
133
134
151
1,078
1,715
1,230
952
1,008
69
47
144
124
98
636
402
42
29
31
2,004
582
663
475
602
1,148
1,185
1,252
1,253
1,308
11,255
10,384
8,230
9,612
11,534
928
947
989
987
1,012
24,556
30,539
39,080
38,867
38,890
2,932
3,227
3,660
5,472
6,401
211
211
211
211
211
50,785
48,105
59,509
58,307
56,771
$107,679
$107,744
$123,973
$129,447
$132,511
Pension Related Deferred Inflows ..........................................
$ 10,791
OPEB Related Deferred Inflows ............................................
0
Succeeding Year Property Taxes ..........................................
52,035
Notes.....................................................................................
11,422
Grants...................................................................................
0
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources ..................................
74,248
NET POSITION:
$ 1,603
Net Investment in Capital Assets .............................................
$153,729
Restricted for or by:
0
Employee Benefits.................................................................
1,593
Capital Projects.....................................................................
27,014
DebtService..........................................................................
6,921
Police....................................................................................
510
Other Purposes.....................................................................
409
GrantAgreement...................................................................
0
Unrestricted.............................................................................
15.520
Total Net Position..............................................................
$205,696
$ 3,740
$ 1,603
$ 1,565
$ 1,940
0
0
246
216
55,330
56,459
59,173
60,296
11,226
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
70,308
$58,062
60,984
62,452
$163,362
$183,651
$157,106
$208,028
1,671
2,810
3,119
4,249
31,456
30,856
21,463
17,020
6,463
7,221
8,423
9,514
458
349
283
214
1,657
2,590
4,469
4,359
449
3,850
3,733
3,463
18,402
1223,918
16,264
$247,591
63,617
$262 213
20,124
1266,971
Note: (1) Source: Audited financial statements of the City for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2015 through 2019.
City oflowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 111
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES(])
(Amounts Expressed in Thousands)
FUNCTION/PROGRAMS:
Governmental Activities:
PublicSafety.........................................................................
PublicWorks.........................................................................
Culture and Recreation..........................................................
Community and Economic Development ...............................
General Government.............................................................
Interest on Long -Term Debt ...................................................
Total Governmental Activities ..............................................
General Revenues:
Property Taxes, Levied for General Purposes .......................
Hotel/Motel Tax.....................................................................
Gas and Electric Tax.............................................................
Utility Franchise Tax..............................................................
Grants and Contributions Not Restricted to
Specific Purposes.................................................................
Earnings on Investments.......................................................
Gain on Disposal of Capital Assets ........................................
Miscellaneous........................................................................
Transfers.................................................................................
Reassignment of Cable Television to Governmental
Activities................................................................................
Total General Revenues and Transfers ...............................
Changes in Net Position ....................................................
Net Position Beginning of Year ................................................
Net Position End of Year .........................................................
Audited for the Year Ended June 30
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
$ (16,991)
$ (15,969)
$ (18,053)
$ (20,466)
$ (20,862)
8,350
998
6,746
(3,084)
(2,516)
(13,208)
(13,535)
(14,573)
(15,189)
(14,834)
(6,101)
(4,322)
(6,264)
(10,166)
(14,116)
(4,777)
(4,988)
(4,600)
(5,338)
(5,807)
(1,517)
(1,287)
(1,481)
(1,414)
(1,444)
$(34,244)
$(39,103)
$(38,225)
$(55,657)
$(59,579)
$ 52,205
$ 53,114
$ 57,649
$ 59,046
$ 61,739
1,057
1,079
1,137
1,046
1,302
851
764
726
684
668
902
874
939
976
965
1,048
2,080
1,583
1,547
1,552
1,188
1,045
1,397
2,368
3,257
135
218
2,151
140
186
5,518
4,464
3,369
3,656
3,329
(10,057)
(6,395)
(7,053)
1,814
(8,661)
0
82
0
0
0
52,847
57,325
61,898
71,277
64,337
$ 18,603
$ 18,222
$ 23,673
$ 15,620
$ 4,758
187,093(2)
$205,696
205,696
$221918
223,918
$247,591
246,593(2)
$2521213
262,213
$266 971
Notes: (1) Source: Audited financial statements of the City for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2015 through 2019.
(2) Restated.
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 112
BALANCESHEET
GENERAL FUND(1)
(Amounts Expressed in Thousands)
Audited as of June 30
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
ASSETS:
$32,500
Equity in Pooled Cash and Investments ....................................
$19,001
Receivables:
32,965
PropertyTaxes........................................................................
29,922
Accounts and Unbilled Usage ..................................................
250
Interest....................................................................................
217
Notes.......................................................................................
1,340
Advances to Other Funds..........................................................
2,681
Due from Other Governments....................................................
1,859
PrepaidItem..............................................................................
0
Assets Held for Resale..............................................................
2,005
Restricted Assets:
56
Equity in Pooled Cash and Investments ...................................
30,141
Total Assets.......................................................................
$87416
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF
RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCES:
Liabilities:
$30,214
$32,500
$36,321
$38,979
31,825
32,965
34,973
36,301
449
410
496
491
163
161
276
360
1,305
1,292
1,276
1,329
0
0
0
56
1,758
1,887
1,941
2,131
10
719
726
818
582
750
562
689
21,277
$87 583
10,268
=2u
1,904
$78 A_Z5
2,028
$$3.1$2
Accounts Payable....................................................................
$ 1,328
$ 1,376
$ 1,191
$ 1,492
$ 1,497
Accrued Liabilities....................................................................
887
1,141
1,321
1,391
1,466
Due to Other Governments......................................................
312
29
38
29
31
Interest Payable......................................................................
37
0
4
5
17
Notes Payable.........................................................................
2,004
582
663
475
602
Liabilities Payable from Restricted Assets:
Deposits...............................................................................
1,072
1,710
1,224
947
1,004
Advances from Grantors.......................................................
27
0
7
113
94
Total Liabilities...................................................................
5,667
4,8 8
$ 4,448
4 452
$ 4,711
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES:
Unavailable Revenues:
Succeeding Year Property Taxes ..........................................
$29,805
$31,739
$32,863
$34,764
$36,176
Notes.....................................................................................
1,340
1,305
0
0
0
Grants...................................................................................
82
15
6
9
34
Other.....................................................................................
1.393
1.434
1.539
1.600
1.643
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources ....................................
$32,620
$34,493
$34,408
$36,373
$37,853
FUND BALANCES:
Nonspendable.........................................................................
$ 69
$ 69
$ 788
$ 793
$ 887
Restricted................................................................................
25,291
18,975
9,974
1,942
1,808
Committed...............................................................................
0
4,699
5,199
4,962
0
Assigned.................................................................................
4,483
1,143
1,342
1,437
3,565
Unassigned.............................................................................
19.286
23,366
24,793
28,516
34,358
Total Fund Balances..........................................................
$49,129
$48,252
$42,096
$37,650
$40,618
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources
and Fund Balances.......................................................... $87,416 $82583 $84,952
Note: (1) Source: Audited financial statements of the City for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2015 through 2019
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 113
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
GENERAL FUND(1)
(Amounts Expressed in Thousands)
EXPENDITURES:
Audited
Fiscal Year Ended June
30
Current:
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
REVENUES:
$ 21,087
$ 20,967
$ 22,005
$ 22,762
$ 23,858
Taxes........................................................................................
$ 31,909
$ 32,229
$ 34,290
$ 35,363
$ 37,426
Licenses and Permits................................................................
1,806
3,056
3,521
2,734
2,981
Intergovernmental.....................................................................
3,487
3,830
3,574
3,786
4,099
Charges for Service...................................................................
1,460
1,543
1,665
1,465
1,595
Fines and Forfeits......................................................................
0
760
750
695
776
Use of Money and Property.......................................................
845
749
839
1,164
1,599
Miscellaneous............................................................................
5,83
1,430
1,692
1,878
1,950
Total Revenues.......................................................................
$45,342
$43,597
$46,331
$47,085
$50,426
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Public Safety...........................................................................
$ 21,087
$ 20,967
$ 22,005
$ 22,762
$ 23,858
Public Works...........................................................................
1,624
1,312
1,803
1,871
1,922
Cultural and Recreation...........................................................
11,698
12,038
12,890
13,099
13,096
Community and Economic Development .................................
3,187
2,842
3,074
2,785
3,561
General Government...............................................................
7,093
5,479
5,471
5,550
6,144
Capital Outlay............................................................................
3,333
1,651
1,463
2,124
1,718
Total Expenditures...................................................................
$48,022
$44,289
$46,706
$48,191
$50,299
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over (Under)
Expenditures...........................................................................
(2,680)
692
375
(1,106)
127
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Issuance of Debt.......................................................................
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 17
$ 0
Sale of Capital Assets...............................................................
164
252
268
140
758
Premiums on Issuance of Bonds ...............................................
0
0
0
0
0
Transfers In...............................................................................
8,780
10,692
10,725
10,138
11,548
Transfers Out............................................................................
(5.044)1(
1,129)
1( 8,023)
1( 3.6351
(9,465)
Total Other Financing Sources and (Uses) ..............................
3,900
185
(7,030
(3,340)
2,841
Net Change in Fund Balances ...................................................
$ 1,220
$ (877)
$ (7,405)
$ (4,446)
$ 2,968
Fund Balances, Beginning........................................................
$47,909
$49,129
$49,501(2)
$42,096
$37,650
Fund Balances, Ending.............................................................
$ 49-,129
$-48.252
&A2&96
131-650
S4451$
Notes: (1) Source: Audited financial statements of the City for the fiscal years
ended June 30,
2015 through 2019.
(2) Restated.
PENSIONS
The City participates in two public pension systems, Iowa Public Employee's Retirement System (IPERS) and
Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa (MFPRSI). Summary descriptions of each Plan follow.
In fiscal year 2019, pursuant to the IPERS' required rate, the City's Regular members contributed 6.29% of pay and
the City contributed 9.44% for a total rate of 15.73%. The City's contributions to IPERS for the year ended June 30, 2019
were $2,912,438. The City's contribution to MFPRSI for year ended June 30, 2019 was $2,902,433. The City's share of
the contributions, payable from the applicable funds of the City, is provided by a statutorily authorized annual levy of taxes
without limit or restriction as to rate or amount. The City has always made its full required contributions to IPERS and
MFPRSI.
At June 30, 2019, the City reported a liability of $25,419,730 for its proportionate share of the IPERS net pension
liability. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2018 and the total pension liability used to calculate the net
pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The discount rate used to measure the total pension
liability was 7%. The City's proportion of the net pension liability was based on the City's share of contributions to the
pension plan relative to the contributions of all IPERS participating employers.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 114
OTHER POST -EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB)
The City operates one self-funded medical and dental plan for all employees, which is offered to current and retired
employees and their dependents. Group insurance benefits are established under Iowa Code Chapter 509A.13. No assets
are accumulated in a trust that meets the criteria in paragraph 4 of GASB Statement No. 75.
The following table shows the City's total OPEB liability:
Total OPEB Liability Beginning of Year .................................................
Changes for the year
ServiceCost..........................................................................
Interest..................................................................................
Difference Between Expected and Actual Experience ...........
Changes in Assumptions.......................................................
Benefit Payments..................................................................
NetChanges.........................................................................................
Total OPEB Liability End of Year...........................................................
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
$7,589,740
552,791
296,944
1,160,860
225,633
(948,137)
1,288,091
$8,877,831
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 115
FINANCIAL AND OPERATING REPORT
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JUNE 30, 2019
Relating to
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Johnson County, Iowa
WATER SYSTEM REVENUE
BASE CUSIP NO. 462380
SEWER SYSTEM REVENUE
BASE CUSIP NO. 462362
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE
BASE CUSIP NO. 462344
and
URBAN RENEWAL AREA REVENUE
BASE CUSIP NO. 462371
To the extent not included in the City's Financial Statements, all information the City of Iowa City has agreed to
provide in its annual reports, as it relates to its outstanding water revenue, sewer revenue and urban renewal revenue
debt is included in this report. Attached is additional information as required to be submitted under previous
disclosure undertakings of the City.
Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 116
WATER SYSTEM
The Water Division is comprised of five parts: Administration, Treatment Plant, Customer Service, Distribution, and Public
Information/Education. There are a total of 31.75 (FTE) employees who work in the Water Division. This division serves
about 75,798 people and has over 28,972 customer water accounts. The average daily use for fiscal year 2019 was
approximately 5.4 million gallons per day (MGD). A peak flow of over 8.6 MGD was experienced during the summer of
2012.
Water Sources: The primary source of water for the City is the alluvial aquifer collector wells along the Iowa River. Four
collector wells can provide approximately 10.5 MGD. Additional sources include two Jordan aquifer wells which can
provide 1.0 MGD; three Silurian aquifer wells which can provide 1.0 MGD; a sand pit that can provide 1.0 MGD; a river
intake that can provide 3.0 MGD; for a total of approximately 16.7 MGD maximum capacity.
Water Treatment Processes: The facilities include one treatment plant (constructed in 2003) located at 80 Stephen Atkins
Drive. The plant is a surface water plant design that includes aeration, lime softening
coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation), and granular activated carbon filtration processes with fluoridation and free
chlorination. The Grade IV Water Treatment Facility houses an operations team that performs over 230 water quality tests
per day in-house and collects regulatory samples for testing at the University Hygienic Laboratory. This testing ensures
that Iowa City's drinking water meets all IDNR and EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Standards.
Distribution System: The water flows through approximately 279 miles of water mains and includes over 28,000 service
connections. The distribution piping consists of cast iron, ductile iron and plastic main that ranges in size from 2" to 30".
The treatment plant site has effective water storage capacity of 1.75 million gallons of water; in addition there are four
remote ground storage reservoirs (with pumping stations) that add up to remote effective storage capacity of 6.0 million
gallons of water. The water system also provides for fire protection with approximately 3,669 public and private hydrants
located throughout the community.
Billing and Collections: Customers are billed monthly on a combined utility statement which includes charges for sewer,
water, solid waste, and curbside recycling. Under present City policy and City ordinances, utility bills are due when received
but contain a delinquency date which provides 15 days for payment. If payment is not made in full within 22 days, a notice
is mailed which allows 25 calendar days before service is disconnected. The City's bad debt write-offs have been less than
0.2% of gross revenues for the past three years.
WATER SYSTEM RATES AND CHARGES
The following rates and charges were effective July 1, 2016.
Water Service Charge Minimums(])
(Includes up to the first 100 cubic feet (c.f.))
Meter Size
Charge
Meter Size
Charge
5/8" .....................
$ 7.42
2.....................
$ 25.63
3/4.. .....................
8.11
3.....................
47.37
1.. .......................
9.56
4.....................
82.62
1-1/2 ......................
19.06
6.....................
166.25
Note: (1) Source: the City
Monthly Usage in excess of 100 Cubic Feet (c.f.)(1)
101 c.f. - 3,000 c.f...................$3.47 per 100 c.f.
3,001 c.f. and over..................$2.49 per 100 c.f.
Note: (1) Source: the City
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 117
Single Purpose Meter Charges(])
First 100 c.f......................................... Minimum Monthly Charge
Usage in excess of 100 c.f................... $3.47 per 100 c.f.
Note: (1) Source: the City.
Changes in water rates over the last ten fiscal years:
Water Rate Changes(])
Note: (1) Source: the City.
SALES HISTORY AND WATER SYSTEM CHARGES(])
Rate
Change
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
5%
0%
0%
0%
Water Sales
Water System
Cubic Feet Sold(2)
Charges
234,342,825 ..............................
$7,568,378
236,838,370 ..............................
7,661,898
246, 618, 257 ..............................
7,953,738
254,616,773 ..............................
8,194,467
239, 790, 719 ..............................
7,778,364
240,423,612 ..............................
8,161,522
255, 524, 943 ..............................
8,758,683
267,511,531 ..............................
9,156,005
293, 046, 636 ..............................
9,953,510
289,055,329 ..............................
10,139,587
Notes: (1) Source: the City.
(2) Beginning in March 2015 the amounts include unbilled usage.
WATER SYSTEM CUSTOMERS BY CLASSIFICATION(1)(2)
Classification
FY2015(4)
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019(5)
Residential .............................
23,089
23,638
24,025
27,042
27,232
Commercial ...........................
1,409
1,415
1,425
1,428
1,528
Industrial ................................
14
14
14
17
17
Other(3).................................
135
131
134
178
198
Total Meters .........................
24,647
25,198
25,598
28,665
28,972
Notes: (1) Source: the City
(2) Represents the number of meters customers billed as of the end of the fiscal year.
(3) Other meters consist of rural, schools, government, churches and City meters.
(4) Implemented a new utility billing system during Fiscal Year 2015, which consolidated customers with
multiple meters.
(5) Included all active meters for each customer — dual purpose (water and sewer) as well as single
purpose meters (water only, typically for irrigation).
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 118
LARGER WATER SYSTEM CUSTOMERS(])
Customer Name
Proctor & Gamble ....................................................
Iowa City Veterans Health Care System ..................
Campus Apartments ................................................
MercyHospital.........................................................
Tailwind Iowa City (Rus Properties Management)....
DorminiumJIT .........................................................
Graduate Hotel ........................................................
Seville Apartments ...................................................
Iowa City Community School District ........................
Emerald Court Apartments .......................................
Total......................................................................
Total Water System Customers
Note: (1) Source: the City.
$10,139,587
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
Fiscal Year 2019
Charges
Rank
Percentage
$ 884,980
1
8.73%
108,501
2
1.07%
69,523
3
0.69%
62,721
4
0.62%
62,045
5
0.61%
52,530
6
0.52%
48,311
7
0.48%
38,770
8
0.38%
37,848
9
0.37%
32,840
10
0.32%
$1,398,069
13.79%
$10,139,587
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 119
SEWER SYSTEM
The City of Iowa City operates a municipal Sewer Utility System consisting of approximately 300+ miles of sanitary sewers,
17 sanitary sewer lift stations, and a wastewater treatment plant. There are a total of 26.00 (FTE) employees who work in
the Wastewater Division. This division serves approximately 76,000 people and has approximately 26,000 customers. The
system has 3 significant industrial users, 2 non -categorical and 1 categorical. The average daily treatment plant flow for
fiscal year 2019 was 10.05 million gallons per day (MGD).
The Wastewater Plant was constructed in 1990. The plant was upgraded in 2002 and underwent another expansion in 2014.
The City conducts all wastewater treatment at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and monitors and controls operations of the
system remotely through supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) computer systems. The wastewater treatment
system design has a maximum daily treatment capacity of 43.30 MGD. The Wastewater Treatment Division is currently in
compliance with federal clean water standards.
Billing and Collections: Customers are billed monthly on a combined utility statement which includes charges for sewer,
water, solid waste, and curbside recycling. Under present City policy and City ordinances, utility bills are due when received
but contain a delinquency date which provides 15 days for payment. If payment is not made in full within 22 days, a notice
is mailed which allows 25 calendar days before service is disconnected. The City's bad debt write-offs have been less than
0.2% of gross revenues for the past three years.
SEWER SYSTEM RATES AND CHARGES
2015
The following Sewer System rates and charges were approved by the City Council and became effective July 1,
Monthly Sewer Service Charge Minimum (includes up to the first 100 cubic feet (c.f.)) $8.15
Monthly Usage in excess of 100 cubic feet (c.£) $3.99
The following table shows historical rate increases over the last ten fiscal years.
Sewer Rate Increases(])
Fiscal Year
Rate Change
2010 ....................................................
0%
2011 ....................................................
0%
2012 ....................................................
0%
2013 ....................................................
0%
2014 ....................................................
0%
2015 ....................................................
0%
2016 ....................................................
0%
2017 ....................................................
0%
2018 ....................................................
0%
2019 ....................................................
0%
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 120
SALES HISTORY AND SEWER SYSTEM CHARGES(])
Fiscal
Sewer Sales
Sewer System
Year
Cubic Feet Sold(2)
Charges
2010 .....................................
265,375,857
$12,541,905
2011 .....................................
280,303,237
12,748,695
2012 .....................................
282,134,840
12,784,321
2013 .....................................
285,472,392
12,883,641
2014 .....................................
269,494,125
12,382,031
2015 .....................................
266,830,947
12,278,153
2016 .....................................
270,547,701
12,022,203
2017 .....................................
277,712,785
12,404,360
2018 .....................................
283,246,320
12,524,540
2019 .....................................
288,537,266
12,822,250
Notes: (1) Source: the City.
(2) Beginning in March 2015 the amount includes unbilled usage in totals.
NUMBER OF SEWER SYSTEM CUSTOMERS(])
Fiscal
Number of Sewer
Year
System Customers
2012 ..................................................
23,529
2013 ..................................................
24,059
2014 ..................................................
24,389
2015 ..................................................
24,533
2016 ..................................................
25,085
2017 ..................................................
25,485
2018 ..................................................
26,049
2019 ..................................................
26,201
Note: (1) Source: the City.
LARGER SEWER SYSTEM CUSTOMERS(])
Customer Name
University of Iowa..........................................................
Proctor & Gamble..........................................................
Iowa City Landfill............................................................
Iowa City Veterans Health Care System ........................
MercyHospital...............................................................
Campus Apartments......................................................
DorminiumJIT..............................................................
Tailwind Iowa City LLC ..................................................
Seville Apartments.........................................................
Graduate Hotel..............................................................
Total............................................................................
Total Sewer System Customers ..................................... $12,822,250
Note: (1) Source: the City.
Fiscal Year 2019
Charges
Rank
Percentage
$ 2,145,648
1
16.73%
1,317,634
2
10.28%
249,780
3
1.95%
133,486
4
1.04%
100,293
5
0.78%
77,874
6
0.61%
60,449
7
0.47%
57,910
8
0.45%
53,432
9
0.42%
50,597
10
0.39%
$ 4,247,103
33.12%
Total Sewer System Customers ..................................... $12,822,250
Note: (1) Source: the City.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 121
PARKING SYSTEM
The Parking System currently consists of approximately 5,105 parking spaces located at various parking facilities in the
City. The Parking Division of the Transportation Services Department oversees the operation of parking garages, parking
lots, and on -street (metered) parking. Parking Division enforces parking regulation in the central business district, while
the Police Department enforces parking regulations in residential areas. Recognizing that there is a high demand for parking
in downtown Iowa City, Parking Services promotes turnover of on -street metered parking spaces in the core of the
downtown. Customers with longer-term needs are encouraged to use the garages or on streets in outlying areas. There are
a total of 21.38 (FTE) employees who work in the Parking Division.
Parking System Utilization, Demand and Other Considerations: The City tracks Parking System utilization by the hour in
each of the cashiered facilities. During peak hours, the occupancy rate regularly runs between 85% to 100% depending on
the time of year and the time of day. Peak hours for the Parking System are 10:00 am through 3:00 pm with high occupancy
rates regularly maintained through 5:30 pm daily.
In addition to hourly parking, the Parking System offers monthly permit parking. The Parking System currently has 2,051
permit holders. The largest customer for the monthly permit parking is the University of Iowa with 615 permits. There
are currently over 2,000 people on the Parking System's waiting lists for monthly permit parking.
In addition to monthly and permit parking, the Parking System has parking space contracts with the Graduate Hotel in the
amount of $8,500.00 per month and with the Hotel Vetro in the amount of $2,125.00 per month.
The City regularly evaluates parking demand. As development has continued to move south of Burlington Street and the
central business district, the need for additional spaces in this area has increased. The underlying economic growth and
employment base of the City continues to contribute to increased demand.
Parking System Rates and Charges:_Rates for the Parking System are set by the City Council. Parking System rates are
reviewed annually. The rates vary by facility and the hourly and monthly rates and charges as approved by the City Council
are listed below by facility. These rates include the most recent hourly rate adjustments that were approved by the City
Council on June 4, 2013 and became effective July 1, 2013 and the most recent monthly permit rate adjustments that were
approved by the City Council became effective July 1, 2017.
Parking Facilities: The Parking System consists of 2 cashiered garages and 3 unattended garages, as well as, various parking
lots and on -street metered parking in the Central Business District. The City completes regular visual inspections of the
parking garages to evaluate their current appearance and general condition. The garages are visually inspected for the
condition of the main structural elements (columns, girders, beams), parking decks, expansion and control joints, and their
coating systems. Based on the most recent inspections, all of the Parking System's facilities are in excellent condition. All
garages will continue to receive routine inspections and maintenance. A description of each parking facility, their locations,
access, the number of spaces, monthly permits, and current rates are as follows:
Capitol Street Garage
Constructed
1980
Address
220 S. Capitol Street
Description
Located on a parcel confined by Burlington Street to the south, Capitol Street to the west,
Clinton Street to the east and the Old Capitol Town Center to the north.
Access
This is a cashiered facility with two entry lanes off of Clinton Street; two entry lanes off of
Capitol Street; and four exit lanes onto Capitol Street.
Spaces
875
Monthly Permits
178
Rates
Hourly $1.00 per hour, with first hour free
Monthly $85.00 per month
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 122
Changes in Capitol Street Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years:
*2014 Hourly Rate increase from $0.75 to $1.00 but the first hour free also started in 2014
*2018 Monthly Rate increase from $80.00 to $85.00
Dubuque Street Garage
Constructed
Hourly
Monthly
2010
0%
7%
2011
0%
0%
2012
0%
0%
2013
0%
0%
2014*
33%
0%
2015
0%
0%
2016
0%
0%
2017
0%
0%
2018**
0%
6.3%
2019
0%
0%
*2014 Hourly Rate increase from $0.75 to $1.00 but the first hour free also started in 2014
*2018 Monthly Rate increase from $80.00 to $85.00
Dubuque Street Garage
Constructed
1980
Address
220 S. Dubuque Street
Description
Located on a parcel confined by Burlington Street to the south, Dubuque Street to the west,
2011
Linn Street to the east and the Sheraton Hotel to the north.
Access
This is a cashiered facility with two entry lanes off of Dubuque Street; one entry lanes off
0%
of Linn Street; and two exit lanes onto Dubuque Street.
Spaces
625
Monthly Permits
264
Rates
Hourly $1.00 per hour, with first hour free
2015
Monthly $85.00 per month
Changes in Dubuque Street Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years:
*2014 Hourly Rate increase from $0.75 to $1.00 but the first hour free also started in 2014
** 2018 Monthly Rate increase from $80.00 to $85.00
Chauncey Swan Garage
Constructed
Hourly
Monthly
2010
0%
7%
2011
0%
0%
2012
0%
0%
2013
0%
0%
2014*
33%
0%
2015
0%
0%
2016
0%
0%
2017
0%
0%
2018**
0%
6.3%
2019
0%
0%
*2014 Hourly Rate increase from $0.75 to $1.00 but the first hour free also started in 2014
** 2018 Monthly Rate increase from $80.00 to $85.00
Chauncey Swan Garage
Constructed
1993
Address
415 E. Washington Street
Description
Located on a parcel confined by College Street to the south, Van Buren Street to the east,
Gilbert Street to the west and Washington Street to the north.
Access
This is an automated facility with one entry/exit lane off of College Street; one entry/exit
lane off of Washington Street; and one entry/exit lane through the Recreation Center
parking lot onto Burlington Street.
Spaces
475
Monthly Permits
261
Rates
Hourly $0.75 per hour
Monthly $85.00 per month
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 123
Changes in Chauncey Swan Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years:
**2018 Monthly Rate increase from $80.00 to $85.00
Tower Place Garage
Constructed 2001
Address 335 E. Iowa Avenue
Description Located on a parcel confined by Iowa City Senior Center to the south, Gilbert Street to the
east, Linn Street to the west and Iowa Avenue to the north.
Access This is a cashiered facility with two entry lanes off of Iowa Avenue; three exit lanes onto
Iowa Avenue; and secured permit -only entry and exit off of Gilbert Street.
Spaces 510
Monthly Permits 266
Rates Hourly $1.00 per hour, with first hour free
Monthly $85.00 per month
Changes in Tower Place Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years:
Hourlv
Monthly
2010
0%
17%
2011
0%
14%
2012
0%
0%
2013
0%
0%
2014
25%
0%
2015
0%
0%
2016
0%
0%
2017
0%
0%
2018**
0%
6.3%
2019
0%
0%
**2018 Monthly Rate increase from $80.00 to $85.00
Tower Place Garage
Constructed 2001
Address 335 E. Iowa Avenue
Description Located on a parcel confined by Iowa City Senior Center to the south, Gilbert Street to the
east, Linn Street to the west and Iowa Avenue to the north.
Access This is a cashiered facility with two entry lanes off of Iowa Avenue; three exit lanes onto
Iowa Avenue; and secured permit -only entry and exit off of Gilbert Street.
Spaces 510
Monthly Permits 266
Rates Hourly $1.00 per hour, with first hour free
Monthly $85.00 per month
Changes in Tower Place Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years:
*2014 Hourly Rate increase from $0.75 to $1.00 but the first hour free also started in 2014
**2018 Monthly Rate increase from $80.00 to $85.00
Harrison Street Garage
Constructed 2017
Address 175 E. Harrison Street
Description Located on a parcel confined by Harrison Street to the north, Sabin Townhomes to the east,
Prentiss St to the south, and Midwest One to the west.
Access This is an automated facility with one entry lane and two exit lanes off of Harrison Street.
Spaces 600
Monthly Permits 302
Rates Hourly $0.75 per hour
Monthly $85.00 per month
Hourlv
Monthly
2010
0%
7%
2011
0%
0%
2012
0%
0%
2013
0%
0%
2014*
33%
0%
2015
0%
0%
2016
0%
0%
2017
0%
0%
2018**
0%
6.3%
2019
0%
0%
*2014 Hourly Rate increase from $0.75 to $1.00 but the first hour free also started in 2014
**2018 Monthly Rate increase from $80.00 to $85.00
Harrison Street Garage
Constructed 2017
Address 175 E. Harrison Street
Description Located on a parcel confined by Harrison Street to the north, Sabin Townhomes to the east,
Prentiss St to the south, and Midwest One to the west.
Access This is an automated facility with one entry lane and two exit lanes off of Harrison Street.
Spaces 600
Monthly Permits 302
Rates Hourly $0.75 per hour
Monthly $85.00 per month
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 124
Changes in Harrison Street Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years:
Hourly Monthly
2017* 100% 100%
2018 0% 0%
2019 0% 0%
*Garage was opened in fiscal year 2017.
On -Street Parking Meters: The City operates short-term meters (1-2 hours) concentrated in the core of the downtown.
These meters are intended for shopper's use. Each parking meter dial states the maximum time. Longer term meters
become more common away from the core downtown area.
Meters 1,177
Rates Hourly $0.75 - $1.50 per hour based on proximity to the central
business district and usage.
Parking Lots: The City operates seven parking lots in the Central Business District. They consist of a mix of permit
spaces and metered spaces.
Spaces 245
Monthly Permits 59
Rates Hourly $0.75 - $1.50 per hour based on proximity to the central
business district and usage.
Monthly $65.00 per month
Moped Parking: FY12 saw the implementation of a parking permit program for mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles.
Spaces were designated throughout the Central Business District to accommodate the use of mopeds and scooters while
also removing them from parking in bicycle racks.
Spaces 206
Total Annual Permits 721
Rates Annual $90.00 per year
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
SCHEDULE OF REVENUE BOND COVERAGE
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(amounts expressed in thousands)
Fiscal
Year
Net Revenue
Annual Debt Service
Ended
Available for
Ratio of
June 30
Revenue
Expenses'
Debt Service Principal
Interest
Total
Coverage
Parking Revenue
20106
5,509
3,149
2,360
390
504
894
2.64
2011
5,389
2,920
2,469
420
391
811
3.04
2012
4,945
3,034
1,911
500
339
839
2.28
2013
5,122
3,549
1,573
515
324
839
1.87
2014
5,365
2,969
2,396
530
308
838
2.86
20157
5,620
3,828
1,792
540
254
794
2.26
2016
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2017
2018
2019
-
-
-
-
-
Wastewater Treatment Revenue°
20106
13,174
5,050
8,124
4,205
2,307
6,512
1.25
20116
13,281
5,477
7,804
1,840
2,054
3,894
2.00
2012
13,175
5,663
7,512
4,615
1,693
6,308
1.19
2013
13,301
5,340
7,961
4,865
1,547
6,412
1.24
2014
12,835
5,708
7,127
3,250
1,428
4,678
1.52
2015
12,620
6,574
6,046
3,370
1,305
4,675
1.29
2016
12,681
6,513
6,168
3,520
1,175
4,695
1.31
2017
13,383
6,357
7,026
3,625
985
4,610
1.52
2018
13,181
6,622
6,559
3,580
756
4,336
1.51
20198
13,548
6,840
6,708
6,135
539
6,674
1.68
Water Revenues
20106
8,336
5,153
3,183
680
1,055
1,735
1.83
2011
8,354
5,464
2,890
1,110
902
2,012
1.44
20126
8,649
5,653
2,996
1,200
861
2,061
1.45
20136
9,342
6,348
2,994
845
758
1,603
1.87
20146
8,613
5,818
2,795
1,335
650
1,985
1.41
2015
8,715
5,632
3,083
1,380
610
1,990
1.55
2016
9,323
5,387
3,936
1,715
579
2,294
1.72
2017
9,529
6,332
3,197
1,760
524
2,284
1.40
2018
9,838
6,949
2,889
1,455
394
1,849
1.56
2019
10,078
6,888
3,190
1,510
280
1,790
1.78
Notes:
' Excludes depreciation and interest.
2Includes principal and interest of revenue bonds only.
3 Parking Revenue bonds ratio of "Net Revenue Available for Debt Service" to "Total Annual Debt Service"
is required to be at least 1.25.
Wastewater Treatment Revenue bonds ratio of "Net Revenue Available for Debt Service" to "Total
Annual Debt Service" is required to be at least 1.10.
5 Water Revenue bonds ratio of "Net Revenue Available for Debt Service" to "Total Annual Debt Service"
is required to be at least 1.10.
6 Refunded Revenue Bonds paid are excluded from the principal of Annual Debt Service.
7 Parking Revenue Bonds defeased are excluded from the principal and interest of Annual Debt Service.
8 Ratio of Coverage excludes the amount called early of $2,670,000.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page 125
Urban Renewal Area: CITY — UNIVERSITY PROJECT I
The City, acting under the authority of Chapter 403 of the Code of Iowa, has established an urban renewal area designated
as "City - University Project I Urban Renewal Area" (the "Urban Renewal Area") designed to implement their
comprehensive plan.
Description of CITY — UNIVERSITY PROJECT I Urban Renewal Plan/Area
On October 2, 1969, the Iowa City Council adopted Resolution No. 2157 approving the City - University Project I Urban
Renewal Plan (Project No. IA R-14) which plan has been modified and amended from time to time (said plan, as amended,
is hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Renewal Plan" or "Plan").
The Urban Renewal Area is located in the heart of City's downtown. The northern edge of the original area consists of part
of Washington Street with the western edge consisting of the eastern bank of the Iowa River. The southern edge consisted
of a part of Court Street to the eastern edge which ran to Linn Street. In 2001, the original urban renewal area was expanded
north to Iowa Ave, south to Prentiss Street and east to Gilbert Street. In 2012, the amended urban renewal area was extended
south of the existing boundaries. In 2016, the amended urban renewal area was expanded to include a one block area
bounded by Iowa Avenue on the north, Van Buren Street on the East, Washington Street on the South and Gilbert Street on
the West. The original Urban Renewal Area is classified as a blighted area and does not have a sunset or expiration date.
The 2001 amended urban renewal area has, at a minimum, a twenty year life and will expire after fiscal year 2023-24. The
2012 amended urban renewal area is classified as a blighted area and does not have a sunset or expiration date. The 2016
amended urban renewal area will expire, at a minimum, twenty years from the calendar year following the calendar year in
which the City first certifies debt for the amended area.
The objectives of the Plan called for the City to undertake a program for the clearance and reconstruction or rehabilitation
to enhance and promote the economic development within the Urban Renewal Area. Through the implementation of the
Plan, the City's overall goal is to develop and redevelop the Urban Renewal Area; to stimulate through public action and
commitments, private investment which creates employment and increases to the tax base within the City.
In general, tax increment revenues from an Urban Renewal Area are determined annually by multiplying the aggregate of
all local taxes, excluding the portion of the overall tax rate associated with debt service, physical plant and equipment and
the instructional support program levies applicable to the taxable valuation of all property within the Urban Renewal Area,
by the aggregate difference ("Tax Increment Valuation Available") between the current taxable valuation and the original
taxable valuation upon creation of the Urban Renewal Area. In general, the original taxable valuation reflects the valuation
upon creation of the Urban Renewal Area (the "Frozen Base Valuation"). Johnson County (the "County") collects the real
estate taxes and distributes the Tax Increment Revenues to the City to use for repayment of the urban renewal revenue
bonds. Tax Increment Revenues are generally distributed by the County to the City in the months of October and April of
each calendar year.
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
TOP TAXPAYERS LOCATED WITHIN URBAN RENEWAL AREA
Taxpayer
MIDWESTONE BANK
RISE AT RIVERFRONT CROSSING OWNER LLC
IOWA CITY HOTEL ASSOCIATES LLC
GRADUATE IOWA CITY OWNER, LLC
OC GROUP LC
RIVERFRONT CROSSING HOSPITALITY OWNER LLC
PLAZA TOWERS LLC
MOEN, MARC B
FIRST NATIONAL BANK IOWA CITY
ICF LLC
Total
Classification
Financial Institution
Residential & Comm. Condo Rentals
Hilton Garden Inn Hotel
Gaduate Hotel
Old Capital Mall
Residential & Comm. Condo Rentals
Residential & Comm. Condo Rentals
Residential & Comm. Condo Rentals
Financial Institution
Residential & Comm. Condo Rentals
Taxable
Valuation
$ 18,637,551
$ 16,173,442
$ 14,623,650
13,609,404
9,915,912
9,211,257
8,488,241
8,175,475
7,915,158
7,232,307
$ 113,982,397
(1) The Total Taxable Valuation in the Urban Renewal Area for 1/1/2018 for fiscal year 2019-20 is $463,563,686.
FY2019/20
% of Total
Taxable Valuations (1)
4.02%
3.49%
3.15%
2.94%
2.14%
1.99%
1.83%
1.76%
1.71%
1.56%
24.59%
TAX INCREMENT TAX RATES
Total City Tax Rate
City Debt Service
Iowa City CSD Debt Service
Iowa City CSD PPEL
Iowa City CSD ISPL
Kirkwood Debt Service
Johnson County Debt Service
Tax Increment Tax Rate
Iowa City Downtown SSMID (2)
Tax Increment Tax Rate in SSMID
FY2012-13 FY2013-14(1) FY2014-15(1) FY2015-16(1) FY2016-17(1) FY2017-18(1) FY2018-19(1) FY2019-20(1)
$ 39.49917 $ 38.63862 $ 38.52756 $ 38.81115 $ 38.74878 $ 38.60513 $ 39.16292 $ 38.60077
(4.44287) (4.02965) (4.12963) (3.92833) (3.82846) (3.57846) (3.22846) (2.97846)
(0.69729) (0.63500) (0.59831) (0.58612) (0.55017) (0.52868) (1.95540) (1.44867)
(1.67000) (1.67000) (1.67000) (1.67000) (1.67000) (1.67000) (1.67000) (1.67000)
(0.12405) (0.08550) (0.08991) (0.07069) (0.10140) (0.12733) (0.06273)
(0.20000) (0.20000) (0.20000) (0.27005) (0.21003) (0.25000) (0.25000) (0.25000)
(0.62813) (1.61074) (2.05908) (1.77673) (2.00829) (2.13947) (2.24196) (2.25950)
$ 31.86088 $ 30.36918 $ 29.78504 $ 30.49001 $ 30.41114 $ 30.33712 $ 29.68977 $ 29.93141
2.00000 2.00000 2.00000 2.00000 1.79500 2.00000 2.00000 2.00000
$ 33.86088 $ 32.36918 $ 31.78504 $ 32.49001 $ 32.20614 $ 32.33712 $ 31.68977 $ 31.93141
(1) Any urban renewal area created after April 24, 2012, will not be eligible to receive the benefits of the
local school district's instruction support levy (ISPL) tax revenues, unless the ISPL is necessary to pay principal
and interest on the urban renewal debt and the school passes a special resolution approving such use of the
revenues. Urban renewal debt incurred on or before April 24, 2012, may receive the benefit of ISPL tax
revenues for fiscal year 2013-14 and following only if the ISPL is necessary to pay principal and interest on the
urban renewal area debt and the city certifies to the school district by July 1 of each fiscal year, beginning
July 1, 2013. The school district must then pay those amounts during that fiscal year (Nov. 1 and May 1) back to
the City's urban renewal fund.
(2) In fiscal year 2012-13, the City created a Self Supporting Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) within a
portion of the Urban Renewal Area. The tax levy for the SSMID increases the tax increment rate but is only
applied to certain properties when the County is apportioning the tax increment revenue request.
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED TAXABLE VALUATIONS WITHIN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA
(1) Total taxable valuation available for certification will decrease in fiscal year 2024-25 due to the retirement of the tax increment
of the 2001 Amended portion of the Urban Renewal Area. Total taxable value increased in fiscal year 2013-14 due to 2012
Amended Area of the Urban Renewal Area.
(2) Taxable value frozen base decreases due to commercial and industrial rollback amounts starting in fiscal year 2014-15 and
multi -residential rollback amounts starting in fiscal year 2016-17.
Taxable
Total
Taxable
Taxable
New Taxable
New Taxable
Valuation
Taxable
Assessment
Fiscal
Taxable
Value
Valuation
Valuation
Valuation
Available for
Valuation
Date
Year
Value 1
Frozen Base (2)
Available
Park @ 201
Chauncey
Certification
Certified
1/1/2010
FY 2012
195,540,284
89,677,074
105,863,210
0
0
105,863,210
0
1/1/2011
FY 2013
199,993,156
90,475,486
109,517,670
0
0
109,517,670
3,925,401
1/1/2012
FY 2014
306,901,127
196,103,957
110,797,170
0
0
110,797,170
9,358,858
1/1/2013
FY 2015
316,944,391
178,306,881
138,637,510
2,880,000
0
141,517,510
16,477,686
1/1/2014
FY 2016
309,883,790
159,027,124
150,856,666
6,041,734
0
156,898,400
17,156,898
1/1/2015
FY 2017
336,428,957
147,479,758
188,949,199
6,461,998
0
195,411,197
25,360,541
1/1/2016
FY 2018
359,905,681
140,030,863
219,874,818
6,564,472
0
226,439,290
23,992,851
1/1/2017
FY 2019
407,922,479
119,175,408
288,747,071
6,691,956
2,040,000
297,479,027
46,941,691
1/1/2018
FY 2020
463,307,274
134,766,543
328,540,731
6,796,297
6,399,369
341,736,397
72,764,197
1/1/2019
FY 2021
463,307,274
134,766,543
328,540,731
6,796,297
16,345,771
351,682,799
19,668,135
1/1/2020
FY 2022
463,307,274
134,766,543
328,540,731
6,796,297
30,128,234
365,465,262
51,967,983
1/1/2021
FY 2023
463,307,274
134,766,543
328,540,731
6,796,297
30,128,234
365,465,262
50,884,506
1/1/2022
FY 2024
463,307,274
134,766,543
328,540,731
6,796,297
30,128,234
365,465,262
49,624,959
1/1/2023
FY 2025
364,947,546
92,742,995
272,204,551
6,796,297
30,128,234
309,129,082
48,527,450
1/1/2024
FY 2026
364,947,546
92,742,995
272,204,551
6,796,297
30,128,234
309,129,082
47,586,966
1/1/2025
FY 2027
364,947,546
92,742,995
272,204,551
6,796,297
30,128,234
309,129,082
42,454,565
1/1/2026
FY 2028
364,947,546
92,742,995
272,204,551
6,796,297
30,128,234
309,129,082
38,266,323
1/1/2027
FY 2029
364,947,546
92,742,995
272,204,551
6,796,297
30,128,234
309,129,082
38,003,388
1/1/2028
FY 2030
364,947,546
92,742,995
272,204,551
6,796,297
30,128,234
309,129,082
37,880,608
1/1/2029
FY 2031
364,947,546
92,742,995
272,204,551
6,796,297
30,128,234
309,129,082
37,730,431
1/1/2030
FY 2032
364,947,546
92,742,995
272,204,551
6,796,297
30,128,234
309,129,082
37,717,902
1/1/2031
FY 2033
364,947,546
92,742,995
272,204,551
6,796,297
30,128,234
309,129,082
30,646,735
1/1/2032
FY 2034
364,947,546
92,742,995
272,204,551
6,796,297
30,128,234
309,129,082
30,665,111
1/1/2033
FY 2035
364,947,546
92,742,995
272,204,551
6,796,297
30,128,234
309,129,082
30,658,429
1/1/2034
FY 2036
364,947,546
92,742,995
272,204,551
6,796,297
30,128,234
309,129,082
30,626,689
(1) Total taxable valuation available for certification will decrease in fiscal year 2024-25 due to the retirement of the tax increment
of the 2001 Amended portion of the Urban Renewal Area. Total taxable value increased in fiscal year 2013-14 due to 2012
Amended Area of the Urban Renewal Area.
(2) Taxable value frozen base decreases due to commercial and industrial rollback amounts starting in fiscal year 2014-15 and
multi -residential rollback amounts starting in fiscal year 2016-17.
TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW AND ANTICIPATE DEBT COVERAGE
(1) Total taxable valuation available for certification will decrease in fiscal year 2024-25 due to the retirement of the tax increment of the 2001 Amended portion of the Urban Renewal Area.
(2) The tax increment rate in fiscal year 2013-14 reflects the loss of the local school district's instruction support levy (ISPL) of $.12405 due to recent legislative changes.
TIF tax rate does not include the SSMID levy rate of $2.00 per $1,000 of value. Starting in fiscal year 2012-13, a portion of the taxable valuation certified will beat the higher rate
due to its location in the SSMID.
(3) The available tax increment revenues do not reflect an estimate for the portion of the available valuation that would be taxed at the higher SSMID rate.
(4) The balance includes TIF reserve fund of $207,845.
Taxable
Valuation
Taxable
Available
Certified
2012DTIF
2016E TIF
Other
Total
Annual
Ending
Available
Requested
Assessment
Fiscal
Available for
Valuation
TIF
Tax Increment
Tax Increment
Other
Total
Revenue
Revenue
TIF
TIF
Surplus/
Cash
Debt
Debt
Date
Year
Certification (1)
Certified
Tax Rate (2)
Revenues (3)
Revenues
Revenues
Revenues
Bonds
Bonds
Debt
Debt
Deficit
Balance (4)
Coverage
Coverage
1/1/2010
FY 2012
105,863,210
0
33.01166
3,494,720
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
662,510
n.a.
n.a.
1/1/2011
FY 2013
109,517,670
3,925,401
31.86088
3,489,329
128,072
31,795
159,867
0
0
159,867
159,867
0
662,510
n.a.
n.a.
1/1/2012
FY 2014
110,797,170
9,358,858
30.36918
3,364,819
289,650
148
289,798
75,335
0
214,315
289,650
148
662,658
44.66
1.55
1/1/2013
FY 2015
141,517,510
16,477,686
29.78504
4,215,105
502,339
5,090
507,429
75,335
0
427,004
502,339
5,090
667,748
55.95
1.05
1/1/2014
FY 2016
156,898,400
17,156,898
30.49001
4,783,834
532,776
2,434
535,210
205,335
0
172,256
377,591
157,619
825,367
23.30
1.00
1/1/2015
FY 2017
195,411,197
25,360,541
30.41114
5,942,677
805,965
273,412
1,079,377
204,035
273,173
307,715
784,923
294,454
1,119,821
12.45
1.00
1/1/2016
FY 2018
226,439,290
23,992,851
30.33712
6,869,516
727,874
392,552
1,120,426
207,345
384,150
229,624
821,119
299,307
1,419,128
11.61
1.00
1/1/2017
FY 2019
297,479,027
46,941,691
29.68977
8,832,084
1,393,688
276,767
1,670,455
205,185
384,150
244,454
833,789
836,666
2,255,794
14.99
1.00
1/1/2018
FY 2020
341,736,397
72,764,197
29.93141
10,228,652
2,177,935
117,620
2,295,555
207,485
384,150
1,703,920
2,295,555
0
2,255,794
17.29
1.00
1/1/2019
FY 2021
351,682,799
19,668,135
29.93141
10,526,362
588,695
0
588,695
204,545
384,150
0
588,695
0
2,255,794
17.88
1.00
1/1/2020
FY 2022
365,465,262
51,967,983
29.93141
10,938,891
1,555,475
0
1,555,475
206,325
1,349,150
0
1,555,475
0
2,255,794
7.03
1.00
1/1/2021
FY 2023
365,465,262
50,884,506
29.93141
10,938,891
1,523,045
0
1,523,045
207,845
1,315,200
0
1,523,045
0
2,255,794
7.18
1.00
1/1/2022
FY 2024
365,465,262
49,624,959
29.93141
10,938,891
1,485,345
0
1,485,345
203,945
1,281,400
0
1,485,345
0
2,255,794
7.36
1.00
1/1/2023
FY 2025
309,129,082
48,527,450
29.93141
9,252,669
1,452,495
0
1,452,495
204,745
1,247,750
0
1,452,495
0
2,255,794
6.37
1.00
1/1/2024
FY 2026
309,129,082
47,586,966
29.93141
9,252,669
1,424,345
0
1,424,345
205,095
1,219,250
0
1,424,345
0
2,255,794
6.50
1.00
1/1/2025
FY 2027
309,129,082
42,454,565
29.93141
9,252,669
1,270,725
0
1,270,725
204,975
1,065,750
0
1,270,725
0
2,255,794
7.28
1.00
1/1/2026
FY 2028
309,129,082
38,266,323
29.93141
9,252,669
1,145,365
0
1,145,365
204,365
941,000
0
1,145,365
0
2,255,794
8.08
1.00
1/1/2027
FY 2029
309,129,082
38,003,388
29.93141
9,252,669
1,137,495
0
1,137,495
203,245
934,250
0
1,137,495
0
2,255,794
8.13
1.00
1/1/2028
FY 2030
309,129,082
37,880,608
29.93141
9,252,669
1,133,820
0
1,133,820
206,770
927,050
0
1,133,820
0
2,255,794
8.16
1.00
1/1/2029
FY 2031
309,129,082
37,730,431
29.93141
9,252,669
1,129,325
0
1,129,325
204,925
924,400
0
1,129,325
0
2,255,794
8.19
1.00
1/1/2030
FY 2032
309,129,082
37,717,902
29.93141
9,252,669
1,128,950
0
1,128,950
207,800
921,150
0
1,128,950
0
2,255,794
8.20
1.00
1/1/2031
FY 2033
309,129,082
30,646,735
29.93141
9,252,669
917,300
0
917,300
0
917,300
0
917,300
0
2,255,794
10.09
1.00
1/1/2032
FY 2034
309,129,082
30,665,111
29.93141
9,252,669
917,850
0
917,850
0
917,850
0
917,850
0
2,255,794
10.08
1.00
1/1/2033
FY 2035
309,129,082
30,658,429
29.93141
9,252,669
917,650
0
917,650
0
917,650
0
917,650
0
2,255,794
10.08
1.00
1/1/2034
FY 2036
309,129,082
30,626,689
29.93141
9,252,669
916,700
0
916,700
0
916,700
0
916,700
0
2,255,794
10.09
1.00
(1) Total taxable valuation available for certification will decrease in fiscal year 2024-25 due to the retirement of the tax increment of the 2001 Amended portion of the Urban Renewal Area.
(2) The tax increment rate in fiscal year 2013-14 reflects the loss of the local school district's instruction support levy (ISPL) of $.12405 due to recent legislative changes.
TIF tax rate does not include the SSMID levy rate of $2.00 per $1,000 of value. Starting in fiscal year 2012-13, a portion of the taxable valuation certified will beat the higher rate
due to its location in the SSMID.
(3) The available tax increment revenues do not reflect an estimate for the portion of the available valuation that would be taxed at the higher SSMID rate.
(4) The balance includes TIF reserve fund of $207,845.
Item Number: 4.
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 6, 2020
Memo from Historic Preservation Commission Chair and Historic
Preservation Planner: Historic Preservation Commission Annual Planning
Session Report and Work Plan for Calendar Year 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Memo from Historic Preservation Commission Chair and Historic Preservation Planner: Historic
Preservation Commission Annual Planning Session Report and Work Plan for Calendar Year
2020
r
� ,:,® CITY OF IOWA CITY
��, M 4 � T4 k
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 4, 2020
To: City Council
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Kevin Boyd, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission
Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
Re: Historic Preservation Commission Annual Planning Session Report and Work Plan
for Calendar Year 2020
The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission held its annual planning session on Thursday,
December 12, 2019, as part of its regular monthly meeting, at 5:30 p.m. in Emma Harvat Hall.
Each year the Commission holds a planning session to review its progress in implementing the
goals and objectives of the Historic Preservation Plan, and to set objectives for the upcoming
year.
The results of that planning session, the Historic Preservation Commission's Annual Work Plan for
Calendar Year 2020, is intended to serve as a guide for the Commission's activities for the
upcoming calendar year. The current work plan was reviewed and approved by the Commission
at their January 9, 2020 regular meeting and is now presented to City Council.
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
Commission Work Plan for Calendar Year 2020
Recent Successes
In 2018 and 2019, the Commission and Staff saw many large projects to completion. These projects are
included here.
Civil Rights Grant: This two-part project with grant funding from the National Park Service was
completed with the successful listing in the National Register of Historic Places of both the Tate Arms
and the Iowa Federation Home. Educational signage and digital online materials were also created. The
research and information from the project will be used in future presentations to educate and inform
the public.
2040 Waterfront Drive Intensive Survey: Funded in part through a Certified Local Government Grant, an
intensive survey of the property at 2040 Waterfront Drive was completed. The final document will be
provided to the Commission and the property owner for their review in the coming months.
National Register Nomination for the Clinton Street and Railroad Depot Historic District: Funded in
part through a Certified Local Government Grant, the potential historic district was nominated to the
National Register of Historic Places. The State Nomination Review Committee voted unanimously to
recommend the district to the National Park Service. Because of the objection of the majority of the
owner's in the district, the National Park Service reviewed the district for eligibility only. On October 21,
2019, the National Park Service determined that the District is eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places. If the majority of owners change their mind about the listing, the District would be
listed upon receipt of a notarized statement to this effect sent to the State Historic Preservation Office.
Pre -planning for Relocation of the Sanxay-Gilmore House: In January 2019, the consultant, Douglas
Steinmetz, completed the evaluation of the Sanxay-Gilmore House which was partially funded through
an emergency Historical Resource Development Program grant from the State Historical Society of Iowa.
The report outlined the concerns and considerations to be addressed as planning for the continued
existence of the house move forward. Given the current delay allowed by the University of Iowa, who
now owns the property, the extensive planning and preparation that will be involved if the house is
moved will be a project that is not undertaken in 2020.
Historic Preservation Fund: With the implementation of the fund in FY 2018, the Fund has approved 20
grants or loans improving 18 properties. This is a popular program which has helped property owners
maintain the historic character of their properties and has helped keep valuable material out of the
landfill.
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
Priority Issues for 2020
Downtown National Register Historic District: The drafting of the Nomination for the Downtown
District to the National Register of Historic Places is in progress by consultant Alexa McDowell of AKAY
Consulting. The current schedule is for the Nomination to be reviewed by the State Nomination
Committee in June 2020 with review and comment by the Commission proceeding that in May. Because
of public interest and the timing corresponding with Preservation Month, a public presentation is
proposed. This project requires minimal Commission time in public outreach and education.
Annual Historic Preservation Awards: The annual awards highlights successful preservation work within
the community and the expertise of contractors and consultants. As one of the Commission's main
forms of community outreach, the awards are a high priority every year and attract an audience of
about 100 people. The annual awards have been moved to May to coincide with Preservation Month
activities. The awards will require Commission involvement for nominating properties and for work on
the awards sub -committee producing the awards.
Summit Street Monument: In 2019 the consultant, Atlas Preservation, completed the "Summit Street
Monument Assessment and Conservation Options Plan" that was financed in part through a Certified
Local Government Grant. Given the ongoing deterioration of the monument, the Commission will review
the options and recommend an appropriate action to City Council. Preliminary work and discussion on
the proposal could be completed by a sub -committee of the Commission.
Update of the College Green Historic District: In 2016, the Commission approved the relocation of the
Houser -Metzger House from 422 Iowa Avenue to 623 College Street where the contributing structure
had been damaged beyond repair by fire and water. In order for the relocated house to be considered
contributing to the Historic District, an amendment to the National Register -listed district is required as
a first step. This amendment will be reviewed by the Commission following revision by staff and the
District representative.
Update of the Iowa City Preservation Handbook (Maps): The most recent version of the handbook was
updated in 2010 and does not include several recent changes and needs to be reviewed for accuracy.
While the compilation of the updated handbook, which would be approved by City Council as a final
step, will extend beyond 2020, a review of the maps for property status is a high priority. Since many
properties have changed status in the past ten years, the maps, which are the basis for review -type,
application of exceptions, and in some cases eligibility of the Historic Preservation Fund, are outdated.
This project will involve staff and individual Commissioners or a sub -committee to review property
status. The full Commission would review and approve updated maps.
New Commissioner Recruitment: With two open positions and three additional openings this summer,
recruiting new commissioners is an ongoing priority task for existing commissioners.
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
Future projects and potential projects beyond 2020
Montgomery Butler House: In 1998, as part of a Memorandum of Agreement for the development of
the new water plant, the City mothballed the Montgomery/Butler House, a significant historic resource,
for roughly $70,000. In 2015, a meeting of interested parties occurred in the hope of determining a path
forward for the use and rehabilitation of the house without success. Staff was recently informed that
the enclosures and protections for the house are failing and recommends that planning for the future
use of the property becomes a priority. Likely stakeholders will include local preservationists,
commissioners, FHP, planning and parks staff as well as community leaders. While time is impacting the
integrity of the structure, this project will not begin this year.
State Preservation Conference: This continues to be a future interest of both staff and the Commission.
It is unlikely that the State would plan to hold the conference in the eastern half of the state prior to
2022. Still, with Iowa City's involvement and interest in Historic Preservation, hosting the conference is
part of the Commission's long-range plan.
Reconnaissance Survey of Kirkwood Avenue and Lucas Farms Neighborhoods: These neighborhoods
contain a significant amount of historic resources that have never been reviewed or researched. The
owners in the neighborhoods could benefit from the information that could be found about their
properties. The first step in any neighborhood survey is a reconnaissance survey that could be
performed by minimally trained volunteers. With an active neighborhood group and interested
Commissioners, this could begin at any time with a formal survey by a consultant in future years.
Increased Digital online presence: The City has valuable resources and information on historic
properties in several different formats. Currently the ability for the public to access this information is
dependent upon the format of the information. Digitizing hardcopy information and combining it in with
existing digital information in a searchable online database would make this information about city
history more available for property owners and researchers.
Evaluation of Mid-century Modern Housing Stock: Since these properties have reached historic status,
Commissions across the country are developing plans for how to evaluate them. In Iowa City, many of
the areas where they are concentrated have not been reviewed but could begin with reconnaissance -
level surveys in future years.
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
Staff project update
Education and outreach: Staff will be presenting a lecture based on the work of the Civil Rights Grant in
February during Black History Month. Staff will also lead a downtown tour on April 1 as part of a
conference requested by the Iowa City Downtown District. Staff will also host a student for a job -
shadowing experience this spring.
Implementation of digital review process: As part of the new permitting software being adopted by the
City this spring, staff will be integrating the current non -digital review process into the new system.
University of Iowa Planning Project: This ongoing project for the 2019-2020 UI school year involves
graduate students in the Planning department in a project focusing on downtown with limited staff and
chair involvement.
Item Number: 5.
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 6, 2020
Email from Jennifer Baum: Sharp Shooters [Staff Response Included}
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Email from Jennifer Baum: Sharp Shooters [Staff Response Included]
Kellie Fruehling
From: jennifer baum <jen.fiona.dashill@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 6:48 PM
To: Bill Campbell
Cc: Council; Geoff Fruin
Subject: Re: FW: sharp shooters
Thanks very much for getting back to me.
I spoke with Kurt and Russ the following day and they gave me the skinny on the set up. We fully respect the security
that has been taken to be so far from the residences, however, up here in Deweyville the cemeteries are our backyard.
We respect them and treat them as such. It concerns us when we see a bait station so close to the entrance of the part
of our back yard that is not off limits during the shooting times. We prefer safe to sorry, and are deeply grateful the City
and White Buffalo are so helpful and accommodating.
Thank you again for getting back to me. See you around Deweyville!
best regards,
jennifer
Mayor of Deweyville, ad hoc
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 5:14 PM Bill Campbell <Bill-Campbell@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Jennifer,
Thank you for your email.
The bait site that you are referring to in Oakland Cemetery is currently about 220 yards from the closest residence. We
believe White Buffalo exercised appropriate judgement in selecting this site location. That said, the City has asked
White Buffalo if there are other options in that area. They have located a site that is slightly further from the closest
residence, at just over 300 yards. The Oakland Cemetery site will be moved to this new location.
Sincerely,
Y1...
4 Captain Bill Campbell
$at Commander
PWra+
Support Services Division
kmraCityPolioe Department
(319)35&5286
From: jennifer baum[mailto:len.fiona.dashill@email.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 7:42 PM
To: Oakland Cemetery <Cemetery@iowa-city.org>
Cc: Council <Council@iowa-city.org>
Subject: sharp shooters
Hey Russ and Kurt -
i just got a report from a Deweyvillian that a bait sight is set up behind the shop next to the St. Joe's gate for the next
deer shoot. That is uncomfortably close to St. Joes, where we may still go during the daylight shoot hours. Can that be
moved back to the Hickory Hill entrance area again? If not all the way back where it was before maybe behind the
Koser's house or at the Deeded Body gazebo at least? And yes, yes, yes, sharp shooters, very safe, know what they're
doing, etc etc etc. i know. But still.
Let me know, thanks.
srsly. really too close to Deweyville for us. really too close. not cool.
best,
jennifer
Mayor of Deweyville
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 6, 2020
2020 Building Statistics
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2020 Building Statistics
Item Number: 6.
City of Iowa City
2020 Building Statistics
Value/Type of Construction
January February March April
May June July August September October November December TOTAL NON-TAXABLE
Single Family -$
1,293,769
1,293,769
Number of Permits
4
4
Duplex - $
315,000
315,000
Number of Permits
1
1
Sororities & Fraternities - $
0
Number of Permits
0
Multiple Units
4,000,000
4,000,000
Number of Permits
1
1
Number of Buildings
1
1
Number of Dwelling Units
24
24
Mix- Commercial/Residential
0
Number of Permits
0
Number of Buildings
0
Number of Dwelling units
0
Motels, Hotels - $
0
Number of Permits
0
Churches - $
0
Number of Permits
0
Industrial - $
0
Number of Permits
0
Service Stations - $
0
Number of Permits
0
Hospitals & Institutions - $
0
Number of Permits
0
Offices, Banks, Prof. - $
0
Number of Permits
0
Public Works & Utilities - $
0
Number of Permits
0
Schools - $
0
Number of Permits
0
Stores & Customer Svc. - $
0
Number of Permits
0
Misc. Structures/Fences - $
0
Number of Permits
0
Remodel, Residential - $
586,338
586,338
Number of Permits
21
21
Remodel, Commercial - $
2,185,686
2,185,686
Number of Permits
7
7
Remodel, Public Works - $
0
Number of Permits
0
Accessory Structures
0
Number of Permits
0
Condo Conversion - No Value
0
TOTAL VALUE
8,380,793
8,380,793
TOTAL PERMITS
34
34
Demolition: Residential units lost
18
18
Item Number: 7.
INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 6, 2020
Planning & Zoning Commission: January 16
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Planning & Zoning Commission: January 16
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 16, 2020 —7:00 PM —FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sarah Hekteon, Tim Hennes, Anne Russett, Danielle
Stutzman
OTHERS PRESENT: Adam Kos, Jon Marner, Phil O'Brien, Rob Decker, Nathan Griffith,
Bill Gearhart
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 0-6 (Hensch recused) the Commission recommends denial of CZ19-06 an
application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a rezoning of approximately 32.87 acres from
County Agricultural (A) to County Commercial (C) and 0.09 acres from County Residential (R) to
County Commercial (C) in unincorporated Johnson County.
By a vote of 4-2 (Baker and Martin dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of SUB19-
16, an application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a preliminary plat of the 218 Commercial
Park subdivision, a 5 -lot commercial subdivision with eight outlots in unincorporated Johnson
County.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of ZCA19-06 an application submitted
by Phil O'Brien requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow animal related commercial
uses in the Commercial Highway (CH -1) zone to allow for the development of a community
based indoor dog park and recreation center at 2513 North Dodge Street.
By a vote of 5-2 (Dyer and Townsend dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of
DRC19-04, an application submitted by Rob Decker requesting a Level II design review which
includes a 7 -story height bonus request for two 15 -story buildings located at 12 East Court Street
including the following staff recommendations:
1. Re -design of the Capitol Street right-of-way, for review and approval by staff, to ensure
consistency with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and other recent City street
reconstructions, like Washington Street in downtown.
2. An additional administrative review of the management plan that includes details
regarding staffing, cameras, accessing video, etc. prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
3. Additional detail and justification on the academic amenity space.
4. Secure fencing around bicycle parking must be non-opaque (e.g. chain-link).
5. If the building plans deviate substantively from the approved design review plans, these
changes must be reviewed and approved by the City Council. An example of a
substantive change is a change to exterior building materials.
CALL TO ORDER:
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 2 of 29
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. CZ19-05 AND SUB19-16:
Applicant: CJ Moyna & Sons
Location: Fringe Area; West of Oak Crest Hill Rd SE, east of Highway 218 SE and south of F50
SE
a. An application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a rezoning of approximately 32.19
acres of County Residential (R) to County Highway Commercial (CH) and approximately
32.87 acres from County Agriculture (A) to County Commercial (C) in unincorporated
Johnson County.
b. An application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a preliminary plat of the 218
Commercial Park subdivision, an 11 -lot commercial subdivision with five outlots in
unincorporated Johnson County.
Hensch noted since he is an employee of Johnson County he is recusing himself from this item
and Vice Chair Parsons will oversee this agenda item.
Heitner presented the staff report noting they received a revised rezoning and preliminary plat
application from the applicants earlier this week. Heitner gave a brief overview of the changes
from those revisions. With regards to the rezoning item, the main item he wanted to point out is
parcel number three in the originally proposed rezoning was going to go from County Residential
(R) to County Highway Commercial (CH) but the applicant has rescinded that request, so under
the revised proposal it will remain County Residential (R).
The major changes to the preliminary plat are in the original proposal there were 11 lots for
immediate development. The revised proposal only includes five. The original proposed
preliminary plat had one outlot for future development. The revised proposal is four. In terms of
new streets that would be built with the subdivision there were originally three new streets
proposed, the revised proposal just has one long street, an extension of Isaac Walden Road SE.
Heitner showed an aerial view of the originally proposed subject area and then a view of the
revised subject area and pointed out the large area north of Isaac Walton Road, or where Isaac
Walton Road is to be extended is not included in the revised area. Next he showed a view of the
revised subject area with the context of the current County zoning. The revised area is
predominantly in County Agricultural zoning, with County Residential zoning to the north and that
will remain in place. In the context of the City fringe area this is Area C which is fringe area
outside the growth area. To the north, just a little bit north of Riverside Drive, there is a part of
Area C that's inside of the City's growth area.
Heitner next showed the revised rezoning exhibit and the revised plat. He noted the five lots for
immediate development, numbered one through five are on the south side of the Isaac Walton
Road extension.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 3 of 29
Regarding the general background information on this case, the applicant applied for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the County in June 2019 to amend the County's future land
use area for the subject area from agricultural to commercial. At the time, City staff provided
comment on this potential plan amendment and expressed several concerns. Those concerns
were detailed in an attachment that was in the Commission packet. Despite the City's concerns
about the future land use map amendments the County Board of Supervisors still voted to
amend the land use map from agricultural to commercial. With regards to background
information on the rezoning, there are actually two parcels this applies to, parcel 1 is 32.87 acres
going from County Agricultural to County Commercial, the second parcel is a small triangular
parcel 0.09 acres from County Residential to County Commercial. With respect to the City's
Comprehensive Plan on this rezoning, the fringe area dictates for Fringe Area C "that in the
portions of Area C that are not within Iowa City's growth area and which are zoned for non-farm,
development may occur in conformance with the Johnson County 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 has designated for a rural agricultural area
in Chapter 816 Class A District of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance as
amended."
Heitner next gave an overview of City staff's concerns with the rezoning. A County Commercial
zoning designation in this area would open up the area for a large amount of by -right retail and
service-oriented uses and this would generally conflict with the current nature of the Fringe Area
Agreement which has intent to preserve the area as rural and agricultural. Lastly, the Fringe
Area Agreement typically guides commercial development into the City so that areas with
existing access to utilities and infrastructure are not passed over for gap or leapfrog
development.
Moving on to the preliminary plat Heitner reiterated the revised plat would have five lots for
commercial development with four outlets for future development, two outlots for open space and
one outlot that will be for future street infrastructure. As far as subdivision design, with the
revised plat the only street that would be platted would be the extension of Isaac Walton Road to
the west. Stormwater detention would be provided in Outlot B, in the southeast corner of the
development. In terms of traffic implications, the proposed street infrastructure in the subdivision
meets the City's Rural Design Standards. Transportation planning staff did note that overhead
lights might be appropriate along Oak Crest Hill Road should the subdivision continue to
develop. With respect to environmental sensitive areas the subdivision must meet County
regulations pertaining to sensitive areas development. Outlots C and E at the far southern end
of the subdivision are intended to be preservation outlets per the County's direction to preserve
an existing stream corridor. With respect to water and sewer, a water system with a distribution
line running off the north side of the proposed Isaac Walden Road extension will provide water to
the five proposed lots for development. Individual septic systems are required to meet the
Johnson County Board of Health rules and regulations and will be necessary on each
developable lot.
In summary, the applicant has submitted a revised rezoning request and preliminary plat,
reducing the rezoning acreage from 65.15 acres to 32.96 acres. All of which would be rezone to
County Commercial. The plat would reduce the number of lots from 11 to 5 for immediate
development, with future development potentially taking place on 4 outlets.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 4 of 29
The role of the Commission tonight would be to provide a recommendation to the City Council on
the rezoning based on the Fringe Area Agreement. Ultimately with respect to the rezoning and
the plat, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors will make the ultimate decision.
As far as next steps, after the Commission provides a recommendation Council, Council will
review and provide a recommendation to the Johnson County Planning Commission.
Heitner stated there is a two-part staff recommendation as it pertains to the rezoning. Due to
conflict with the existing Fringe Area Agreement staff is recommending denial of CZ19-05 an
application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a rezoning of approximately 32.87 acres from
County Agricultural (A) to County Commercial (C) and 0.09 acres from County Residential (R) to
County Commercial (C) in unincorporated Johnson County. Staff did hold a meeting with
Johnson County staff back in September 2019. City staff's position on the land use in this area
has not changed since that meeting and therefore does not believe that a future conflict
resolution meeting with the County is necessary. With respect to the preliminary plat because
the preliminary plat meets the City's Rural Design Standards staff is recommending approval of
SUB19-16, an application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a preliminary plat of the 218
Commercial Park subdivision, a 5 -lot commercial subdivision in unincorporated Johnson County.
Baker asked for clarification on staff's recommendation that the Commission deny the rezoning
request but approve the plat which is based upon a zoning which they are opposing. Heitner
confirmed that was correct as in denying the rezoning request and approving the plat, the plat is
just based on following the City's Rural Design Standards from the Fringe Area. Baker asked if
the zoning that's in place now would not allow that development to occur. Heitner confirmed it is
currently agricultural and would not allow the development.
Russett noted staff is not recommending approval of the plat unless the County Board of
Supervisors approves the rezoning, assuming they approve the rezoning staff would recommend
approval of the plat.
Signs asked if what was originally Outlot A on the northern half of this property is remaining
County Residential is that what the new proposal states. Heitner confirmed that is correct. Signs
noted he is confused by the drop from 11 lots to 5 lots and having all these outlots and wondered
what if any advantage that change had in any decision making processes City staff or County
staff might have. Heitner stated there wasn't a great deal of decision making that City staff made
based on that change, their recommendation was going to be the same, regardless. It was their
understanding that the Applicant in some discussions with County planning staff were
encouraged to make that reduction in scale.
Parsons opened the public hearing.
Adam Kos (CJ Moyna & Sons) is representing the applicant along with Jon Marner from MMS
Consultants who worked on the design for them. Kos gave a little background information on
their company and maybe why they acquired the piece of property, they've had the property for a
few years now, maybe four or five years. Initially they purchased the property with some ideas
and the longer they had it and spoke with the City and started thinking about what can happen
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 5 of 29
down in that location, the number one objective was to find a home for themselves. CJ Moyna &
Sons is a grading contractor located in Elkader, Iowa, and they do a lot of big, heavy highway
civil type work such as all the grading at the 1-80/380 interchange. They have also done large
grading jobs at the Park Place development in Tiffin, also in North Liberty and in Iowa City. They
do a lot of work all across the state of Iowa. One of the things for them moving forward is that
the work demographic is changing a little bit, a lot of the workforce that they have right now with
a tremendous amount of experience and talent are getting a little bit older and with their vision
and thought process moving forward to get into some urban areas like Iowa city it's a great place
to put little satellite office, a place to stage and work on some equipment and then get into the
community and look for some good employees. Currently they have about 250 -275 employees
depending on the season, and with the type of work that they do there's an opportunity to make
some pretty good wages. Kos noted he lives in Kalona, just south of Iowa City, his family's from
here so that also played a role in wanting to be in Iowa City as well. On the east side of Oak
Crest Hill Road there's also 80 acres that they are looking at, doing some preliminary studies and
reviewing finances involved in creating a wetland on that side of the road as well. Kos stated
part of the resubmittal that came in yesterday came from some conversations with both City staff
and County staff, they heard some concerns, heard some excitement, and therefore ultimately
trying to find the right path moving forward to make this work. They acknowledge that it's a fun
and unique interchange and offers a lot for the City of Iowa City in the future. That being said
they would like to get moving forward, especially with a building for themselves and maybe a few
others. A blue-collar office park is what they are envisioning there for the 5 to 11 lots.
Parsons stated that it seems for a commercial aspect it makes more sense to develop Outlot A
before going south of Isaac Walton Road because at Outlot A they are closer to the action such
as the interchange and South Riverside Drive. Parsons is curious on their thought process on
why they decided to eliminate Outlot A from initial development. Kos replied not know what the
short-term or long-term vision is for that interchange. That particular interchange probably holds
a lot of value as a recreational potential in the future, there's a lot of public land there currently.
Therefore, for them and what they want to do they see the least desirable land or the area that is
probably least attractive is a little bit farther south. They would like to be tucked in by the tree
line, low visibility, pretty setting, nice place to work, etc. They acknowledge that that northern
piece is probably better suited for something else then what they are needing. Parsons asked if
they are envisioning office space as opposed to retail or mix of both. Kos confirmed they were
envisioning office space and not retail.
Martin asked in the conversations with the County, because of what the agreement says, is this
the route that the County said was needed to go first. Why wouldn't the County have had a
conversation about rewriting that verbiage first. Russett replied they are currently working
together on an update to the Fringe Area Agreement. Kos added the conversations have been
very encouraging and the county is very excited to have a company like theirs come to the area.
Bringing their business and footprint to Johnson County is exciting and the job potentials that
they can bring to the table is exciting as well.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) added that part of the reason the northern parcel was pulled out
from the zoning and is listed as a future development is the recognition by CJ Moyna there are
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 6 of 29
conversations that need to be had between the County and City staff regarding the Fringe Area
Agreement. By shifting the focus of the development to those four to five lots along the Isaac
Walton Road extension allows CJ Moyna to come in, go ahead and get that development
process started while those other issues can get worked out. It allows that area to start to
develop and a little bit of progress to begin to move forward and hopefully that stimulates some
conversation about what truly wants to be there.
Dyer asked if they knew who the other occupants in the development will be. Kos replied they
feel like it would be folks will be similar to them, what they are seeing right now in Tiffin is a small
industrial park that's coming online that has some electricians there and other businesses similar
Kos noted that particular area and the proximity to the interstate is appealing. For them they
have big equipment and trucks so for them to come rolling down through Highway 6 or through
town and hit all the stoplights is probably not a good idea. The proximity to the interstate is a
better location for them. They would continue to have their main facility up in Elkader but would
like to have a location here where they could bring equipment in a heated shop to service.
Parsons closed the public hearing.
Parsons noted with staff making two separate recommendations he feels it makes sense to have
two separate votes.
Signs moved to recommend approval of CZ19-05 an application submitted by CJ Moyna &
Sons for a rezoning of approximately 32.19 acres of County Residential (R) to County
Highway Commercial (CH) and approximately 32.87 acres from County Agricultural (A) to
County Highway Commercial (CH) and 0.09 acres from County Residential (R) to County
Commercial (CH) in unincorporated Johnson County.
Martin seconded the motion.
Parson stated with its position close to Highway 218 and South Riverside Drive he does see a
path that there could be some commercial development in this area down the road, especially
with its proximity to the fairgrounds, Colonial Lanes and other industrial activity. However, he
thinks staff makes a compelling argument that based on what the Fringe Area Agreement says
right now this wouldn't comply and so he would have to submit his vote for denial.
Baker stated there's a cliche here about putting the cart before the horse that we are going to let
the applicant proceed to do everything they could and then we'll work out the rules and
regulations later. Martin agrees that's the way she understands it as well. Baker stated he has
not heard a compelling case argument that the staff's concerns don't have more merit here in this
case right now so he will be voting against this rezoning as well.
Signs stated that based on the current Fringe Area Agreement staff's assessment is correct.
Ultimately, however we vote it still is going to County and ultimately is their decision. His biggest
concern is that we have a lot of vacant commercial industrial lots around the community and he
personally doesn't see a need for more. Additionally because of this would be kind of bending
the rules a little bit he doesn't find terribly compelling
A vote was taken and the motion failed 0-6.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 7 of 29
Parsons next moved to item B.
Signs moved approval of SUB19-16, an application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a
preliminary plat of the 218 Commercial Park subdivision, an 11 -lot commercial
subdivision with four outlots in unincorporated Johnson County.
Dyer seconded the motion.
Signs acknowledged it was odd to deny the rezoning but approve the plan but understand staff's
approach on both of them. Also the County may approve the rezoning even with the
recommended denial.
Baker disagreed and said until the County approves the rezoning the plat is a moot point so why
approve the plat before the County approves the zoning.
Signs noted if the Commission doesn't approve either one then it's just totally dead. By denying
the rezoning they are basically putting the decision in the County's lap and by approving the plat
they are acknowledging if the County approves the rezoning then the plat does meet the Rural
Area Development standards.
Baker asked why it is necessary to approve the plat before the County does. Russett noted this
is because the applications were submitted together as a rezoning and a preliminary plat so they
are reviewed together. Baker asked if the Commission were to vote down the plat the applicant
could come back in with a resubmission once the rezoning is in place. Russett said she was not
sure. Some ordinances have clauses that do not allow for immediate resubmittals after an action
has been taken and she is not familiar with the County's ordinance.
Signs stated based on the logic of the staffs arguments about why the plat should be approved
he would agree and will vote for it.
A vote was taken and the motion passes 4-2 (Baker and Martin dissenting).
Hensch rejoined the meeting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 8 of 29
CASE NO. CZA19-06:
Applicant: Phil O'Brien
An application submitted by Phil O'Brien requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow
animal related commercial uses in the Commercial Highway (CH -1) zone to allow for the
development of a community-based indoor dog park and recreation center at 2513 N. Dodge
Street.
Heitner began the staff report with an aerial view of 2513 North Dodge Street, noting its very
highway adjacent just north of the 1-80/Dodge Street interchange. The next map showed the
current zoning surrounding 2513 North Dodge Street. There is CH -1 zoning in the area however
CH -1 zoning does not allow for animal related commercial establishments. The majority of
zoning in the area is research park or office oriented.
Heitner stated in some discussions with the applicant the proposed use would be a community
based indoor dog park and recreation center, totaling around 22,000 square feet. The center
would be primarily indoors with some contained outdoor space and walking trails. The applicant
expressed he believes that the center will have a regional draw. With respect to the City's
current regulations on animal related commercial uses, they are defined as related to the
temporary care, medical treatment or cremation of domestic animals. Then the code breaks that
into two subgroups, the first of which is general subgroup and examples provided within the code
include veterinary clinics, animal grooming establishments and pet crematoriums. The second
subgroup is the intensive subgroup and examples include kennels and stables. Heitner pointed
out general animal related commercial is allowed provisionally in CN -1 (Neighborhood
Commercial) but not in CH -1 (Highway Commercial), which maybe is a little bit of an oddity given
that CN -1 is a less intense zone than CH -1 and operates in a more neighborhood context.
In terms of the proposed code amendments that staff is recommending, the first would be to
allow general animal related commercial uses as a provisional use in Highway Commercial (CH -
1) zones. Second, allowing animal daycare and indoor animal recreation uses as allowable
provisional general animal related commercial uses, which would be allowed provisionally in CN -
1, CH -1, CI -1, CC -2, CB -2, and CB -5 zones. And finally amending the definition of animal
related commercial uses to include animal daycare and indoor animal recreation uses.
Heitner stated Staff is also proposing to amend the code to allow private outdoor animal
recreation uses via special exception in CH -1 zones. This amendment is not intended to regulate
or otherwise constrain the keeping of household pets, or the development of public recreation
facilities such as public dog parks. The special exception process would require all outdoor
animal recreation uses to obtain approval from the City's Board of Adjustment. Staff is proposing
the following additional approval criteria to obtain a special exception for outdoor animal
recreation uses.
1. Outdoor animal recreation areas must be located at least 400' from any residential zone.
2. No outdoor animal recreation uses are allowed overnight.
3. All outdoor animal recreation areas must be fully enclosed by a fence that is of sufficient
height to prevent animals from escaping.
4. Animals shall not be permitted in an outdoor animal recreation area unless a handler is
present.
5. Where outdoor animal recreation facilities are accessed by the public, a double -entry
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 9 of 29
gate is required.
6. All outdoor animal recreation areas must be kept in a clean, dry, and sanitary condition.
7. All outdoor animal recreation areas shall be located in an interior side or rear yard and
screen from any right-of-way or adjacent residential zone by at least the S2 screening
standard
In terms of proposed definitions staff is recommending three:
1. Animal daycare, which would be a non-residential facility offering care for domestic
animals during daytime hours, not during overnight hours.
2. Indoor animal recreation, indoor facility used for the exercise, recreation or training of
domestic animals.
3. Private outdoor animal recreation and outdoor facility used for the exercise recreation or
training of domestic animals.
Heitner noted because this is an application for text amendment staff looks at consistency with
Comprehensive Plan as well as compatibility with the existing neighborhood. In context of the
Comprehensive Plan it does call for office and general commercial uses on CH -1 parcels which
staff sees as potentially fitting with this proposed development. 2513 North Dodge Street is not
specifically addressed in the Northeast District Plan, that Plan area terminates just south of it. As
far as compatibility with the existing neighborhood character, CH -1 parcels are predominantly
surrounded by office and research park uses and they tend to have larger scale buildings with
deeper setbacks. Heitner noted it's possible that a hybrid animal recreation use and office use
might be a nice complement to either the planned or existing office uses in the immediate area.
In terms of more broadly speaking rationale for the text amendments, staff feels that the
amendments would allow regionally focused animal related commercial uses to take advantage
of highway adjacency that's provided by CH -1 zones. The provisional criteria would require
soundproofing for all general animal related commercial indoor uses and private outdoor animal
recreation uses would be allowed as an accessory use only by a special exception in CH -1
zones.
Heitner noted that most the current CH -1 zones in the City are clustered around the Dodge
Street/1-80 interchange. The surrounding uses are predominantly either research park, interim
development -research park, or commercial office zones. He pointed out there's a pretty good
degree of buffering between where this use could be allowed and any adjacent residential.
In looking at this text amendment staff wanted to look at a few peers zoning ordinances, Heitner
showed a general snapshot of three zoning ordinances pertaining to animal services in Des
Moines, Cedar Rapids and Davenport. Des Moines and Cedar Rapids did have some kind of
separation requirement, Des Moines being about 200 feet to residential zones and Cedar Rapids
being 100 feet. The 400 -foot recommendation that staff is proposing is understandably larger
than those requirements. Des Moines and Cedar Rapids also allow animal services to take
place in a bit more suburban and urban oriented context. In Des Moines for example, animal
services can be even in mixed use in downtown. Most ordinances staff looked at had either a
fencing requirement or screening requirement, almost all of them had a requirement pertaining to
over nights and outdoor uses not being permitted.
The role of the Planning and Zoning commission is to recommend approval or denial to the City
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 10 of 29
Council within 45 calendar days of the date the City receives the rezoning text amendment
application or the rezoning shall be considered recommended for approval.
With respect to next steps, pending recommendation of approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments.
Staff is recommending amending the City Code to allow the following:
1. Allow general animal related commercial uses as a provisional use in Highway
Commercial (CH -1) zones.
2. the creation of animal daycare and indoor animal recreation uses as general animal
related commercial uses as provisional uses in CN -1, CH -1, CI -1, CC -2, CB -2, and CB -5
zones.
3. Allowing private outdoor animal recreation as an accessory use to be obtained by a
special exception in Highway Commercial (CH -1) zones.
Hensch noted on the 400 -foot requirement for separation from residential area seems way more
than the other peer groups and it seems overly prescriptive to him. Heitner agreed and noted
staff discussed that but it was a carryover from a provisional requirement from the intensive
animal related commercial use and seemed like a good starting point and a good distance to
include for this new outdoor animal recreation accessory use being created.
Hensch also asked if all proposed outdoor animal recreation areas have to go before the Board
of Adjustment. Heitner confirmed that was correct. Hensch noted it seems like there's a lot of
prescriptive things are prohibited when it's going to go to the Board of Adjustment anyway and
they could set all kinds of different requirements. Hensch noted it makes it seem like this could
only happen in this one place and he would like to see these kinds of things be more common
and around everywhere. He noted Colorado Springs, Colorado, was very pet friendly town and
that's very attractive to people and he'd like to see Iowa City go in that direction. He doesn't want
to stand in the way of anything today but would certainly like to see Iowa City be moving towards
more leniency and more pet friendly.
Baker asked if Hensch is recommending reducing the 400 -foot requirement. Hensch noted it
seems kind of random but it doesn't look like it hurts this application at all, it just may be for future
things. Baker said he would certainly support any sort of reduction if others wanted to do that.
Baker had a question about the three definitions, animal daycare, indoor animal recreation,
private and so forth. The animal daycare definition notes overnight kenneling is not allowed but
the others don't say that so are they allowed to provide overnight accommodations. Heitner
stated that overnight will not be allowed as a component of the outdoor animal recreation at all.
Baker stated if they had the capacity for it, even though it's called an outdoor recreation facility,
but they have a building so there could be room for indoor kennels for people who want to keep
their pets overnight there this would seem to even prohibit that. Russett stated the zoning code
regulates kennels differently and kennels are considered an intensive animal related commercial
use, which are only allowed in the CI -1 zone.
Martin asked about Bright -Eyed & Bushy -Tails that is out there and what are they zoned.
Russett said it is zoned CO -1, it does have a kennel as it's a vet clinic and the code allows
kennels as an accessory use to a vet clinic.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 11 of 29
Baker asked for a clarification about the third standard on fencing height. Who determines the
height? Heitner said probably the building inspection services staff. That was a
recommendation again they saw in a peer community. They could just state a height, such as
Davenport states the fence must be six feet in height. Baker asked if that would be settled at the
Board of Adjustment? Heitner said it could be. Baker noted if six feet is sufficient for the City dog
parks, then why not have that be sufficient for this amendment.
Baker also noted there's no specification here about type of fence, chain link fence versus a
wooden fence or a fence that can be seen through, is there any requirement in terms of the
opaqueness of the fence. Heitner replied there's no requirement. Baker stated lastly regarding
fence height, the whole thing is to prevent animals from escaping and he's had some experience
with dogs ignoring the height of a fence and figuring out a way to go under that fence. Dyer
stated that is why there is a requirement of having to be with a handler.
Signs asked what the standard for residential heights limitations on fences is. Hekteon thinks it is
six feet. Signs notes some possible rewording of bullet point number three and referencing a six
-foot minimum fence height, which means it could be considerably greater than that.
Townsend asked if there was any input or notification of the current tenants around that area of
this going in the area. Russett stated since its not a map amendment, there's no noticing
requirement.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Phil O'Brien (416 2nd Avenue) came forward to answer questions.
Baker asked how tall would the fence at the facility be. O'Brien said that is o be determined but
they will make sure all the dogs stay in it.
Hensch asked if any of the recommendations staff has the report cause any question or pause,
or can they be worked with? O'Brien stated it is definitely stuff he can work with.
Dyer asked if O'Brien was familiar with a facility like this elsewhere? O'Brien noted they've done
some research and looked at different facilities around the country. They range everything from a
warehouse space with the garage door to elaborate 50,000 square foot facilities.
Signs noted his interpretation is it's basically an office building with a lot of indoor dog amenities.
O'Brien stated it will be a metal frame building, part of it was modeled after the University of Iowa
rec center, so there is an elevated track and an open area below. There will also be meeting
areas and a retail restaurants and co -labs.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved the Commission approve ZCA19-06 an application submitted by Phil
O'Brien requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow animal related commercial
uses in the Commercial Highway (CH -1) zone to allow for the development of a
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 12 of 29
community based indoor dog park and recreation center at 2513 North Dodge Street.
Signs seconded the motion.
Hensch stated he thinks it's overly prescriptive, but he really wants this to pass, so maybe that is
a conversation for a future date to address the 400 -foot separation from residential. He will not
argue about that today as he likes this and hopes it's wildly successful and will support it.
Signs noted he is excited to see potentially see something going in on that piece of property, it
will really help that corner and it's a difficult spot.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. DRC19-04:
Applicant: Rob Decker, Axiom Consultants
Location: 12 E. Court Street
An application submitted by Rob Decker requesting a Level II design review, which includes a 7 -
story bonus height request, for two, 15 -story buildings located at 12 E. Court Street.
Russett began the staff report showing an aerial map showing the location of the project site Just
south of Burlington, in between Clinton Street to the east and Madison Street to the west. As an
overview of this application, again it is a Level II height bonus request, which requires review by
the staff Form -Based Code Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission in this case, which
is not typical, these typically go from the Form -Based Code Committee straight to City Council,
but in this instance, it must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The Form -Based Code Committee includes Russett, Danielle Stitzman, development services
coordinator and Tim Hennes, senior building inspector, and they have reviewed this plan and are
also here tonight to answer questions. They determined that the project meets the standards of
the zoning code. The height bonus request is a discretionary process and there's specific criteria
that must be met and can help and guide decision making. Although the project meets the letter
of the Code staff does have some concerns with the project, one being the proposed skywalk,
the second being fully screened balconies, and the third is the design of the Capitol Street right-
of-way which Russett will elaborate on later in the presentation.
Some history on the project, this property was rezoned to Riverfront Crossings South Downtown
in September 2018. There were several conditions associated with this rezoning and Russett
wants to highlight a couple of them. First is the dedication of the Capitol Street right-of-way and
second is that if a Level II Design Review was required for a bonus height request that it must
come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation to City Council.
An overview of the bonus height request, the applicant has requested seven stories of bonus
height for two 15 story mixed-use buildings. The bonus maximum height in this zone is 15 stories
subject to a discretionary review. The applicant has requested bonus height through three
different means, the first is the transfer of public right-of-way, the second is the historic
preservation height transfer, and the third is for student housing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 13 of 29
Russett showed the site plan. Capitol Street runs between the two buildings, there is a west
building and east building. She began with an overview of the west building. It is proposed to
have 492 dwelling units. There are three levels of underground parking. The non-residential uses
would be along Capitol Street, Court Street and Burlington Street. Russett showed an image of
the proposed elevation from Capitol Street looking west, and a couple of renderings that show
some of the courtyard spaces. Next, she showed a map of the first level floor plan. The blue
areas are residential uses, the green areas are amenity spaces and recreational spaces, the
orange areas are office and then the yellow is retail. There are some residential uses that front
the courtyard on the first level, the amenity space is the study areas along Capitol Street and
then there's some recreational and amenities along Burlington Street. There is retail proposed at
the northeast corner of Capitol Street and Burlington and also at the southern end along Court
Street and Capitol Street. The proposed office space is on the Court Street side. The academic
spaces are to include study rooms and computer labs with Wi Fi and the recreational amenities
include a half basketball court, track, jacuzzi area and an outdoor pool deck. In the image that
shows the proposed open space the blue areas are the publicly accessible open space and the
green areas are privately accessible open space. For the west building around 9,500 square
feet of open space is required and the plans show just over 15,000 square feet.
Moving on to the east building, it has 426 dwelling units proposed, three levels of underground
parking. Again, the non-residential uses are along Capitol Street, Court Street and Burlington
Street. Russett showed the first level floor plan for the east building. Again, the orange area is
offices, the green areas are study spaces and amenity spaces, and then there's a small portion
of retail at the corner of Capitol and Court Streets. There are no recreational uses proposed in
the east building, there is a restaurant that's proposed on the 15th floor. The required open
spaces for the east building 8,200 square feet and the plans show around 10,300 square feet of
open space.
In terms of proposed material, the applicant has proposed to use metal panels, terracotta
spandrel and regular glass, metal screens and concrete. Russett brought down the sample
board the applicant provided for the Commission to take a look at. Russett also noted that along
the first floor of Capitol Street, the applicant has proposed an artistic component in the form of a
graphic panel behind metal screens near building entrances. She showed a rendering illustrating
the metal screen with plantings growing up them and then the lighted graphic panels in the back.
The applicant also proposed a skywalk which connects the two buildings at the fourth floor. The
proposed Capitol Street right-of-way shows 12 %2 foot unobstructed walkways, 12 1/2foot travel
lanes and angled parking.
Next Russett explained the criteria for each height bonus request. First, the public right-of-way
transfer. The criterion related to the public right-of-way transfer is that the land proposed for
dedication, which could be called the sending site, is needed in order to construct or improve
rights-of-way necessary to realize the vision of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The
applicant has agreed to dedicate the public right-of-way to extend Capitol Street, that was a
condition of the rezoning and this extension is envisioned in the Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan. The applicant has requested to transfer 304,000 square feet of right-of-way to the
buildings. Staff does have concerns with the design of the Capitol Street right-of-way. First, staff
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 14 of 29
recommends that the angled parking be changed to parallel parking. Although there are no
bicycle facilities proposed along Capitol Street it will be used by cyclists and angled parking is
not the best type of parking to have with cyclists. In addition, the Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan shows parallel parking in this location. Additionally, the travel lanes proposed are 12 %2 feet
wide, which are wider than would be supported by the City and do not align with current City
designs like the recent reconstruction of Washington Street. The sidewalks on Washington Street
are also wider than the proposed 12 %2 feet along Capitol and staff anticipate this to be highly
traveled corridor especially by pedestrians. In terms of the proposed skywalk, staff concerns are
that the skywalk could block the views of the Old Capitol and could potentially divert street level
activity.
Next is the historic preservation transfer. The criterion related to this transfer request is that the
site from which the height transfers requested, the sending site, is designated as an Iowa City
landmark. The Tate Arms is designated as an Iowa City historic landmark, this was designated
several years ago by the applicant. The applicant previously transferred a portion of the
development potential of the Tate Arms to an adjacent property and agreed to a rehabilitation
plan as part of that. The current request is to transfer the remaining potential of the Tate Arms
building, which is 27,400 square feet to 12 East Court.
Next is the student housing bonus height request. There are two sets of criteria for this request,
first is the locational criteria. The project must be located within the University, South Downtown
or West Riverfront Subdistrict and be located within 1,000 feet walking distance from the
University of Iowa campus. Russet confirmed the proposed project meets both of those criteria.
The next set of criteria are related to management design and amenities. This includes an
enforcement plan for professional 24-hour on-site management and security. Open space must
be provided within amenities that create a high-quality living environment for students and secure
bicycle parking. Russett reiterated this project meets the location criteria, it also demonstrates
compliance with the number of on-site bicycle parking that's required. Staff would recommend
transparent fencing around the bike parking within the parking garages for safety reasons.
Mentioned in the staff report, the City has reviewed the security plan however more detail is
needed. Staff recommends that a final administrative review and approval of the management
plan take place at a later date so staff can confirm various things such as confirmation of camera
coverage, protocols for police department accessing videos, protocols for timely repairs as well
as staffing requirements. Russett noted the plan lacks detail on how the student amenity spaces
creates a high-quality living environment. Therefore staff is recommending some additional
justification on those student amenity spaces to ensure that they are the right type, the right size
and right amount based on the size of the building. Lastly, the applicant has proposed fully
screened balconies, staff recognize that the screening is provided for safety reasons but have
concerns that the screening could take away from the quality of the design.
Russett stated there are several rezoning conditions that had to be reviewed as part of the
development plan. The first condition is that the property must substantially conform to the
building footprint shown in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Russett
showed an image comparing the Master Plan and the proposed building. The applicant's plans
show 5% more linear feet along exterior walls and 4.8% more square feet than the Master Plan.
but staff feels that this condition has been met. Russett pointed out the Master Plan originally is
showing four buildings and the proposed project is two buildings. The next condition is that the
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 15 of 29
development of the subject property must include a landscaped interior courtyard between the
two easternmost buildings. Russet acknowledged the plans show an interior courtyard extending
from Capitol Street to the alley between the east building and the Voxman Music Building, so this
condition has been met. The last condition is the bonus height shall demonstrate excellence and
building and site design, use high quality building materials and be designed in a manner that
contributes to the quality and character of the neighborhood. This is not only a condition but also
a standard within the Form -Based Code to review the height bonus, Russett mentioned the
materials earlier but noted there are extensive window and door openings that show that the
project meets the fenestration requirements of the Code. All entrances to non-residential uses
along Burlington, Court and Capitol Streets are at grade, helping to create a more walkable
environment. The step backs meet the 10 foot at the fifth story, and there's even deeper step
backs closer to Court Street, and they narrow as you move north toward Burlington along Capitol
Street. The proposed project is located between the Voxman Music Building on the east and an
eight story residential project on the west and the Johnson County Courthouse to the south.
The role of the Commission here is to review and make a recommendation to City Council on the
proposed development. The Commission should use the criteria that staff has outlined here that
the Form -Based Code Committee used. City Council will be using that same criteria.
In terms of next steps, after the Commission makes a recommendation and the plans will be
reviewed by City Council and the awarding of the bonus height is up to City Council.
Russett stated the Form -Based Code Committee finds that the proposal meets the standards of
the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code. Staff does recommend the following modifications
and some additional details.
1. Removal of the skywalk.
2. Re -design of the Capitol Street right-of-way, for review and approval by staff, to ensure
consistency with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and other recent City street
reconstructions, like Washington Street in downtown.
3. Removal of the balconies.
4. An additional administrative review of the management plan that includes details
regarding staffing, cameras, accessing video, etc. prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
5. Additional detail and justification on the academic amenity space.
6. Secure fencing around bicycle parking must be non-opaque (e.g. chain-link).
7. If the building plans deviate substantively from the approved design review plans, these
changes must be reviewed and approved by the City Council. An example of a
substantive change is a change to exterior building materials.
Martin asked why staff want to remove the balconies or is staff recommending removing
balconies or just not fully screening balconies. Russett replied the balconies are proposed to be
fully screened but for safety reasons staff recommend that they be removed. Staff feels like the
materials and the screening that are being proposed take away from the quality and design of
the building. Martin asked why didn't staff renegotiate what that would look like rather than just
take away balconies. Russett acknowledged they did some negotiation with the applicant and
they have changed the materials however staff is still not comfortable with the proposed
materials and the balconies being fully screened with those materials. They've told the applicant
the best option is to remove the balconies.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 16 of 29
Martin next asked why staff want the skywalks removed. Russett stated they were concerned as
there's a view shed, an important view shed on Capitol Street to the Old Capitol, and with the
opening of Capitol Street that will create that view shed that was once closed, and they are
concerned that that skywalk will block the view of the Old Capitol. Additionally, staff want the
activity in this area to be at the street level and with skywalks they were concerned it could divert
potential retail or pedestrian activity from the street to the skywalks. Martin assumed the
skywalks are for the residents. Parsons agreed noting especially since the recreational activities
are all only in one of the buildings. Russett acknowledged the skywalk would be mainly used for
the residents.
Martin noted nothing was said about the airport flight path, so she assumes the height bonus is
fine with the flight path. Russett confirmed that was correct.
Dyer asked about the provision of affordable housing and what is the provision. Russett replied
the applicant must meet the affordable housing requirement which is 10% affordable, either by
fee -in -lieu or on site. She will defer to the applicant on more details of their plan.
Hensch commented on the landscaped central courtyard and noted given the amount of physical
structures around that and he is concerned that all that stuff will end up dying, and it would be
wise to have a landscape architect to select species that have a chance of staying alive in there.
Hensch stated that all the architecture philosophies now need to be very biophilic oriented and
need to be pretty intentional about the selection of that landscaping. He would like to put a
stipulation above to have a landscape architect signing off on this to make sure there will be
plants that can survive in that environment and are native Iowa so they can handle the cold and
the drought and the heat because it's going to be a really tough environment.
Hensch stated regarding the balconies, he is a big balcony fan, the 19 -story building across
street has 19 balconies, but he can see staff's concern about the screening making it look too
institutional so will defer to staff. However regarding the skywalk, the renderings have it to be
pretty transparent so if there's a skywalk that people can see through it won't really interfere with
the view. Additionally, this is Iowa and it would be nice for people to be able to move between
buildings.
Baker noted on page seven of the staff report he needs more clarification on that phrase "divert
from street level activities". A skywalk to go from one building to another or a skywalk concept in
general makes perfect sense to him.
Baker asked about the parking changes staff proposes, from angle to parallel, he assumes all
those spaces will be metered regardless. Russett acknowledged she doesn't know the answer
to that and would have to look into it.
On security, Baker notes a phrase on page eight where "staff recommends at least three security
personnel providing security 24/7" and wondered if that means literally one person, eight hour
shifts, seven days a week, just three people for that entire complex or does that mean nine
people, three on each shift. Russett stated it means three people on site at all times. Baker
noted the paragraph right below that talking about the plan lacks detail on how this amenity, the
academic community space, creates a high-quality living environment, and wondered who's
involved in judging it as an academic space, or high-quality. Is it just a staff decision or will they
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 17 of 29
bring in people from the University, who's making the decision about what really qualifies as
academic amenity space? Russett stated it would be the Form -Based Code Committee that
would be reviewing it. Baker asked if there any University representation on that committee and
Russett replied no. Baker feels there should be someone with experience to evaluate academic
amenity space and that is not on staff right now. Hekteon stated that is part of the applicants
burden and one way that they could support their application is by bringing in evidence
supporting the University's practices or something of that nature.
Baker also wanted to address the question of balconies again, he has mixed feelings about
balconies in general for large developments, he understands why the developer would want
them, they are an amenity that people like to have, but is staff's concern only over how they look,
an aesthetic question. Russett replied staff wouldn't want them to have the balconies without
screening because of the fact that it's student housing and do recognize that they're proposing
the screening for safety reasons. Staff is recommending the balconies just be removed. Baker
asked if the Commission or the Council says if they can have balconies would they have to be
100% enclosed or perhaps just waist high or such. Russett stated if Council chooses to allow
balconies staff would recommend that they were fully screened, 100% screened. Staff has
gotten feedback from the Police Department based on their review of the plans, they had lots of
concerns with balconies, and they would need to be screened completely. Baker noted in the
latest planning magazine that they get every month as Commission members, this month it was
on the City of Houston and there's all sorts of designs in there about high rises in Houston and
balconies and high rises, and they're not enclosed balconies at all. Baker asked if the concern
here that we're dealing with a student population. Russett confirmed that was the concern.
Baker asked then how that is concern different than on a 10 -story building versus a three- or
four-story building, which has a balcony which is only half enclosed, if a person falls off the three
story it can be just as tragic. Russett stated that the difference here is that this is a discretionary
review process for a height bonus, and they have concerns with the proposed to balconies.
Beyond safety there is a concern about noise and trash, things getting thrown off the balconies,
that type of thing. Baker acknowledged then if is the staff recommendation that under no
circumstances would they support the inclusion of balconies that were not fully enclosed.
Russett reiterated their recommendation is removing the balconies. Baker concurs and would
prefer they be removed too, he likes balconies but aesthetically for buildings that size he can see
where a design with no balcony having all that balcony space included back into the apartment
itself would be would be an advantage as well for the for the developer.
Townsend asked after these buildings are completed and after students move in, how long are
these plans in place such as the security. Russett said it is in perpetuity. Townsend also noted
the buildings are right next door to the University Rec Center so why are all these things included
in this building, students pay for those amenities with their Ubills. Russett stated the applicant
could address that.
Signs asked if the open space calculations are all ground level square footage. Russett
confirmed it is, it's the courtyards. Signs interpreted the comments about the amenities as staff
thought there were too many amenities in the in the building and wondered what's the reasoning
behind that. Russett replied that wasn't the intent, in reviewing the plans, the Form -Based Code
Committee didn't have a good idea of how many student study rooms and spaces should be in a
building of this size, so they wanted more information from the applicant to justify the square
footage, the types of amenities, the computer labs, those types of things that are being
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 18 of 29
proposed.
Signs also asked for clarification on staff's thoughts on the size of the sidewalks proposed on
Capitol and Court Streets. Russett stated the travel lanes are too wide, the street width.
Townsend noted the width of the sidewalks were mentioned in the report. Russett reiterated that
the sidewalks on Washington Street are much wider than what is currently proposed along
Capitol Street.
Baker had one final question about balconies and asked if there are any sort of record of
problems with the current balconies in Iowa City, people hurting themselves through balconies
now. Russett said the Police Department could probably provide some information on that.
Hensch presumes it's more associated with noise generation and people throwing things.
Hekteon reiterated what Russett said that this recommendation was informed in large part by
input from the Police Department.
Townsend voiced a concern of having two 15 -story buildings in that area. It will tower over
Voxman, it's going to be taller than the engineering building. Hensch noted when the applicants
here they can ask them but noted the elevations are going to be different due to the topical map
of the area.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Rob Decker (Axiom Consultants) is the project manager for this project and will try to expand on
what was presented by staff and then be happy to answer any questions. He began noting he
appreciates all the effort that staff has provided them with over this long process, next month will
be two years that they've been working on this effort. They understand it's gigantic and there's a
lot to digest here. Decker start by showing a video that gives a really good example of the
project. Then he will go into a couple of clarification items and go through the building as a
whole.
Decker next read a prepared statement because this project is so big he wanted to write his
thoughts down so nothing got missed. "On behalf of the ownership group and the design team, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to talk briefly about this project. I don't want to stand up
here for an incredibly long time and I don't intend to, together with Newman Monson we'll give
you a rundown of what you're going to see with all the design that this entails. It's incredibly large
and while many of us on the team have the benefit of this being second nature at this point, after
these many months, we understand that there's an incredible amount to digest. We're incredibly
excited about being on the project. It's a really, really unique opportunity to transform this area.
This is my hometown, so I'm excited about it. I think it's a game changer for the City. Very few if
any private properties present so unique and opportunity is to be essentially on campus while
providing private residential opportunities of incredibly high quality that allow for a student
experience in such a proximity, walkability, incredible amenities, urban design and more. Not
only is what you saw something that would change the landscape of Iowa City for the better, in
our opinion, it brings an incredible host of benefits, including an estimated $3 to $4 million
annually into Iowa City coffers in the form of property taxes, an estimated $9 million into the
affordable housing fund. A reopening of the long -closed Capitol Street with is described as one
of the axial entry points to the Old Capitol, its last remaining one of the four. It provides
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 19 of 29
incredibly high-quality safe housing for the students on campus, literally just south of downtown
closer than most of the dorms. It makes sense, it fits the site, the height is partially offset by the
steep grade of the hill, so it gobbles up a lot of the height. It's less than or equally as tall as high
rises that are already in town. It replaces outdated infrastructure, puts a newer building and a
new energy code into place in a town that benefits tremendously from that. The impermeable
area of the site is nearly the same as what currently sits there with a much higher urban density,
density that's called for in the City's Master Plan as well as other student housing studies
completed in town. Our analysis of the current market rates and other analyses recently released
assume less than 3% downtown vacancy and around 6% in the metro area, which is an
incredibly healthy level. In discussions with our colleagues in the industry and from other
accounts supplied by Housing and Urban Development arguments can often be made that
healthy levels nationally should sit around 8% to 10%. Iowa City within the past decade or so has
experienced incredibly low vacancy rates below 1 % downtown. Obviously, these levels aren't
sustainable and that's why a number of housing projects have popped up and continue to pop
up. The analysis that developers are looking at are still showing really excellent opportunities in
town and that's why you continue to see these projects, they wouldn't be completing these
projects if it wasn't fiscally sound opinion. And the last thing I would say is, besides making
sense for the reasons above, it's been very well received. We've received positive reinforcement
or outright support from affordable housing programs, most of them, the local unions, the
Downtown Association, countless local contractors and businesses, and numerous members of
the general public that I've spoken with and best of all the projects being completed locally. The
owners are lifetime residents of Iowa City and a family that made their whole life here. The
design teams are Iowa City firms, the general contractors is an Iowa City firm, McComas Lacina
that has a wonderful reputation downtown and has been here for decades. The entire team on
this project is Iowa City based, you'll never find a project this big that's going to do that again, I
guarantee it. And lastly, that project will push an estimated 2 million hours of full-time labor into
the economy during it if not more than that, it's probably a low estimate. Their process to get
here is basically been nine months of rezoning, nine months of design review of City staff which
has been great, Planning and Zoning right now and we're going to move to Council next, as
you're all aware, that'll be a two year process next month."
Decker next went through the requirements from Zoning that staff went through. (1) Dedication
of Capitol Street right-of-way, that's being done, it was agreed to in the CZA, it is a 100 -foot right-
of-way that's been blocked since the 1970s and it will open up the axial view to the Old Capitol
that is envisioned in the Master Plan. (2) Obtain approval of elevations from Planning and
Zoning, that's why they're here tonight. (3) Build the Capitol Street right -for -way to City
specifications which they have. One of the things Decker wanted to clarify is that's been vetted
heavily with the City already, the vast majority of it meets expectations. The lane width can easily
be changed to what the City wants. However, Decker does feel strongly about the angle parking
and will address that later. (4) The satisfaction of affordable housing was addressed in a formal
memo, they will agree to pay the fee in lieu of to The Affordable Housing Coalition, its near $9
million into the fund. (5) The compliance with the footprint in the Master Plan was shown in a
good example earlier. (6) Development of landscaped interior courtyards has been reviewed
extensively with staff as well. Decker will read one more prepared statement from their
landscape architect, which describes the landscape architecture that they've designed to date.
(7) Approval of the architect, that was completed a long time ago and lastly, (8) demonstrating
excellence in design for the building and the site. Decker will do a general walkthrough of the
site and try to clarify some things. There's sort of a central concourse, or courtyard, but it's more
of a concourse that runs between the buildings. One could debate on whether this is four or two
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 20 of 29
buildings, by code it's two buildings because they're connected, but they're designed to feel
independent, and that's to meet with the Master Plan. The forecourts are entry points into each
of those four facilities. Each one of them, with the exception of the northeast one, has a has a
private courtyard that can only be accessed by private residents of the buildings. Voxman
doesn't allow for one in that northeast corner. There are parking garages under each structure
that are independent of one another, they span the length of each of those footprints. There are
two entry points to the garages. The right-of-way is 100 -feet which is really large, there aren't
many places in town large, but it matches through the corridor. In addition to the really large
setbacks that they've done, it provides what they think is a really bright and open corridor north
to south.
Decker next read the landscape architecture prepared statement. "An important piece of this
project has been the carefully planned landscape features intended to create a beautiful space
for pedestrians, motorists and users of the building. Plants, paving materials and other site
features were selected to complement existing nearby streetscapes, to provide a seamless
transition along east Burlington and east Court Street. South Capitol Street will be lined with
trees framing the views of the Old Capitol building to the north, overstory trees will shade
proposed parking and complement the surrounding buildings. The resulting tree canopy is
intended to create a comfortable pedestrian experience along with the large beds of ornamental
grasses, paralleling the generous walkway connecting adjacent spaces. Throughout the site
unique planting beds reflect the architectural details of the building, as well the proposed colored
concrete accents. Public entrances with seating will be enhanced with the use of ornamental
trees, flowering shrubs and a mix of perennials integrated into the surrounding streetscape with
perennial beds that wrap around the building. Some entrances are screened by living wall which
will create more vertical green infrastructure in an urban environment. A courtyard space
between the buildings will be flanked with vegetation and ornamental trees to create a strong
access while softening the hardscape. The addition of colorful public art opportunity, varied
seating types and accent lighting will create a living environment around the building."
Nathan Griffith (Architect, Newman Monson) wanted to speak about the three major goals for the
project. One goal is that the project is designed to contribute to the quality and the character of
the neighborhood. He will talk about that and speak to that as shows some of the images.
Second critical to the project is the student health, safety and welfare and that will be addressed
in many different ways throughout the project, including the balconies as well as the skywalk.
Third goal is the enhanced pedestrian environment.
First Griffith showed an image comparison of the Master Plan footprint and the proposed
footprint and pointed out a few different critical parts. One is the pedestrian experience along the
street. On their plan one can see how much frontage at ground level the building will have as
compared to what was proposed in the Master Plan, and with that they were able to obtain goal
one by creating the forecourts and courtyards and a more friendly pedestrian experience as
you're walking along the street. Another point is the step back of the buildings as compared to
the Master Plan footprint, at the north side of the site there is an additional 10 feet of stepback
and the south tower is 15 feet to allow for more sunlight and access to sky. Thirdly, the towers as
tight and efficient and spindly as possible so that it really reduces the scale of the building from
an urban sort of context.
Next Griffith showed a few images showing the context of the project within the City and how the
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 21 of 29
building is broken up into pieces and the way that the colors of the cladding start to allow the
building to dissipate into the sky being a lighter color, rather than a darker color, which is very
much in tune with the neighborhood. Voxman School of Music has the same material, terracotta
cladding which has a light gloss to it, which will start to reflect in the sky and the surrounding
environment. As one approaches from the west, the recesses of the building are much deeper
than one might see on a building like the Rise and that matters a lot to how one experiences the
project on the urban setting has been broken up into smaller components. Griffith pointed out
they were very intentional and have the living spaces pointed away from the building per se as
opposed to facing towards the courtyards. For instance, from across the front edge, the living
space for the west building to the east building is 160 feet in distance and they thought that was
critical to the safety and security of the students as they're living. Looking at the development
from the south in the foreground would be an office space on the first floor, the materials are just
a bit darker, which kind of grounds the building, but also a lot of glass striations along the facade,
as well as many different recesses, including the forecourts, enhance the pedestrian experience
on the street, and make it a friendly experience as you walk through.
Next Griffith showed some images one would walk through the development as a pedestrian
again noting the many, many plants and benches and sort of colored paving and things that will
help make this place more friendly and engaged and give some depth and friendly experience to
the pedestrians. He showed an image of the community space and potentially a classroom area
where they could host lectures or informal gatherings. He then showed the forecourt areas, re-
emphasizing some of those design characteristics of the way that forecourt is designed to
engage the building and becomes more friendly. Some of the elements are the dark paving with
the light paving, aligning with the building, colored plantings and things. He showed the
connection over on both the west building and the east building and where that connection starts.
The connection is 40 feet off the ground, it's the height of a four-story house. The width of that
space is 48 feet wide, and the depth of the soffit is 50 feet. Regarding nuts and bolts of the
skywalk, it is at the fourth level of the project and set back from Burlington Street. They are very
purposeful in the way that they are cladding the skywalk with transparent glass that can be seen
through, but also in the way that it's structured so that it appears very spindly and skeletally and
would then dissipate into the sky in the way that the colors might reflect the surroundings. They
don't think that it impedes the view corridor of the Old Capitol. Griffith added it's worth noting the
safety and security point of the skywalk and most of the amenities in the two buildings are in the
west building so having access to those amenities is critically important to the success of the
east building.
Griffith next took a moment to talk about the balconies and showed an image, an example, of the
type of material and the application on a residential project. The balconies will be 5 -foot by 15 -
foot spaces which are very generous for balconies in Iowa City. The 15 -foot side has a
perforated metal guardrail. He showed an example of this on a real building in Los Angeles.
Without the balconies it will be a cold building. The material on the 5 -foot side of the balcony of t
is a metal mesh guardrail and he showed an example of that product in Austin, Texas on a sky
bridge that connects a couple residential buildings. With this material again they are trying to
provide as transparent as possible, but keep the safety of the students as they're not able to
throw things off or jump off or anything like that. The balconies provide a place to soften the
edges of the building and help reduce the scale, as well as providing for vertical lines that reduce
the building beyond the larger 50 -foot recesses. He noted the access to light and air is critically
important to the student's health in this development, and just being able to go outside and get
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 22 of 29
some fresh air contributes to the success of the project. Students/tenants having access to light
and air and just being able to step outside and get some fresh air enhances their experience and
their likelihood to rent here and the success of the project.
Decker noted that they are not here to disagree or to fight with City staff, he respects their
opinions, as again noted they've been great to work with, but they obviously have their own
opinions on the project. The reason that the angle parking is important them and the reason that
this is different than Washington Street is it is not a street lined with businesses, it's a housing
project. It does have a few scattered offices and businesses on it and therefore those additional
20 parking stalls are incredibly critical to the success of those few businesses that are going to
be there. The project already has a very small amount of parking for how substantial it is and
they don't feel like it detracts from the Capitol Street corridor. With regards to the skywalk it is
important for safety at all hours, safety during any kind of weather, to get from one building to the
other. A resident should have access to all the amenities if they pay rent there. They shouldn't
have to go down into a tunnel in the garages, which would be an incredible safety issue even
with cameras and the alternative is they walk outside or there are amenities on both sides, which
is not feasible. The better opportunity is to have a set of amenities for the complex that people
can access and that is why they want the skywalk. Lastly, Decker said the balconies are
probably the biggest issue for them. Beyond the health and fresh air benefits they disagree that
they're displeasing visually and think they help break up the facade in ways that help it
correspond with the code and softens those corners. With such a big building softening the
corners makes a big impact. Additionally, nearly all of the other high-rise and mid -rise buildings
in town have balconies. They spent a lot of time working with staff on the materials and look of
the balconies, they also spent a lot of time with ICPD and met with them three different times to
talk about these balconies. They've heard what people have said, and they've adjusted things to
try and get what they want to have on the buildings but in the way that makes sense and meets
as many of those boxes as they can. Lastly, leaving them off could make the building
functionally obsolete. This building is going to be around for 100 or more years. Yes, it's intended
for students now but it might not always be for students. Student populations may decline, they
may increase, at some point the upper floors may not be students, the upper floors may be
professionals, they may be retirees, the building may convert to retirees down the road, they
don't know. Leaving off those balconies is something that can never be corrected.
Griffith addressed the amenities and how they came to the amount of academic and recreation
spaces in the building. The owner has gone way beyond necessary to achieve a successful
project and they did a comparison of the study spaces and academic spaces of this project with
the Rise as a comparison example of a project near this one, and this project has per bedroom
twice the amount of area of academically oriented spaces. And not only that, but those spaces
are spread throughout the building, on each floor, there's a study space, which is not anywhere
else in Iowa City.
Baker asked about the amenities and if that was the case they made to the staff and the staff has
said that's not clear. Griffith stated that's a recent study that they had done so this may be the
first time everybody's hearing this.
Hensch noted the skywalk that will be built, if approved, will be transparent and that is the
intention, not just a rendering. Decker confirmed noting if they vary substantially from the
renderings they need to ask Council for permission or changes.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 23 of 29
Hensch asked an elevation question in what the change in elevation from Madison Street to the
west wall of the Voxman building is. Decker said the elevation change across the site is a
difference of 30 feet. Just by appearance wise it's really going to look more like a 11 or 12 story
building rather than 15 stories and be lower than Hilton Garden Inn. The top of the flagpole of the
courthouse is very similar to the height of this building.
Hensch thanked him for reading the statement from the landscape architect. He noted however
historically they see lots of really good drawings and then when it's actually implemented all
those plantings and trees and grasses suddenly aren't there, or they're dead the first year and
they never get replaced.
Signs noted a lot of the images show a lot of colorful artwork is committed and will be there.
Griffith noted the artwork is conceptual, they are not seeking additional height for artwork, which
can be done. The City wants a really engaged experience with this building and artwork is one
opportunity to do that. That's something that would have to be vetted but it would enhance the
building. Signs agrees that it enhances the building and would be very disappointed if it wasn't
there when it was done and makes a big difference on how he looks at this entire project.
Martin commented that earlier in the presentation they said there were these sorts of murals in
the project and wanted them to confirm that was their intention. Griffith confirmed.
Martin asked for clarification having heard a couple of different words such as private residence
and student housing and to her those mean different things and what is the current vision for
who's living there and how they're living there. Decker replied it's not a dorm, so it's a private
student residence. They expect mainly upperclassmen who want to stay downtown. Martin
asked if people other than students can live in the facility and Decker confirmed anyone can live
there, not just students. Yes the intent is students but if 200 people come and ask if they can live
at the top of it that certainly could be a possibility and then making the upper stories have a
different look to them.
Martin then asked about the security. Decker noted the security plan is complicated and they've
gone through it with City staff numerous times, it's not finalized but will be finalized as part of the
process.
Martin did note she would hate to see that project without balconies.
Hensch asked about the step back issue and if there were going to be two step backs, or just
one step back. Griffith replied just one step back. Hensch asked at what height. He added that
will affect how the balconies above that appear. Griffith said the step back is at the 4th story and
because of the slope of the site, the stepback is anywhere from 30 to 50 feet up and also those
setbacks are different, they're skinny up on the north side and they're back down below.
Martin did note she would hate to see that project without balconies, asked based on the picture
they showed if someone fall out of that balcony. Decker noted people have asked him this and
the truth is someone could take a chair and shatter a window easier than break through that
metal. Martin again reiterated she is not concerned.
Dyer noted being a retired professor, she noticed the community space spaces on the upper
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 24 of 29
levels are smaller than her living room for 30 apartments, that seems inadequate, and there are
no lounges like there are in dorms for gatherings other than studying. The other thing she
thought of that doesn't seem adequate is all the fancy recreation places, there are no restrooms
or locker rooms and going around the track for half an hour, one might need to use a bathroom.
It just seems inadequate in in that respect. Another thing that disturbs her a great deal is making
affordable living in lieu of the buildings that are on this site, a relatively affordable housing close
to campus and replacing affordable housing close to campus with luxury residential housing
close to campus, and wherever those $9 million dollars are going to go with someplace else
farther from campus. The City is trying to integrate affordable housing within the community,
scattered throughout the community and this is a monstrous project closing out affordable living.
The last thing that bothers her a lot is blocking the light from the offices in Voxman Music
Building. It's going to have a blank wall they are looking at and that is not neighborly. Dyer said
for those reasons she is going to vote no.
Decker addressed the question on size of the study spaces on the floors. As already mentioned
they have way more than any other building of this size. a lot more than approved buildings in
town. Additionally there are a lot of very large spaces on the ground floor, that was that was done
intentionally because the engagement with the pedestrian experience in a building that doesn't
require any commercial space on the ground floor, it could be residential all the way up, is
incredibly important and they felt like those spaces will be were students are engaged. It is not a
dorm, it's a private residence but it's also important to the City that they have that type of
engagement. They feel it is a better project than having large spaces up above. With regards to
the affordable housing comment, the units that are going to be there, he would not call these
luxury or that this is going to go into any kind of luxury. The units there now, the Pentacrest
Garden Apartments are not the cheapest apartments, they are not affordable housing. The
inventory that's there and the inventory that's going to go there are not that much different in
terms of rent, but the units and amenities will be so much better. In terms of paying the fee in
lieu of was because City Council was very interested in seeing the fee in lieu of, they didn't see
that this project is a great place for the application of an affordable housing. It is not a location
for a family looking for affordable housing. Voxman in terms of shadow, the majority of that side
of the building is not offices and that's not where most of the windows and engagement are. It
also won't be in shadow until midday through late in the evening. That's what the loading dock is,
that's where the backdoors to most of the area go. He acknowledged there are some windows
on that side of the Voxman Building but stated one can't put up a project like this without
impeding on something.
In terms of the bathrooms and the amenities there Griffith stated the spaces will have bathrooms.
Griffith also mentioned they did a study of the way the windows align with the Voxman Building
and did what they could to misalign them so that no one is looking right into an office or a person
in the office is not looking right into a living room.
Townsend noted looking at the floor plans for the spaces and wondered what the differences are
in square feet from the efficiencies to the three bedrooms and why the efficiencies are kind of
tucked in between. Griffith said on the fourth level area the efficiency units are 254 square feet
and the three-bedroom areas are 963 square feet. Townsend asked how many elevators are in
each building. Griffith replied there are four elevators in the west building and five elevators in
the east building, one of the elevators in the east building will serve the restaurant. Additionally
there are two staircases in the west building and three staircases in the east building. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 25 of 29
building has been designed to meet all egress codes and will be reviewed when they get the
building permit.
Baker asked if regarding the balcony question, was the total enclosure the original plan or was
that an accommodation to a concern raised by the staff? Decker replied they originally proposed
open balconies but are okay with the totally enclosed concept now. Baker noted his concern is
he can't visualize that on a giant building will look, that's just a leap of faith. Martin asked if it is
similar to some of the ones at Vetro. Griffith noted it is the same material.
Townsend asked about the student height bonus if other people are going to be living there as
well. Decker said to get the height bonus is half a floor of the whole project. The Capitol Street
transfer is all but one floor, there's enough square footage in the 304,000 square feet to go from
8 to 14. The last sliver is a combination of historical transfer from the Tate Arms and student
housing.
Baker noted he has no problem with the height and overall design of this project and hated the
buildings that were there now. This is a dramatic improvement over what's there in a lot of ways
for the City. His question is on the skywalk, it seems like a missed opportunity. It is such a
visible part from the public point of view and seems like a missed opportunity on some sort of
design that sets it apart with artistic contributions. Baker feels somebody needs to take that
concept and create something original for that space and accomplish the same purpose. It's
such a significant visual part of the project that is not really taking advantage of the opportunity.
Decker added quickly that in regards to University engagement, he met with Rod Lehnertz and
David Keft on this three or four different times, they're very aware of what is happening and have
been supportive of it. The other person they met with was Melissa Shivers, Director of Student
Engagement, to get her input in terms of security, how students are being treated, what their
lessons learned are from dorms, all those good pieces and try to integrate as much of that as
they can into their design.
Bill Gearhart (President, State Building Construction Trades Council) and has been a resident of
Iowa City since 1969. He has seen a lot of changes. The Building Trades Council is an umbrella
organization for the 16 different craft unions that perform construction work. They are excited
about this project, it's big, its bold, it goes up instead of sprawls and it replaces a bunch of
outdated apartment houses that are there now. This is going to be a big improvement and going
to be a lot of jobs for a lot of construction workers. 2 million -man hours is an awful lot of
paychecks for skilled trades people and their selection of a general contractor that's local and
does quality work, is going to be really good for the building, for the building trades, and for our
city. So they are in complete support of this project.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved the Commission approved DRC19-04, an application submitted by Rob
Decker requesting a Level 11 design review which includes a 7 -story height bonus request
for two 15 -story buildings located at 12 East Court Street including the seven staff
recommendations.
Signs seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 26 of 29
Hensch stated he is always super supportive of staff, but he happens to disagree with them this
time about the removal of the skywalk. A transparent skywalk would not obstruct the view, this is
Iowa with terrible weather and it's integral to this project. Hensch noted he is a big fan of
skywalks, the skywalk between the County Administration Building and the Health and Human
Services Building was just a brilliant idea, he uses it every day. He has mixed feelings about the
balconies, he purposely drove around buildings around town to look at balconies today and
noted that on the Chauncy all 19 stories has balconies. He can understand the police
department's concern with younger persons and their behavior sometimes, but it would be
unfortunate to not have them. Hensch noted feeling much better about the landscaping after
hearing the statement from the architect.
Martin also notes she has been in Iowa City her entire life, born here, and loves the idea of so
much happening that is so Iowa City centric, the people that are involved, the building, workers,
that's very important stuff. She thinks a skywalk is very cool and liked Baker's idea of something
fun with this skywalk such as shown in the picture of something in Houston that had a swanky
skywalk. Martin also stated she loves a balcony, she sells a lot of real estate and people love an
outdoor space, no matter in what form. She also really likes the art piece, more art the better.
Signs stated he is in agreement with both the skywalk and the balconies, he thinks the skywalk is
an added positive note to this project. As one is driving up the hill, they may lose a 10 second
view of the Old Capitol but that is not a huge problem. The fact they've made such a broad
streetscape and really opened up that area makes a better view. Signs noted he would be in
favor of taking out the recommendation to remove the skywalk. Additionally he feels the
balconies are important. What concerns him the most is noise, but that is present in almost any
student housing situation and they are used to it whether it's right good, bad, right or wrong. He
is personally am not a huge fan of the color scheme but will note let that sway his decision. He is
totally in favor of allowing balconies as long as they are screened and protected so that people
aren't throwing things off the 15th floor and doing things like that. He does feel the look is
extremely monolithic and was hoping to see some rooftop terraces and some variation in height
but overall they've done enough other nice things that he can live with. He is inclined to vote in
favor after they remove the skywalk and balcony removals. He also really wants to emphasize
how important artwork is to the beauty and character of the project. Finally, he hopes the
landscaping plan does work well and is maintained well as they say it will be.
Parsons stated he is also in favor of removing staff recommendations one and three and feel
others have summarized his opinions as well. He does really hope that the developers follow
through with the artwork and landscaping because the ground floor is what people will see. He
really impressed by the project and thinks it will be a great asset.
Signs added one more comment, he doesn't have a problem with the angle parking, he thinks it
adds to the width of the whole corridor there and would rather see 40 parking spaces over 20
because it is such a large project.
Baker noted he is very pleased with this project he has never been bothered by the height
question considering the topography of the area. He did reiterate the design is a leap of faith, it
looks good on paper, hopefully it will look like that in reality. Going back to the question of the
skywalk. If there is going to be a skywalk, he'd like for the Commissioners to mandate that
skywalk design go through some sort of design review process that requires a little bit more
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 27 of 29
thought from the developer about what the thing will look like. In a sense it can be a form of
public art and be functional at the same time. Regarding the balconies, he is not bothered by the
balconies and experience has shown balconies are useful and not necessarily a dangerous part
of any large project. He is not too thrilled about the total enclosure but if that's what the City and
the developer can compromise on, that's fine too. He also has no problem with the angle
parking. The academic community thing can be resolved one way or the other. Overall it's a
vast improvement for the area.
Dyer stated she thinks it would be good to remove the angle parking, it's a lot safer for bicyclists
to not have angled parking and there are going to be a lot of bicycles in this building and it's not
permitted to ride on the sidewalk downtown. Hensch agrees noting the most dangerous part of
driving is backing up and if they can minimize people backing up they should do that. Martin
commented as a bicyclist she likes angle parking better because she has been doored from
parallel parking.
Parsons moved to amend his motion on DRC19-04 to approve DRC19-04 with staff
recommendations four through seven.
Baker asked if there was any desire to make the skywalk go through some sort of design review
process. Hensch noted the whole process will go through a design review.
Hensch asked if Parsons wanted to include the angled parking recommendation in his motion
(recommendation 2). Russett asked to clarify stating the issue is not just with the angled
parking, it's also with the width of the travel lanes and width of the sidewalk as well. Hekteon
stated ultimately that's going to be a City owned right-of-way so in terms of how it's designed, the
City has significant more amount of control over that.
Parsons moved to amend his motion on DRC19-04 to approve DRC19-04 with eliminating
staff recommendations one and three.
Signs seconded that amendment.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2 (Dyer and Townsend dissenting).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 5,201
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of December 5, 2019.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted the special exception for the Kum & Go on South Gilbert Street went to the Board
of Adjustment last week. Staff recommended a condition not to have any noise and the Board of
Adjustment removed that condition.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 28 of 29
ADJOURNMENT:
Parsons moved to adjourn.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018-2019
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
1/17
(W.S.)
2/4
2/21
317
3/21
4/4
4/18
5/16
6/6
6/20
7/18
8115
9/5
1013
10/17
11/7
BAKER, LARRY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
DYER, CAROLYN
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
12/5
1/16
BAKER, LARRY
X
X
DYER, CAROLYN
X
X
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
O/E
X
PARSONS, MAX
X
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE
O/E
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member