HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-28 Info Packet
City Council I nformation Packet
J anuary 28, 2021
IP1.Council Tentative Meeting S chedule
February 2 City Conference Board Meeting
IP2.Conference Board Agenda and Meeting P acket
February 2 Work Session
IP3.Work Session Agenda
IP4.Project Better Together Update
IP5.Project Better Together: A Vision for J ohnson County
IP6.Pending City Council Work S ession Topics
Miscellaneous
IP7.Memo from City Manager & Police Chief: O I R Group Report
IP8.B L M & S ystemic Racism Detailed S tatus Report
IP9.Quarterly I nvestment Report: October - December 2020
IP10.F Y2020 L ong-term Debt Disclosure Report
IP11.Civil S ervice E xamination: Victim S ervices Coordinator
IP12.Press Release: Diversity, L eadership & E ffective L istening - A Social J ustice
I mperative training
Draft Minutes
IP13.Planning & Z oning Commission: J anuary 21
January 28, 2021 City of Iowa City Page 1
Item Number: 1.
J anuary 28, 2021
Council Ten tative Meeting Sched u l e
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Council Tentative Meeting S chedule
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Subject to change
January 28, 2021
Date Time Meeting Location
Tuesday, February 2, 2021 5:00 PM Iowa City Conference Board Mtg.Zoom Meeting Platform
Work Session
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, February 16, 2021 5:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, March 2, 2021 5:00 PM Iowa City Conference Board Mtg Zoom Meeting Platform
Work Session
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, April 20, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM Formal Meeting
Item Number: 2.
J anuary 28, 2021
Conferen ce Board Agen d a and Meetin g Packet
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Conference Board Agenda and Meeting P acket
OFFICE OF THE
IOWA CITY ASSESSOR
JOHNSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
BRAD COMER
ASSESSOR
MARTY BURKLE
CHIEF DEPUTY
MARY PAUSTIAN
DEPUTY
913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET IOWA CITY IOWA 52240
TELEPHONE 319-356-6066
January 27, 2021
Dear Conference Board Member:
The annual meeting of the Iowa City Conference Board for the consideration of the Iowa City Assessor’s
FY 2022 budget is scheduled for Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 5:00 P.M. through the Zoom meeting platform.
Enclosed for your review before the meeting are:
1. The Agenda.
2. A copy of the February 18, 2020 minutes.
3. The Proposed Budget.
4. Annual performance review responses provided to the Assessor Evaluation Committee
(completed by the Assessor)
5. A salary survey.
6. A Board of Review Application.
7. The 2020 Iowa City Assessor’s Annual Report.
There is an increase in the amount to be raised by the Assessment Expense Fund from last year’s amount.
The increase consists of:
a. $ 14,768 for a 2.50 percent increase in salaries
b. $ 10,629 for merit increases.
c. $ 1,944 for an increase in FICA.
d. $ 2,397 for an increase in IPERS.
e. $ 13,646 for an increase in health insurance.
f. $ 300 for an increase to publications & subscriptions.
g. $ 2,100 for a first time expense to Johnson County Human Resources to pay for services.
h. $ 4,000 for an increase to the auto replacement reserve fund.
$ 49,784 Total Increase
This increase is offset by the following decrease:
i. $ 5,600 to decrease postage, an alternate year expense
j. $ 2,500 to decrease printing, an alternate year expense
k. $ 300 to decrease dues.
$ 8,400 Total Decrease
$ 41,384 Net Increase
2
The Assessment Expense Fund levy rate will change from 0.25979 to 0.25664.
The increase for salaries is based on a 2.50 percent adjustment within the range that Johnson County uses,
similar to a cost of living increase. The enclosed salary survey indicates that our salaries fall below those of
the most comparable assessment jurisdictions in Iowa. The City Assessor Evaluation Committee met on
January 7, 2021 to review the performance of the Assessor and the proposed budget.
Merit increases allow step increases similar to the pay plans used by the city, the county and the schools.
The increases above are also reflected in FICA and IPERS.
Health insurance was increased due to a projected increase in rates for the next fiscal year.
An increase to publications & subscriptions was offset by a similar decrease to dues. These changes were
made to reflect the actual expenses in each category.
Postage and printing were decreased, because 2022 will not be a reassessment year and we will not be mailing
assessment rolls to all property owners.
There is a new $2,100 expense to pay the Johnson County Human Resources office for their services
provided. This expense is similar in theory to the fee that is paid to the County Information Technology
Department for data processing services.
The auto replacement reserve fund was increased by $4,000. This account builds each year and carries over
until a new car is needed.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions about individual items or wish to see any of the supporting
documents for this budget.
Sincerely,
Brad Comer
Iowa City Assessor
bcomer@johnsoncountyiowa.gov
(319) 356-6066
JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA CITY IOWA CITY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY
SCHOOL BOARD
The Conference Board votes as three voting units, with a majority of the members present for each unit
determining the unit’s vote. At least two members of a voting unit must be present in order to vote. A quorum is
reached when at least two members from two units are present.
Iow a City Conference Board Ag enda
Electronic
Tuesday, February 2, 2021 – 5:00 PM
Zoom Meeting Platform
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is
impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Board
members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can watch the meeting on cable channel 4 (118.2 QAM) in Iowa City, or
you can watch it online at any of the following websites:
https://citychannel4.com/live
https://www.youtube.com/user/citychannel4/live
https://facebook.com/CityofIowaCity
The meeting can also be view ed by going to:
********zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_lRYWRs2ZSa6ABCgFXWZosg to visit the
Zoom meeting’s registration page and submit the required information.
Once approved, you will receive an email message with a link to join the
meeting. If you are asked for a meeting or webinar ID, enter the ID number
found in the email.
If you have no computer or smartphone, or a computer without a
microphone, you can call in by phone by dialing (312) 626-6799 and entering
the meeting ID 915 1173 0561 when prompted. Providing comment in person
is not an option.
A. Call meeting to order by the Chairperson (Mayor).
B. Roll call by taxing body.
C. Motion to approve minutes of February 18, 2020 Conference Board
meeting.
Action: ___________________
JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA CITY IOWA CITY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY
SCHOOL BOARD
The Conference Board votes as three voting units, with a majority of the members present for each unit
determining the unit’s vote. At least two members of a voting unit must be present in order to vote. A quorum is
reached when at least two members from two units are present.
D. FY 22 Budget
Comment The purpose of this meeting is to set a date for a public
hearing on the Iowa City Assessor’s proposed budget for FY 2022.
1. Assessor presents proposed budget (included in packet)
2. Discuss proposed budget. (Possible closed session, pursuant
to Iowa Code Section 21.5(1)(i), to evaluate the professional
competency of individuals whose appointment, hiring,
performance, or discharge is being considered. A motion
must be made to adjourn to executive session.)
3. Motion to approve publication on proposed budget.
Action: ___________________
E. Motion to set date for public hearing.
(Suggested date: March 2, 2021)
Action: ___________________
F. Present Board of Review applications
1. Appoint Board of Review member
Action: ____________________
H. Board comments
I. Adjournment.
Action: ____________________
IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD
MINUTES
February 18, 2020
Cit y Conference Board: February 18, 2020 at 5:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at the
Iowa City City Hall, Mayor Bruce Teague presiding.
Iowa City Council Members Present: Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, and
Weiner.
Johnson County Supervisors Present: Green-Douglass, Rettig, and Sullivan.
Iowa City School Board Members Present: Eastham.
Others Present: Burkle, Comer, Paustian, Fruin, Monroe, Dilkes, and Fruehling.
Digital Recording: February 18, 2020.
Chair Bruce Teague called the meeting to order. Clerk Comer called roll and stated that a
quorum was present.
The County (Sullivan) moved to accept the minutes of the last conference board meeting,
January 21, 2020, the City (Salih) seconded and the motion carried unanimously 2/0.
The Iowa Cit y School Board, having only one member present, did not have a vote
recorded.
Chairman Teague declared the public hearing on the FY 21 Budget open. After no
comment from the public, the public hearing was declared closed.
At the last conference board meeting, Mims asked whether the City Assessor is audited
by an outside firm. Comer read an email from the County Finance Director stating that
the City Assessor is technically not included in the county audit that is performed by an
outside firm. The county is the fiscal agent for the City Assessor’s Office and they
present some limited financial information in their annual financial report that reflects the
year-end agency fund financial position and a summary of the changes in the various
assets, liabilities and fund balance for the year. Comer also stated that his office does not
handle any money. Claims are submitted to the County Auditor who pays them out of
the assessor budget after proper documentation has been provided.
The City (Mims) moved to accept the proposed budget as published in the Iowa City
Press-Citizen on January 31, 2020 and the County (Green-Douglass) seconded. The
motion carried unanimously 2/0.
There being no further business it was moved by the County (Green-Douglass) and
seconded by the City (Salih) to adjourn at 5:05 P.M. Motion carried unanimously 2/0.
Brad Comer
Clerk, Iowa City Conference Board
EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES FY 2021 FY 2022 INCREASE
SALARIES Current Proposed
CITY ASSESSOR 121,370 126,225 4.00%
CHIEF DEPUTY ASSESSOR 106,196 110,837 4.37%
DEPUTY ASSESSOR 98,560 102,867 4.37%
OTHER PERSONNEL 264,607 276,201 4.38%
MERIT INCREASES (have been added to salaries above)(10,354) (10,629)
SUBTOTAL $590,733 $616,130 4.30%
Proposed salaries include merit increases and cost of living adjustments.
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
EMPLOYER SHARE: FICA 48,340 50,284 4.02%
EMPLOYER SHARE: IPERS 59,636 62,033 4.02%
HEALTH INSURANCE 178,619 192,265 7.64%
SUBTOTAL 286,595 304,582 6.28%
TOTAL EMPLOYEE COST $877,328 $920,712 4.94%
OTHER EXPENDITURES
LEAVE CONTINGENCY $20,000 $20,000 0.00%
BOARDS
BOARD OF REVIEW 21,000 21,000 0.00%
BOARD OF REVIEW EXPENSES 200 200 0.00%
CONFERENCE BOARD 0 0
EXAMINING BOARD 30 30 0.00%
SUBTOTAL $21,230 $21,230 0.00%
OFFICE EXPENSES
MILEAGE & AUTO 4,500 4,500 0.00%
OFFICE SUPPLIES 3,500 3,500 0.00%
POSTAGE 8,000 2,400 -70.00%
TELEPHONE 1,300 1,300 0.00%
PUBLICATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS 700 1,000 42.86%
PRINTING 4,000 1,500 -62.50%
INSURANCE 5,000 5,000 0.00%
EQUIPMENT PURCHASE 3,400 3,400 0.00%
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 200 200 0.00%
UNEMPLOYMENT 2,000 2,000 0.00%
DATA PROCESSING SERVICES 18,000 18,000 0.00%
HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES - 2,100 NEW
SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 18,000 18,000 0.00%
BONDS & W ORKER'S COMPENSATION 1,900 1,900 0.00%
COMPUTER REPLACEMENT 2,500 2,500 0.00%
SUBTOTAL $73,000 $67,300 -7.81%
PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES
SCHOOLS & CONFERENCES 13,500 13,500 0.00%
DUES 2,300 2,000 -13.04%
SUBTOTAL $15,800 $15,500 -1.90%
TECHNICAL SERVICES
LEGAL FEES & EXPERT W ITNESSES 75,000 75,000 0.00%
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 10,000 10,000 0.00%
APPRAISAL SERVICE 1,000 1,000 0.00%
SUBTOTAL $86,000 $86,000 0.00%
TOTAL OTHER EXPENDITURES $216,030 $210,030 -2.78%
SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,093,358 $1,130,742
RESERVES
AUTO REPLACEMENT 19,000 23,000
TOTAL RESERVES 19,000$ 23,000$
TOTAL ASSMT EXPENSE FUND BUDGET $1,112,358 $1,153,742 3.72%
UNASSIGNED BALANCE $38,401 $70,156 82.69%
TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION $1,073,957 $1,083,586 0.90%
IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
ITEM IZED BUDGET - ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND
MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND 4,222,203,857 X .000675 $2,849,987
IPERS & FICA FUNDS $112,317
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION & TORT LIABILITY $4,000
MAXIMUM ALLOW ED W ITHOUT STATE APPROVAL $2,966,304
MAXIMUM EMERGENCY FUND 4,222,203,857 X .00027 $1,139,995
(requires State Appeal Board approval)
MAXIMUM THAT COULD BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR FY 2022 $4,106,299
ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND TOTAL LEVY
FY AMOUNT LEVIED LEVY RATE AMOUNT LEVIED LEVY RATE
1996-97 319,513 0.20450 17,000 0.01088 0.21538
1997-98 318,270 0.19946 52,834 0.03311 0.23257
1998-99 318,699 0.19269 184,357 0.11146 0.30415
1999-00 341,910 0.19784 352,508 0.20398 0.40182
2000-01 359,341 0.19823 180,293 0.09946 0.29769
2001-02 396,829 0.20636 6,442 0.00335 0.20971
2002-03 403,136 0.20694 4,426 0.00227 0.20921
2003-04 412,379 0.20818 10,051 0.00507 0.21325
2004-05 470,398 0.22926 15,728 0.00767 0.23693
2005-06 472,050 0.22525 25,995 0.01240 0.23765
2006-07 529,702 0.23164 0 0 0.23164
2007-08 603,916 0.25868 4,792 0.00205 0.26073
2008-09 611,955 0.24917 1,540 0.00063 0.24980
2009-10 600,013 0.23848 0 0 0.23848
2010-11 621,785 0.23147 8,730 0.00325 0.23472
2011-12 680,786 0.24538 2,608 0.00094 0.24632
2012-13 700,997 0.24164 8,384 0.00289 0.24453
2013-14 769,744 0.25873 N/A N/A 0.25873
2014-15 732,073 0.23866 N/A N/A 0.23866
2015-16 754,689 0.24325 N/A N/A 0.24325
2016-17 804,099 0.24339 N/A N/A 0.24339
2017-18 859,971 0.25141 N/A N/A 0.25141
2018-19 838,975 0.23187 N/A N/A 0.23187
2019-20 743,518 0.19747 N/A N/A 0.19747
2020-21 1,073,957 0.25979 N/A N/A 0.25979
2021-22 1,083,586 0.25664 N/A N/A 0.25664
IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
MAXIMUM LEVY ALLOWED
PRIOR YEARS LEVIES AND RATES
SPECIAL APPRAISERS FUND
2020 SALARY SURVEY
JURISDICTION
01 02
SALARY
11 12
SALARY
12 13
SALARY
13 14
SALARY
14 15
SALARY
15 16
SALARY
16 17
SALARY
17 18
SALARY
18 19
SALARY
19 20
SALARY
20 21
SALARY
% RAISE
1 YEAR
% RAISE
5 YEAR
% RAISE
19 YEAR
1ST
DEPUTY
AMES 79,959 113,938 116,662 120,322 123,943 127,668 131,300 137,770 143,302 150,472 156,208 3.81%22.35%95.36%124,982
POLK COUNTY 93,867 122,330 122,330 125,157 127,974 131,493 135,437 138,822 142,639 146,204 149,859 2.50%13.97%59.65%139,829
POTTAWATTAMIE 74,764 104,919 108,067 111,307 115,087 118,155 123,526 127,868 131,609 135,613 139,474 2.85%18.04%86.55%118,966
CEDAR RAPIDS 74,378 109,328 114,015 117,171 120,083 122,484 125,546 128,057 130,618 134,521 138,556 3.00%13.12%86.29%119,711
JOHNSON 63,500 99,455 101,616 106,976 111,297 114,640 117,506 122,206 127,094 132,178 136,141 3.00%18.76%114.40%115,206
STORY 69,300 102,435 104,485 106,575 108,705 111,670 116,150 123,000 126,690 130,490 135,710 4.00%21.53%95.83%108,570
DALLAS 57,200 87,150 88,904 91,572 93,403 102,650 105,730 112,074 118,747 124,738 130,931 4.96%27.55%128.90%108,018
SIOUX CITY 68,294 84,840 86,537 91,000 93,730 96,073 98,955 101,429 122,990 126,672 130,146 2.74%35.47%90.57%104,117
LINN 65,472 91,477 93,581 95,764 99,563 102,550 105,622 109,685 122,000 125,660 129,430 3.00%26.21%97.69%116,728
DAVENPORT 67,836 97,648 97,189 98,160 100,756 104,453 106,135 107,842 109,998 125,399 128,664 2.60%23.18%89.67%116,039
IOWA CITY 63,340 91,510 94,970 99,010 103,340 100,000 104,500 108,680 112,755 116,983 121,370 3.75%21.37%91.62%106,196
WOODBURY 63,600 87,050 89,660 94,080 97,840 95,000 97,850 100,790 105,000 105,150 115,180 9.54%21.24%81.10%100,206
DUBUQUE CITY 66,083 87,317 89,937 92,635 95,414 98,276 101,224 106,295 108,430 111,683 115,033 3.00%17.05%74.07%95,477
CLINTON CO 102,478 146,017 146,525 150,188 152,790 154,341 157,640 161,730 110,000 112,200 114,725 2.25%-25.67%11.95%88,651
BLACKHAWK 66,200 88,630 90,420 92,457 95,004 97,854 100,790 103,813 106,928 110,136 113,440 3.00%15.93%71.36%79,408
BOONE 45,000 90,000 88,000 93,380 95,719 100,724 102,990 105,305 107,674 110,097 112,300 2.00%11.49%149.56%67,550
MUSCATINE 66,432 89,309 91,540 94,280 96,166 99,060 102,280 105,200 108,360 108,360 110,100 1.61%11.14%65.73%76,677
DUBUQUE COUNTY 62,500 83,410 85,912 88,489 91,144 93,878 100,413 100,079 103,081 106,173 109,358 3.00%16.49%74.97%90,767
SCOTT 62,666 91,486 93,316 95,183 97,087 99,890 96,000 98,100 101,100 106,500 108,850 2.21%8.97%73.70%68,580
WARREN 55,000 72,263 73,800 75,046 76,500 80,413 86,600 88,332 91,000 93,275 95,609 2.50%18.90%73.83%76,787
Iowa City Rank 15 8 8 7 7 12 10 9 10 11 11 5 7 7 10
MEDIAN 66,142 91,482 93,449 95,474 98,702 101,637 105,061 108,261 111,378 120,861 125,017 3.00%18.40%86.42%105,157
2001-02 JOHNSON AND IOWA CITY HAD NEW ASSESSORS STARTING WITH A SIMILAR RATE
2020-21 JOHNSON AND IOWA CITY ASSESSORS HAVE A 12.17% DIFFERENCE
CLINTON COUNTY COMBINED CITY AND COUNTY ASSESSORS FOR THE 2018-19 YEAR.
LINN CO AND SIOUX CITY BOTH HIRED NEW ASSESSORS FROM OUTSIDE OF THEIR OFFICE IN THE PAST 3 YEARS WHICH RESULTED IN LARGE INCREASES.
POTTAWATTAMIE, CEDAR RAPIDS & MUSCATINE HIRED A NEW ASSESSOR FROM WITHIN THEIR OFFICE IN THE PAST 3 YEARS.
2020 COMPARISON OF OFFICES
JURISDICTION STAFF
2019
Taxable
Value
Taxable
Value Per
Employee
Taxes
Budgeted
2019
Budget Per
Employee
Population
of
Jurisdiction
Population
Per
Employee
2020-21
Assessment
Expense Levy
Taxes Per
Capita
Residential
COD 2019
Commercial
COD 2019
Yrs in
Office
Appraisal
Experience
AMES 8 $3,107 388$ 1,307,379$ 163,422$ 66,258 8,282 0.34504 $19.73 9.63 38.55 14 33
POLK COUNTY 38 $26,271 691$ 6,977,214$ 183,611$ 490,161 12,899 0.24836 $14.23 15.71 22.99 6 40
POTTAWATTAMIE 13 $5,106 393$ 1,801,459$ 138,574$ 93,206 7,170 0.35575 $19.33 20.58 26.94 3 32
CEDAR RAPIDS 15 $6,957 464$ 2,327,340$ 155,156$ 133,562 8,904 0.27311 $17.43 12.62 30.06 2 22
JOHNSON 10 $4,695 470$ 1,548,273$ 154,827$ 76,010 7,601 0.28010 $20.37 8.17 18.73 5 29
STORY 7 $1,966 281$ 948,112$ 135,445$ 30,859 4,408 0.44753 $30.72 10.68 17.30 42 47
DALLAS 11 $6,427 584$ 1,868,186$ 169,835$ 93,453 8,496 0.24430 $19.99 8.16 65.25 17 27
SIOUX CITY 9 $3,078 342$ 1,251,836$ 139,093$ 82,651 9,183 0.38116 $15.15 16.91 29.34 18 27
LINN 13 $4,888 376$ 1,886,971$ 145,152$ 93,144 7,165 0.27103 $20.26 10.23 29.89 12 27
DAVENPORT 12 $4,790 399$ 1,648,046$ 137,337$ 101,590 8,466 0.26758 $16.22 16.86 23.70 6 29
IOWA CITY 7 $4,174 596$ 1,093,358$ 156,194$ 75,130 10,733 0.25979 $14.55 6.87 16.87 6 25
WOODBURY 5 $1,718 344$ 823,772$ 164,754$ 20,456 4,091 0.47953 $40.27 19.12 39.73 5.5 27
DUBUQUE CITY 6 $2,585 431$ 825,294$ 137,549$ 57,882 9,647 0.24949 $14.26 16.86 21.74 2 14
CLINTON CO 6 $2,383 397$ 1,402,544$ 233,757$ 46,429 7,738 0.38085 $30.21 25.13 41.54 6 13
BLACKHAWK 14 $5,657 404$ 1,630,937$ 116,496$ 131,228 9,373 0.22095 $12.43 18.62 33.73 6 20
BOONE 7 $1,615 231$ 827,211$ 118,173$ 26,234 3,748 0.44300 $31.53 20.41 42.42 14 32
MUSCATINE 5 $2,063 413$ 687,476$ 137,495$ 42,664 8,533 0.34500 $16.11 16.74 17.65 2 23
DUBUQUE CO.8 $2,457 307$ 871,597$ 108,950$ 39,429 4,929 0.30756 $22.11 13.58 27.62 15 40
SCOTT 9 $4,589 510$ 1,082,800$ 120,311$ 71,353 7,928 0.17432 $15.18 10.64 22.59 4.5 16.5
WARREN 7 $2,364 338$ 877,500$ 125,357$ 51,466 7,352 0.49501 $17.05 13.24 16.60 4 19
Iowa City Rank 13 10 2 9 15 10 2 6 4 1 2 8 13
MILLIONS MILLIONS YEARS
MEDIAN 8.5 3,641$ $398 $1,279,608 $138,833 63,889 8,105 0.29383 $18.38 14.65 27.28 6 27
IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE HAS HAD THE LOWEST RESIDENTIAL COD IN THE STATE FOR 7 CONSECUTIVE YEARS.
TAXES BUDGETED FOR THE OFFICE DIVIDED BY 2019 POPULATION SHOWS IOWA CITY AT THE 4TH LOWEST AMOUNT.
IOWA CITY RANKS 2ND TO POLK COUNTY IN TAXABLE VALUE/STAFF AND POPULATION/STAFF WHICH REFLECTS OUR OFFICE EFFICIENCY.
POPULATION NUMBERS ARE BASED ON 2019 ESTIMATES FROM WWW.CENSUS.GOV
NOTICE
THE CITY CONFERENCE BOARD IS CONSIDERING APPOINTMENT TO THE FOLLOW ING BOARD:
BOARD OF REVIEW
One vacancy – Six-Year Term
January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2026
It is the duty of members of the Board of Review to: equalize assessments by raising or lowering
the individual assessments of real property, including new buildings, personal property or monies
and credits made by the Assessor;
to add to the assessed rolls any taxable property which has been omitted by the Assessor.
Members of the Board of Review shall be residents of the Assessor’s jurisdiction. Iowa City-appointed
mem bers of boards and commissions must be 18 years of age. The City of Iowa City encourages diversity
in the appointment of citizens to boards and commissions
Applications must be received by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 1, 2020. An application can be
completed and submitted on the City of Iowa City website at www.icgov.org or by contacting the City
Clerk’s office
Questions about the Iowa City Board of Review should be directed to Brad Comer at 356-6066.
20 21
bcomer@johnsoncountyiowa.gov
IOWA CITY ASSESSOR
01/01/2021
IOWA CITY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE
2020 ANNUAL REPORT
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
1
C o n t e n t s
2020-2021 IOW A CITY CONFERENCE BOARD ................................................................. 2
IOW A CITY CITY COUNCIL ............................................................................................. 2
IOW A CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD ................................................................... 2
JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .......................................................... 2
IOW A DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FINANCE ......................................................... 2
OTHER BOARDS AND SUPPORT STAFF ......................................................................... 3
IOW A CITY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE STAFF ..................................................................... 3
IOW A CITY BOARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 3
IOW A CITY EXAMINING BOARD ..................................................................................... 3
LEGAL COUNSEL ............................................................................................................ 3
ANNUAL REPORT ............................................................................................................... 4
MISSION STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 4
GOALS .............................................................................................................................. 4
OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................... 4
VALUATIONS ................................................................................................................... 5
COURT CASES ................................................................................................................ 5
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD ................................................................ 5
BOARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 6
EQUITY VERSUS MARKET IN ASSESSMENT ............................................................... 6
WEB PAGE ....................................................................................................................... 6
ROLLBACKS ..................................................................................................................... 6
NEW LEGISLATION ......................................................................................................... 7
CONTINUING EDUCATION ............................................................................................. 8
ASSESSMENT DATA .......................................................................................................... 9
2020 ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR IOW A CITY ................................................ 9
EXEMPT PROPERTY IN IOW A CITY FOR 2020 ............................................................. 9
VALUE COMPARISONS W ITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED ................................................ 10
COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL VALUES TO
TOTAL ASSESSED AND TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE ................................................... 12
2019 TOP REAL ESTATE TAXPAYERS ........................................................................ 13
COMPARISON OF TAX RATES TO CITIES WITH A CITY ASSESSOR ....................... 14
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................ 14
RESIDENTIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS .......................................................... 14
COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ......................................................... 16
HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICS ....................................................... 16
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
2
2020-2021 IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD
IOW A CITY CITY COUNCIL
2021 Council 2020 Council
Bruce Teague, Mayor Bruce Teague, Mayor
Mazahir Salih, Mayor Pro Tem Mazahir Salih, Mayor Pro Tem
Laura Bergus Laura Bergus
Susan Mims Susan Mims
Pauline Taylor Pauline Taylor
John Thomas John Thomas
Janice W einer Janice Weiner
IOW A CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD
2020-21 School Board 2019-20 School Board
Shawn Eyestone, President Janet Godwin, President
*Ruthina Malone, Vice President Shawn Eyestone, Vice President
J.P. Claussen J.P. Claussen
Dromi Etsey *Charlie Eastham
Janet Godwin Ruthina Malone
Lisa Williams *Paul Roesler
*Charlie Eastham Lisa W illiams
*Conference Board Designee
JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
2021 Board 2020 Board
Pat Heiden, Chairperson Rod Sullivan, C hairperson
Royceann Porter, Vice chairperson Pat Heiden, Vice Chairperson
Lisa Green-Douglass Lisa Green-Douglass
Janelle Rettig Royceann Porter
Rod Sullivan Janelle Rettig
IOW A DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FINANCE
Kraig Paulsen – Director, Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
3
OTHER BOARDS AND SUPPORT STAFF
IOW A CITY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE STAFF
Brad Comer – Iowa City Assessor Date of Employment: 14 Jan, 2002
Appointed 2015 thru 2019 (remainder of prior
assessor’s appointment)
Re-appointed: 2020 thru 2025
Marty Burkle – Chief Deputy Assessor Date of Employment: 01 Feb, 2006
Hired as Chief Deputy 9 Mar, 2015
Mary Paustian – Deputy Assessor Date of Employment: 05 Jan, 2011
Hired as Deputy 8 June, 2015
Mark Fedler – Appraiser/Clerk Date of Employment: 20 Jun, 1994
Diane Campbell – Accounting Clerk Date of Employment: 16 Feb, 1998
Todd Kruse – Real Estate Clerk Date of Employment: 14 May, 2001
Bruce Sodahl – Appraiser Date of Employment: 29 May, 2018
IOW A CITY BOARD OF REVIEW
Ernie Galer Appointed 2018 through 2023
Mike Hahn Appointed 2019 through 2024
Ryan O’Leary Appointed 2020 through 2025
Sara Meierotto Appointed 2016 through 2021
Phoebe Martin, Appointed 2015 through 2020
IOW A CITY EXAMINING BOARD
Karin Franklin for Iowa City Appointed 2018 through 2023
Mike Kennedy for Johnson County Appointed 2017 through 2022
Chace Ramey for Iowa City Schools Appointed 2019 through 2024
LEGAL COUNSEL
Eleanor Dilkes – City Attorney
Eric Goers – Assistant City Attorney
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
4
ANNUAL REPORT
To: Members of the Iowa City Assessor’s Conference Board
From: Brad Comer – Iowa City Assessor
Subject: 2020 Annual Report – Issued December 31, 2020
The following report covers the activities of this office from January 1, 2020 to date of issue.
MISSION STATEMENT
The purpose of the Iowa City Assessor’s Office is to find, list and value for tax purposes, all
real property in Iowa City and maintain records for all parcels in Iowa City.
GOALS
To establish values according to Iowa law on all commercial, industrial, agricultural,
residential and multi-residential property within the City of Iowa City; to achieve equitable
assessments across all classes of property based on actual physical aspects of the
property and all pertinent sales data available; to improve the efficiency by which these
assessments are made; to provide prompt and courteous response to all inquiries for
information.
OBJECTIVES
1. Receive calls and inquiries and dispense information efficiently and in a timely manner.
2. Complete all daily record changes and related duties as they are received.
3. On a quarterly basis, inspect and review all new construction and demolition, and make
final review of said construction and demolition by January 1 every year.
4. Notify all new homeowners of potential eligibility for the homestead and military credits
by July 1 every year.
5. Notify all owners of commercial and industrial property of potential eligibility for the
business property tax credit (BPTC) by July 1 every year.
6. Remove all homestead exemptions, military credits and business property tax credits
from the permanent file for those who are no longer eligible to receive the credit by July
1 every year.
7. Efficiently process all other new and routine annual filings, making sure they are in
compliance with all laws and rules, and filed by their statutory dates.
8. Send out assessment notices to all properties requiring assessment notices, by April 1 st
every year.
9. Accept formal written protests for the Board of Review from April 2nd to April 30th,
inclusive, every year and coordinate the Board of Review meetings during the month of
May.
10. Receive and review tentative equalization orders from the State Department of Revenue
and Finance in August of reassessment years.
11. Receive final equalization orders by October 1 of reassessment years.
12. Accept formal written protests for the Board of Review Special Session from October 9
thru October 31 inclusive of reassessment year and coordinate the Board of Review
Special Session from October 10 to November 15 of reassessment years, if needed.
13. Prepare and distribute the annual report by December 31 every year.
14. Hold preliminary Conference Board and public hearings to adopt the annual budget by
March 15 every year.
15. Prepare and submit annual abstract to the Department of Revenue & Finance by July 1
every year.
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
5
16. Maintain assessment information on website at http://iowacity.iowaassessors.com and
make improvements based on input from the public. The site went online February 15,
2001 and has over 2 million hits since that time.
17. Provide online access to application forms for Homestead Credits, Military Exemptions,
Commercial Property Tax Credits, Charitable Exemptions, Business Property Tax Credits,
and Board of Review petition forms which are available on our Johnson County website at
**********.johnsoncountyiowa.com .
18. Review sales as they occur and compare selling price to assessments.
19. Review selling price/assessment ratios by neighborhood, age, size, building type and
other relevant criteria.
20. Make adjustments to assessed value as indicated by the sales review and land value
review at least every 2 years.
21. Physically inspect properties with selling price-to-assessment ratios outside acceptable
standards.
22. Utilize GIS for quality control of assessment data and analysis of valuation.
23. Update recording information (book & page) on our website for older sales.
24. Maintain in-house re-appraisal of all Commercial properties in Iowa City.
25. Annually inspect/re-appraise 10% of residential properties in Iowa City.
26. Continue to cross-train employees for tasks or skills that are outside their specific job
descriptions.
VALUATIONS
Although 2020 was not a real estate revaluation year, some revaluation occurs each year
as part of our ongoing reassessment efforts, especially in residential property. Residential
new construction added approximately $114 million and revaluation about $33 million.
Commercial new construction added approximately $26 million and revaluation added
about $5 million. There was $11 million of Multi-residential new construction and $3 million
of revaluation.
1015 residential deed sales in 2020 give us a median ratio (assessed value/sale price) of
93.27% compared to 95.22% for 1034 sales in 2019 at the time of sale. This tells us that
the selling prices of homes have increased since last year and the number of sales has
remained stable. The number of sales above does not include new construction completed
during the past year. When including new construction there were 1098 sales.
It should be kept in mind that when a jurisdiction is at the State mandated sales ratio level
of 100%, a full one-half of home sales will be for less than the assessed value. Sales for
less than the assessed value tend to result in appeals to the Board of Review.
COURT CASES
There are six active District Court appeals that were filed in 2019 and one that was filed in
2020.
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPE AL BOARD
There were 13 commercial properties and 1 residential property appealed to PAAB for
2020. The residential property has been settled. Eight commercial parcels that appealed
to PAAB for 2018 and 2019 are still active.
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
6
BOARD OF REVIEW
The Board of Review was in session from May 1 through June 12, the day of adjournment.
397 protests were filed, with 21 being upheld and 376 denied. The total value of real estate
being protested was $157,227,510. The Board allowed a total reduction of $9,056,340.
EQUITY VERSUS MARKET IN ASSESSMENT
It is difficult to be both equitable among assessments and in tune with the market. Similar
properties do not always sell for similar prices, so the market is not always equitable and
sometimes a long way from it. Most assessors would lean toward equity if they could
choose between the two. Our first priority is equity since it is not always possible to have
every assessment match the selling price. Our statistics show that we are doing a good job
in this regard.
WEB PAGE
The Iowa City Assessor’s web page went online during the spring of 2001. Internet
availability of comparable sales and comparable assessments has been very helpful to
taxpayers concerned about the fairness of their assessments. Links are also provided to
the Johnson County Treasurer for tax information and to the Johnson County GIS for
online maps and aerial photography. We continue to look for ways to get more of our
information accessible online and to increase the ability to query our data. In recent years,
historical property record cards were added to our website. All of this has, and continues
to reduce traffic at our counter, and frees up personnel to focus on our core function of
equitable assessment of property.
There have been over 2 million hits on our web site since it went online. It can be seen at
*******iowacity.iowaassessors.com. We also have an internet presence through the
Johnson County website at http://www.johnsoncountyiowa.gov . Electronic forms for the
Homestead Credit, Military Exemption, Business Property Tax Credit, Charitable
Exemptions, and Board of Review appeals are available to the public on this web page
site.
ROLLBACKS
The residential rollback will increase from 55.0743%, for the current taxes, to 56.4094% for
taxes payable in 2021-2022.
The rollback for agricultural property will increase from 81.4832% to 84.0305%.
The commercial rollback will stay at 90% for the foreseeable future.
Multi-Residential is a newer class of property that started with the 2015 assessment year
(taxes payable 2016-2017). This class of property will have a rollback of 67.50% for the 2020
assessment year (taxes payable 2021-2022) and continue to decrease until the 2022
assessment year, when it will equal the residential rollback.
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
7
NEW LEGISLATION
The 2020 Iowa Legislative Session produced two property tax law changes.
HF 2641 – This bill gives the Director of Revenue the power to deny an assessor’s
appointment. Does not allow an assessor or deputy to personally assess their property or
property of an immediate family member. Requires the assessor to receive approval from
city or county counsel in order to get outside counsel to assist the city or county attorney in
assessment matters.
HF 2382 – This bill relates to the confidentiality concerning individuals allowed a disabled
veteran tax credit and military tax exemption. This act provides that the name and address
of an individual allowed a Disabled Veteran Tax Credit or a military property tax exemption
maintained by the county recorder, county assessor, city assessor, or other entity are
confidential. However, the Act allows the sharing of this information upon request to a
county veteran’s service officer for purposes of providing information on veterans’ benefits.
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
8
CONTINUING EDUCATION
Continuing education is a requirement for the assessor and deputies for re-appointment to
their positions. Over a six-year term, assessors must complete one hundred-fifty hours of
classroom instruction, including at least ninety hours from courses requiring a test.
Deputies must complete ninety hours of classroom instruction, including at least sixty
tested hours over their six-year terms. It is also beneficial for other employees to attend
classes so they can update their skills and stay current with assessment practices.
The Assessor attended the following courses and conferences during 2020:
ISAC Spring School of Instruction
(Iowa State Association of Counties ) 5.5 C.E. Hrs.
IAAO Annual Conference on Assessment
Administration – webinar
(International Association of Assessing Officers )
12 C.E. Hrs.
ISAA Annual School of Instruction - webinar
(Iowa State Association of Assessors) 2.00 C.E. Hrs.
Iowa Assessment and Taxation Review 18.50 C.E. Hrs. (Tested)
The Chief Deputy attended the following courses and conferences during 2019:
ISAA Annual School of Instruction - webinar 2.00 C.E. Hrs.
The Second Deputy attended the following courses and conferences during 2019:
ISAA Annual School of Instruction - webinar 2.00 C.E. Hrs.
ISAC Annual Conference 5.50 C.E. Hrs.
Other staff attended classes and seminars related to operation and maintenance of various
third party software utilized by the assessor’s office.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My staff and I would like to thank the Conference Board, the Board of Review, the City
Attorney and her assistants, and the City Staff along with Johnson County and the Iowa
City School Board for their assistance, cooperation and confidence during the past year. I
would also like to recognize and thank my staff at this time for their part in establishing and
maintaining the professional standards of the office.
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
9
ASSESSMENT DAT A
2020 ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR IOWA CITY
Value of Agricultural Land and Structures $1,738,200
Value of Residential Dwellings on Agricultural Realty $806,690
Value of Residential Lots and Buildings $5,142,332,820
Value of Commercial Lots and Buildings $1,119,633,176
Value of Multi-Residential Lots and Buildings $549,493,092
Value of Industrial Lots and Buildings $80,001,410
Actual Value of All Real Estate* $6,894,005,388
*All of the above values are based on the 2020 abstract as reported to the Iowa
Department of Revenue on August 7, 2020. The values for Railroad and Utility Property
are supplied to the Auditor by the Iowa Department of Revenue. The taxable (post roll-
back) value of utilities and railroads in Iowa City for 2020 is $48,537,117.
EXEMPT PROPERTY IN IOWA CITY FOR 2020
Religious Institutions $115,037,580
Literary Societies & Educational Institutions $7,197,240
Low Rent Housing $6,263,790
Associations of War Veterans $633,141
Charitable and Benevolent Societies $189,795,861
Forest and Fruit Tree $1,383,870
Partial Industrial, Urban Revitalization, Recycling, Mobile Home
Storm Shelter, Public TV & New Jobs, Geothermal, Historical $5,414,375
Sub-Total $325,725,857
University of Iowa (As Reported by U of I as of 4/30/2020) $4,331,287,369
TOTAL EXEMPT $4,657,013,226
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
10
VALUE COMP ARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED
STATE STATE ADJUSTED
YEAR ORDER TYPE VALUE ROLLBACK VALUE
2020 Agricultural 1,738,200 84.0305 1,460,619
Ag Dwelling 806,690 56.4094 455,049
Residential $5,142,332,820 56.4094 2,900,759,090
Commercial $1,119,633,176 **90.0000 1,007,669,858
Multi-Res $549,493,092 67.5000 310,157,837
Industrial $80,001,410 **90.0000 72,001,269
TOTAL $6,894,005,388 $4,292,503,722
2019* Agricultural 1,758,220 81.4832 1,432,654
Ag Dwelling 806,690 55.0743 444,279
Residential 4,997,152,490 55.0743 2,752,146,754
Commercial 1,108,642,407 **90.0000 997,778,166
Multi-Res 548,235,541 71.2500 390,617,823
Industrial 80,669,700 **90.0000 72,602,730
TOTAL $6,737,265,048 $4,215,022,406
2018 Agricultural 2,541,960 56.1324 1,426,863
Ag Dwelling 765,530 56.9180 435,724
Residential 4,432,353,660 56.9180 2,522,807,056
Commercial 1,001,176,523 **90.0000 901,058,871
Multi-Res 502,245,262 75.0000 376,683,947
Industrial 79,351,860 **90.0000 71,416,674
TOTAL $6,018,434,795 $3,873,829,135
2017* -10% Agricultural 2,949,150 54.5580 1,608,997
Ag Dwelling 1,019,410 55.6209 567,005
Residential 4,280,031,980 55.6209 2,380,592,307
Commercial 966,669,459 **90.0000 870,002,513
Multi-Res 482,528,656 78.7500 379,991,316
Industrial 74,023,380 **90.0000 66,621,042
TOTAL $5,807,222,035 $3,699,383,180
2016 Agricultural 3,484,890 47.4996 1,655,309
Ag Dwelling 1,015,050 56.9391 577,960
Residential 4,012,070,900 56.9391 2,284,437,062
Commercial 879,281,368 **90.0000 791,353,231
Multi-Res 420,708,451 82.5000 347,084,472
Industrial 79,489,600 **90.0000 71,540,640
TOTAL $5,396,050,259 $3,496,648,674
2015* Agricultural 3,814,000 46.1068 1,758,513
Ag Dwelling 1,120,840 55.6259 623,477
Residential 3,893,910,250 55.6259 2,166,022,622
Commercial 859,076,798 **90.0000 773,169,118
Multi-Res 415,794,401 86.2500 358,622,670
Industrial 80,349,550 **90.0000 72,314,595
TOTAL $5,254,065,839 $3,372,510,995
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
11
VALUE COMP ARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED - CONTINUED
STATE STATE ADJUSTED
YEAR ORDER TYPE VALUE ROLLBACK VALUE
2014 Agricultural 3,784,570 44.7021 1,691,782
Ag Dwelling 1,202,940 55.7335 670,440
Residential 3,616,765,260 55.7335 2,015,749,866
Commercial 1,158,203,990 **90.0000 1,042,383,591
Industrial 78,113,470 **90.0000 70,302,123
TOTAL $4,858,070,230 $3,130,797,802
2013* Agricultural 3,708,350 43.3997 1,609,413
Ag Dwelling 1,190,610 54.4002 647,694
Residential 3,494,886,480 54.4002 1,901,225,235
Commercial 1,160,168,050 **95.0000 1,102,159,648
Industrial 80,897,070 **95.0000 76,852,217
M & E 0 0
TOTAL $4,740,850,560 $3,082,494,207
2012 Agricultural 2,743,540 59.9334 1,644,297
Ag Dwelling 1,190,610 52.8166 628,840
Residential 3,371,349,260 52.8166 1,780,632,053
Commercial 1,122,041,780 1.000000 1,122,041,780
Industrial 78,576,040 1.000000 78,576,040
M & E 0 1.000000 0
TOTAL $4,575,901,230 $2,983,523,010
2011* +6.1% Agricultural 2,566,040 57.5411 1,476,528
Ag Dwelling 1,313,570 50.7518 666,660
Residential 3,264,269,180 50.7518 1,656,675,366
Commercial 1,182,516,370 1.000000 1,182,516,370
Industrial 80,153,050 1.000000 80,153,050
M & E 0 1.000000 0
TOTAL $4,530,818,210 $2,921,487,974
2010 Agricultural 2,317,426 69.0152 1,599,376
Ag Dwelling 1,256,350 48.5299 609,705
Residential 3,182,677,000 48.5299 1,544,549,965
Commercial 1,170,960,470 1.000000 1,170,960,470
Industrial 81,786,730 1.000000 81,786,730
M & E 0 1.000000 0
TOTAL $4,438,997,976 $2,799,506,246
The adjusted values given are not exact but are meant to give a representation of the
growth of Iowa City’s tax base.
* Reassessment Year
** Commercial and Industrial Rollback Loss is to be replaced by the State of Iowa, based
on 2014 replacement amounts.
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
12
Total Assessed Value over time and Year to Year change in Total Assessed Value
COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL VALUES TO
TOTAL ASSESSED AND TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE
ASSESSED VALUES
Year Residential % Commercial % Multi-Res % Industrial % AG %
2020 5,143,139,510 74.6 1,119,633,176 16.2 549,493,092 8.0 80,001,410 1.2 1,738,200 <0.03
2019 4,998,894,480 74.2 1,108,642,407 16.5 548,235,541 8.1 80,669,700 1.2 1,758,220 <0.03
2018 4,433,119,190 73.7 1,001,176,523 16.6 502,245,262 8.3 79,351,860 1.3 2,541,960 <0.05
2017 4,281,051,390 73.7 966,669,459 16.6 482,528,656 8.3 74,023,380 1.3 2,949,150 <0.1
2016 4,013,085,950 74.4 879,281,368 16.3 420,708,451 7.8 79,489,600 1.5 3,484,890 <0.1
2015 3,895,031,090 74.1 859,076,798 16.3 415,794,401 7.9 80,349,550 1.5 3,814,000 0.1
2014 3,617,968,200 74.5 1,158,203,990 23.8 NA 78,113,470 1.6 3,784,570 0.1
2013 3,496,077,090 73.7 1,160,168,050 24.5 NA 80,897,070 1.7 3,708,350 0.1
2012 3,372,539,870 73.7 1,122,041,780 24.5 NA 78,576,040 1.7 2,743,540 0.1
2011 3,265,582,750 72.1 1,182,516,370 26.1 NA 80,153,050 1.7 2,566,040 0.1
TAXABLE VALUES
2020 2,901,214,139 67.6 1,007,669,858 23.5 310,157,837 7.2 72,001,269 1.7 1,460,619 <0.04
2019 2,752,591,033 65.3 997,778,166 23.7 390,617,823 9.3 72,602,730 1.7 1,432,654 <0.04
2018 2,523,242,780 65.1 901,058,871 23.3 376,683,947 9.7 71,416,674 1.8 1,426,863 <0.04
2017 2,381,159,312 64.4 870,002,513 23.5 379,991,316 10.3 66,621,042 1.8 1,608,997 <0.05
2016 2,285,015,022 65.3 791,353,231 22.6 347,084,472 9.9 71,540,640 2.1 1,655,309 <0.1
2015 2,166,646,099 64.2 773,169,118 22.9 358,622,670 10.6 72,314,595 2.2 1,758,513 0.1
2014 2,016,420,307 64.4 1,042,383,591 33.3 NA 70,302,123 2.2 1,691,782 0.1
2013 1,901,872,929 61.7 1,102,159,648 35.7 NA 76,852,217 2.5 1,609,413 0.1
2012 1,781,260,893 59.7 1,122,041,780 37.6 NA 78,576,040 2.6 1,644,297 0.1
2011 1,657,342,026 56.7 1,182,516,370 40.4 NA 80,153,050 2.8 1,476,527 0.1
Commercial-Industrial Rollback Loss is to be replaced by State of Iowa at FY 2017 levels.
$157
$719
$211
$412
$142
$396
$117
$165
$45
$92
$59 $59
$105
$325
$119
$505
$107
$243
$62
$241
$106
$193
$61
$180
$55
$285
$60
$198
$40
$137
$34
$68
$17 $34 $20
$73
$48
$157
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$-
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
MillionsBillionsTotal
Abstract
Value
Total
Change In
Value
(Millions)
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
13
Percentage of Taxable and Assessed Value – Past 15 Years
2019 TOP REAL ESTATE TAXPAYERS
(Excluding Utilities & Credit Unions Assessed by the State)
Rank Contract or Title holder
2018
Assessed
Value
# of
Parcels
Actual
2018 Taxes
1 ACT INC $50,293,630 18 $1,730,916
2 RISE AT RIVERFRONT CROSSING OWNER LLC $55,704,910 332 $1,182,556
3 BBCS-HAWKEYE HOUSING LLC (Apartments) $50,166,360 522 $1,064,952
4 MIDWESTONE BANK $26,711,670 6 $932,736
5 TAILWIND IOWA CITY, LLC (The Quarters) $42,542,070 352 $903,210
6 ANN S GERDIN REVOCABLE TRUST (Warehouses) $25,349,770 4 $873,512
7 GRADUATE IOWA CITY OWNER, LLC (Sheraton) $22,750,680 1 $830,216
8 DEALER PROPERTIES IC LLC (Billion Auto) $22,802,690 4 $785,148
9 RIVERFRONT CROSSING HOSPITALITY OWNER LLC $19,755,190 3 $685,346
10 PROCTER & GAMBLE HAIR CARE LLC $18,627,320 3 $643,258
11 NATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC $18,602,980 2 $642,412
12 IOWA CITY HOTEL ASSOCIATES LLC (Hilton Garden Inn) $17,305,550 1 $628,400
13 WEBBER-IOWA LLC (Apartments/Condos) $28,279,210 120 $600,368
14 VESPER IOWA CITY LLC (Hawks Ridge Apartments) $27,604,980 201 $586,116
15 ALPLA INC $15,664,760 2 $540,480
16 FSC HEALTHCARE IV DST $15,368,720 1 $530,210
17 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST $14,486,400 1 $499,602
18 MENARD INC $13,844,970 1 $477,348
19 MCLAUGHLIN, MICHAEL T (Retail/Apartments) $20,662,140 77 $449,428
20 OC GROUP LC (Old Capitol Town Center) $12,297,880 2 $445,660
21 CORE SYCAMORE TOWN CENTER LLC $12,392,400 1 $426,956
22 CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT SERVICES INC (Oaknoll) $18,854,380 15 $401,330
23 MERCY FACILITIES INC $11,504,440 8 $393,190
24 PLAZA TOWERS LLC $11,553,230 66 $381,634
25 THE CHAUNCEY LLC $11,032,811 73 $374,222
* Utilities and railroads actual taxes billed for the 2019 assessment year were $1,965,854.
* If MidAmerican Energy were included, it would rank 2 nd with $1,436,211 Taxes Billed.
** These figures do not include the money state has paid to the county for the BPTC.
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Residential
Assessed
Commercial,
Multi-Res, &
Industrial
Assessed
Residential
Taxable
Commercial,
Multi-Res, &
Industrial
TaxablePercentage of Total Value
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
14
COMPARISON OF TAX RATES TO CITIES WITH A CITY ASSESSOR
(Sorted by Assessor levy - Low to High)
City
18-19
Assessor
Levy
19-20
Assessor
Levy
20-21
Assessor
Levy
19-20
Total Levy
20-21
Total Levy
DUBUQUE .27535 .27080 .24949 32.66554 32.29306
IOWA CITY .23187 .19747 .25979 38.60077 38.54661
DAVENPORT .32800 .31997 .26758 39.41990 39.44684
CEDAR RAPIDS .29933 .25546 .27311 37.86961 39.00813
AMES .29989 .35032 .34504 31.52258 31.48724
SIOUX CITY .31049 .42948 .38116 39.67376 36.98537
MASON CITY .40998 .38530 .45811 35.54903 36.16948
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS
The median sales ratio (median) is the middle sales ratio and a measure of the percent of
our assessment to the actual sales prices. The coefficient of dispersion (C.O.D.) is a
measure of assessment uniformity based on the degree to which individual sales ratios
vary from the median sales ratio. The goal of the Iowa City Assessor is to keep this C.O.D.
below 10. A C.O.D. of 10 is considered excellent.
RESIDENTIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The following statistics are for Residential sales, and below are tables of the ranking of
Iowa City in comparison to the other 106 assessing jurisdictions in Iowa. For brevity, only
the top 10 are shown. Data is for 2019 sales which is the last complete year available.
These tables show that Iowa City is still one of only a few jurisdictions in Iowa with a C.O.D.
of less than 10. Iowa City also has a large number of sales as could be expected by its
size and mobile population.
SORTED BY COD
Rank Jurisdiction Mean Median W eighted C O D PRD
1 IOWA CITY 95.22% 95.27% 95.81% 6.87% 99.4%
2 DALLAS 95.13% 94.92% 91.13% 8.16% 104.4%
3 JOHNSON 93.37% 93.36% 92.67% 8.17% 100.7%
4 AMES CITY 95.22% 94.69% 88.43% 9.63% 107.7%
5 LINN 94.97% 93.23% 93.85% 10.23% 101.2%
6 SCOTT 94.56% 93.00% 94.52% 10.64% 100.0%
7 STORY 94.65% 94.95% 93.60% 10.68% 101.1%
8 BREMER 96.57% 94.36% 94.22% 11.94% 102.5%
9 CEDAR RAPIDS 97.22% 93.95% 93.98% 12.62% 103.5%
10 CHEROKEE 95.00% 93.49% 91.22% 12.84% 104.1%
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
15
The Regression Index, also known as the Price Related Differential (PRD), is an indicator
of the degree to which high value properties are over or under assessed in relationship to
low value properties. An index of 100 indicates no difference in assessments of high value
properties in comparison to low value properties based upon that year’s sales. An index
over 100 indicates that high value properties are under assessed in relation to low value
properties. As you can see in the following table, Iowa City’s regression index is still close
to the ideal 100 level. For brevity, only the top 15 are shown.
SORTED BY REGRESSION INDEX (URBAN RESIDENTIAL)
Rank Jurisdiction Mean Median W eighted C O D PRD
1 SCOTT 94.56% 93.00% 94.52% 10.64% 100.0%
2 IOWA CITY 95.22% 95.27% 95.81% 6.87% 99.4%
3 JOHNSON 93.37% 93.36% 92.67% 8.17% 100.7%
4 STORY 94.65% 94.95% 93.60% 10.68% 101.1%
5 LINN 94.97% 93.23% 93.85% 10.23% 101.2%
6 SIOUX 95.62% 93.29% 93.39% 13.94% 102.4%
7 SIOUX CITY 91.98% 88.35% 89.79% 16.91% 102.4%
8 BREMER 96.57% 94.36% 94.22% 11.94% 102.5%
9 DAVIS 94.52% 93.65% 92.07% 17.95% 102.7%
10 WARREN 94.61% 92.31% 92.12% 13.24% 102.7%
11 CHICKASAW 93.89% 93.87% 91.31% 17.41% 102.8%
12 CLAY 96.09% 94.70% 93.44% 15.30% 102.8%
13 DUBUQUE (COUNTY) 96.21% 93.65% 93.35% 13.58% 103.1%
14 GRUNDY 98.55% 95.68% 95.55% 18.72% 103.1%
15 DUBUQUE (CITY) 96.86% 92.61% 93.92% 14.77% 103.1%
Below is a tabulation of year by year sales statistics for Iowa City Residential Property
over time.
Year Median C.O.D # Of Sales Average Sale Price Total Price
Estimate #2020 93.27 7.90 1015 271,887 275,965,305
#2019 95.22 6.87 1034 275,980 285,363,320
#2018 88.73 7.84 1020 266,715 272,049,300
#2017 91.35 7.60 1069 246,289 263,282,941
2016 92.44 7.69 1064 224,879 239,271,256
*2015 94.20 7.30 999 219,886 219,666,114
2014 92.62 7.49 974 209,633 204,182,923
*2013 95.18 6.72 937 204,632 191,740,184
2012 96.55 8.02 826 195,585 161,553,210
*2011 97.57 7.32 740 191,701 141,858,740
2010 95.92 9.99 745 182,635 136,062,994
*2009 95.42 8.29 796 191,459 152,401,156
2008 95.92 7.92 833 188,873 157,331,213
*2007 95 7.88 856 192,294 164,603,799
2006 88.70 9.67 665 197,878 131,588,850
*2005 90.50 8.61 717 186,437 133,675,410
2004 84.50 9.57 751 176,136 132,277,978
*2003 88.30 7.93 809 159,766 129,250,592
2002 94.32 8.03 777 152,219 118,274,003
*2001 94.60 7.83 682 144,912 98,830,294
2000 89 9.16 675 137,725 92,964,467
*1999 93.30 9.38 691 134,200 92,732,093
1998 91.60 8.24 699 129,556 90,559,435
* All odd numbered years are re-Assessment year
# - Starting in 2017 avg sale price includes new construction. Previously did not include new construction.
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
16
COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The Coefficient of Dispersion for Commercial properties varies from 3.88 to 189.20 with a
median of 28.46 for all Iowa jurisdictions while Residential C.O.D.’s vary from 6.87 to 43.79
with a median of 21.06. Commercial properties are typically more difficult to appraise than
residential properties because of the wide variety of building types and fewer comparable
sales. For this reason, only jurisdictions with at least 10 sales are included in table below.
COMMERCIAL SALES SORTED BY C O D (2019 Sales Analysis)
No Jurisdiction # of Sales Mean Median C O D PRD
1 CHEROKEE 12 98.76% 99.75% 15.77% 108.8%
2 JASPER 11 80.49% 80.56% 16.49% 101.1%
3 WARREN 13 79.78% 87.50% 16.60% 111.3%
4 IOWA CITY 22 91.28% 94.05% 16.87% 105.1%
5 DICKINSON 68 95.48% 94.83% 17.01% 110.1%
6 STORY 11 112.20% 124.40% 17.30% 105.6%
7 MUSCATINE 21 93.00% 96.20% 17.65% 105.4%
8 JOHNSON 31 93.50% 91.04% 18.73% 98.0%
9 HARDIN 10 82.48% 74.83% 20.58% 106.0%
10 SIOUX 17 95.44% 98.37% 20.78% 101.5%
11 CITY OF DUBUQUE 37 91.50% 94.16% 21.74% 130.0%
12 SCOTT 24 90.59% 93.03% 22.59% 103.8%
13 POLK 130 92.60% 93.38% 22.99% 106.1%
14 DAVENPORT 37 97.57% 98.59% 23.70% 120.1%
15 WASHINGTON 15 106.80% 104.30% 24.34% 121.7%
16 MASON CITY 21 96.77% 95.22% 25.61% 132.8%
17 POTTAWATTAMIE 30 86.99% 88.38% 26.94% 119.9%
18 BUTLER 10 83.45% 76.27% 28.52% 92.3%
19 BUENA VISTA 14 86.15% 85.89% 29.18% 91.1%
20 SIOUX CITY 49 105.40% 96.86% 29.34% 119.4%
HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL S ALES STATISTICS
Below is a tabulation of year by year sales statistics for Iowa City commercial properties.
Because of the small number of sales, one or two bad sales can greatly influence the
performance measurements, therefore creating greater fluctuation in the numbers. See data
above to illustrate this and to show Iowa City’s standing
Year Median C.O.D.
# of
Sales Year Median C.O.D.
# of
Sales
Estimate 2020 94.90 18.86 11 1999 87.50 14.14 33
2019 91.28 16.87 22 1998 89.10 11.68 25
2018 78.88 14.13 9 1997 87.80 11.57 21
2017 95.25 12.03 6 1996 89.50 15.78 24
2016 92.54 21.77 19 1995 90.10 12.76 22
2015 90.67 13.13 12 1994 87.90 12.44 24
2014 90.82 15.39 12 1993 90.35 14.24 26
2013 92.98 18.15 20 1992 89.90 14.86 21
2012 93.51 12.84 14 1991 87.85 8.38 8
2011 90.83 27.99 18 1990 89.60 19.53 13
2010 97.77 12.82 29 1989 94.40 13.81 13
2009 89.21 13.60 29 1988 95.40 19.77 20
2008 95.29 21.32 36 1987 87.65 17.27 16
2007 91.80 23.24 35 1986 98.20 14.21 15
2006 87.55 17.05 26 1985 82 12.63 16
2005 85.65 15.52 34 1984 76.80 18.30 13
2004 80.90 17.82 17 1983 87.85 10.58 26
2003 89.22 15.08 39 1982 78 10.25 8
2002 92.40 16.81 17 1981 87.55 10.07 14
2001 93.50 15.04 23 1980 80.85 22.69 12
2000 96.85 14.99 28 1979 78 16.66 15
Iowa City Assessor’s Office 2020 Annual Report
17
MULTIRESIDENTIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The Coefficient of Dispersion for Multiresidential properties varies from 1.95 to 164.50 with
a median of 20.53 for all Iowa jurisdictions. Only jurisdictions with at least 5 sales are
included in table below.
MULTIRESIDENTIAL SALES SORTED BY C O D (2019 Sales Analysis)
No Jurisdiction # of Sales Mean Median C O D PRD
1 POTTAWATTAMIE 12 80.02% 81.00% 10.84% 103.4%
2 IOWA CITY 7 87.90% 88.81% 10.87% 101.4%
3 MARION 9 87.93% 82.26% 14.12% 101.3%
4 DES MOINES 7 84.99% 79.63% 17.49% 101.2%
5 MARSHALL 11 80.63% 76.77% 17.63% 119.0%
6 MUSCATINE 5 79.35% 81.27% 17.76% 126.2%
7 DUBUQUE CO. 14 79.64% 69.62% 18.02% 95.4%
8 SCOTT 20 84.61% 79.44% 19.13% 105.1%
9 POLK 56 84.12% 84.96% 19.50% 124.9%
10 JOHNSON 9 95.08% 94.11% 20.20% 94.0%
11 CLAY 8 98.87% 94.41% 20.40% 108.5%
12 CITY OF DUBUQUE 30 98.54% 93.63% 21.56% 127.4%
13 STORY 6 96.92% 88.51% 22.37% 72.7%
14 SIOUX CITY 27 95.24% 93.57% 22.77% 125.3%
15 PLYMOUTH 7 68.74% 65.79% 23.31% 103.5%
16 CLAYTON 5 80.72% 77.87% 24.66% 115.3%
17 WAPELLO 6 72.70% 67.37% 25.14% 85.8%
18 LINN 16 92.48% 85.12% 25.74% 160.2%
19 WEBSTER 6 63.50% 68.53% 25.95% 213.4%
20 CEDAR RAPIDS 27 92.95% 86.91% 26.90% 127.8%
HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL S ALES STATISTICS
Below is a tabulation of year by year sales statistics for Iowa City commercial properties.
Because of the small number of sales, one or two bad sales can greatly influence the
performance measurements, therefore creating greater fluctuation in the numbers. See data
above to illustrate this and to show Iowa City’s standing
Year Median C.O.D.
# of
Sales
Estimate 2020 100.55 8.12 14
2019 87.90 10.87 7
2018 77.42 9.93 6
2017 80.47 15.87 8
2016 84.69 14.01 9
2015 86.46 14.16 8
Item Number: 3.
J anuary 28, 2021
Work Session Agen d a
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Work Session Agenda
Item Number: 4.
J anuary 28, 2021
Proj ect Better Tog eth er Up d ate
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Better Together Update
Item Number: 5.
J anuary 28, 2021
Proj ect Better Tog eth er: A Vision for Joh n son County
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Better Together: A Vision for J ohnson County
Item Number: 6.
J anuary 28, 2021
Pen d ing City Cou n cil Work Session Topics
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Pending City Council Work S ession Topics
Item Number: 7.
J anuary 28, 2021
Memo from City Man ager & Pol ice Chief: O IR G roup Report
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Memo from City Manager & Police Chief: O I R Group Report
Date: January 28, 2021
To: Mayor and Council
From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Dustin Liston, Police Chief
Re: OIR Group Report
The OIR Group has completed their independent review of the Iowa City Police Department’s
actions surrounding the June 3rd protest event. The City Manager’s Office and the Iowa City
Police Department want to thank the City Council and the community for your patience as this
external review was completed.
After your review of the document, we will be happy to respond to your questions regarding the
report narrative and recommendations. Additionally, we look forward to future conversations
with the City Council that will establish clear expectations for Iowa City Police Department’s
response in similar situations should they arise in the future. Setting such expectations is a
critical step before pursuing needed adjustments to internal department policies, conducting
related trainings and establishing clear understandings with our mutual aid law enforcement
partners. We recommend that the City Council initiate these discussions at your earliest
convenience after your review of the OIR Group’s report.
The OIR Group has offered to make themselves available in the future should you need any
clarification on their report or wish to request additional comment from them.
IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT:
An Independent Review of ICPD
and the J une 3, 2020 Protest
January 2021
P r e s e n t e d b y :
Michael Gennaco
Stephen Connolly
Teresa Magula
2 | P a g e
323-821-0586
7142 Trask Avenue | Playa del Rey, CA 90293
OIRGroup.com
3 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6
Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 11
Before June 3: A Growing Protest Movement ...................................................................... 14
Background ............................................................................................................................. 14
Events in Other Jurisdictions ................................................................................................ 14
Events Within Iowa City......................................................................................................... 15
November 11, 2016: Precedent on I-80 ............................................................................. 17
Less Lethal Munitions Defined ............................................................................................. 18
Wednesday, June 3: Overview of Events ............................................................................. 19
Timeline ................................................................................................................................... 19
The Confrontation on Dubuque Street ................................................................................ 22
ICPD on June 3: Issues and Assessments ........................................................................... 27
Jurisdiction, Mutual Aid and Responsibility for Decision-Making ................................... 27
RECOMMENDATION 1 .................................................................................................... 29
RECOMMENDATION 2 .................................................................................................... 29
Decision to Deny Access and Block Dubuque Street ...................................................... 29
RECOMMENDATION 3 .................................................................................................... 31
Lack of Negotiation with Protestors on June 3 .................................................................. 31
RECOMMENDATION 4 .................................................................................................... 33
RECOMMENDATION 5 .................................................................................................... 33
RECOMMENDATION 6 .................................................................................................... 33
RECOMMENDATION 7 .................................................................................................... 33
RECOMMENDATION 8 .................................................................................................... 35
Crowd Proximity to Skirmish Line ........................................................................................ 36
RECOMMENDATION 9 .................................................................................................... 37
Declaration of Unlawful Assembly ....................................................................................... 37
RECOMMENDATION 10 .................................................................................................. 39
Dispersal Orders and Warnings ........................................................................................... 39
RECOMMENDATION 11 .................................................................................................. 40
RECOMMENDATION 12 .................................................................................................. 40
RECOMMENDATION 13 .................................................................................................. 40
RECOMMENDATION 14 .................................................................................................. 41
Use of Flashbangs, Tear Gas, and Other Munitions ........................................................ 41
4 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 15 .................................................................................................. 43
Additional Force Deployments ............................................................................................. 43
RECOMMENDATION 16 .................................................................................................. 46
Coordination of Medical Response ..................................................................................... 46
RECOMMENDATION 17 .................................................................................................. 47
Inability to Identify Officers .................................................................................................... 47
RECOMMENDATION 18 .................................................................................................. 48
Decision to Arrest Protester .................................................................................................. 48
RECOMMENDATION 19 .................................................................................................. 50
After June 3: A Shift in Approach ............................................................................................ 51
Additional Policy and Procedural Issues ................................................................................ 55
Use of Force Directives in Resolution 20-159 ................................................................... 55
RECOMMENDATION 20 .................................................................................................. 57
Crowd Control Policy ............................................................................................................. 57
RECOMMENDATION 21 .................................................................................................. 60
RECOMMENDATION 22 .................................................................................................. 61
RECOMMENDATION 23 .................................................................................................. 61
RECOMMENDATION 24 .................................................................................................. 61
RECOMMENDATION 25 .................................................................................................. 62
RECOMMENDATION 26 .................................................................................................. 62
RECOMMENDATION 27 .................................................................................................. 63
RECOMMENDATION 28 .................................................................................................. 63
RECOMMENDATION 29 .................................................................................................. 63
Use of the Incident Command System & Incident Action Plan ....................................... 63
RECOMMENDATION 30 .................................................................................................. 65
RECOMMENDATION 31 .................................................................................................. 65
RECOMMENDATION 32 .................................................................................................. 65
Command & Communication ............................................................................................... 65
RECOMMENDATION 33 .................................................................................................. 67
RECOMMENDATION 34 .................................................................................................. 67
RECOMMENDATION 35 .................................................................................................. 67
RECOMMENDATION 36 .................................................................................................. 67
RECOMMENDATION 37 .................................................................................................. 67
RECOMMENDATION 38 .................................................................................................. 67
5 | P a g e
Public Information Officer ...................................................................................................... 68
RECOMMENDATION 39 .................................................................................................. 69
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 70
Appendix A: Lead Up Timeline ................................................................................................ 72
Appendix B: Recommendation Summary .............................................................................. 76
6 | P a g e
Introduction
The May 25 murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis initiated a powerful wave of
reaction throughout the United States. Iowa City joined countless other communities in
grappling with the issues of police violence, racism, and structural inequity that the
Floyd matter had painfully reintroduced. The “Say Their Names” rally on Saturday, May
30 attracted hundreds to the Pentacrest; attendees stood in solidarity and listened to
remarks from activists and local elected officials. And the gatherings and
demonstrations continued into the following days, with street protests and organized
forums – and sustained and substantial acts of vandalism.
On the night of Wednesday, June 3, activity in the streets of Iowa City reached a new
level of intensity. A few hundred demonstrators joined together on a march from the
Pentacrest toward the Interstate 80 highway via Dubuque Street; it was approximately
10:30 on Wednesday night. Their intention was to physically block the highway to
exemplify the type of disruptive, needed change they considered long overdue.
As the marchers got closer to the onramp, they found themselves in a standoff with a
large cadre of officers from multiple law enforcement agencies, positioned across
Dubuque Street’s four traffic lanes in an effort to deny the protestors access to the
Interstate. That standoff, in turn, eventually transitioned into a different sort of clash –
one that became Iowa City’s highest-profile version of the divisive encounters occurring
all over the country.
After issuing announcements of questionable audibility and negligible effect, the
assembled officers on Dubuque Street deployed flashbangs, tear gas, and other
munitions in an effort to disperse the crowd and end the protest – which they had
formally characterized as an “unlawful assembly” under Iowa state law. This
immediately prompted a significant crowd reaction, driving the group back but also, in
many respects, increasing the protestors’ determination. After approximately forty more
minutes of additional, intermittent confrontations and force deployments, the remainder
of the crowd left on its own volition. There was one arrest that night.
While the key enforcement activity of June 3 ended near midnight, it had engendered a
public reaction that influenced events for days and weeks to come. This was the first
time in recent memory that Iowa City law enforcement had used tear gas, pepper balls
and flashbangs on protestors exercising their First Amendment rights. The outrage that
swiftly followed this incident further energized the protests in Iowa City; a much larger
group, including the Mayor and entire City Council, participated in the next night’s
demonstrations. Condemnations of the police response came from City officials as well
7 | P a g e
as aggrieved members of the public. And hundreds assembled to repeat the march
toward I-80 on June 4 – and this time were allowed access.
In this aftermath, the narrative that emerged about June 3 was simple and
straightforward: “The police used tear gas on peaceful protestors.” It seemed to fit within
the troubling parameters of a larger national landscape, and to exemplify the disconnect
between law enforcement and local communities that had given rise to the
demonstrations in the first place.
This independent report is one of several ways that the City of Iowa City has sought to
respond to this contentious chapter in its recent history. It uses the “tear gas on
peaceful protestors” allegation as a beginning point for a more comprehensive
assessment of that controversial event. It seeks to describe what happened that night
and explain why it did. And it also explores the issues of what could or should have
happened instead, and how that line of thinking might inform some useful adaptations
for the Iowa City Police Department (“ICPD”) going forward.
The report also offers a timeline of key events, an assessment of ICPD policies and
procedures, and recommendations for enhancing future effectiveness.1 Ideally, it will
add clarity and nuance to people’s understanding of what occurred, as a starting point
for adaptations that will benefit ICPD as well as the community.
The report was prepared by OIR Group, a team of police practices experts. Its members
have worked in the field of civilian oversight of law enforcement for nearly twenty years,
serving in a range of capacities for jurisdictions throughout California and in other
states. (For example, it completed a year-long, full-scale evaluation of the Madison,
Wisconsin Police Department in early 2018 that produced dozens of implemented
recommendations).2 Led by Michael Gennaco, a former federal prosecutor and
nationally recognized authority on police oversight, OIR Group has issued numerous
public reports that can be found on its website: www.OIRGroup.com
1 As discussed in detail below, there were several different local law enforcement entities
involved in the “mutual aid” response to the June unrest, which extended for several days
beyond June 3. This report was commissioned by the City. Accordingly, it is focused primarily
on the actions of ICPD – an agency that was not only central to enforcement efforts during
those days but also is uniquely subject to the authority of the City government. But as detailed
below, the decision-making and participation by other agencies cannot be ignored in any
comprehensive after-action review.
2 In addition to this report for Iowa City, OIR Group has also been retained to perform
independent evaluations of recent protest activity and law enforcement response for the cities of
Santa Monica and Santa Rosa in California, and Kalamazoo in Michigan.
8 | P a g e
The findings and conclusions covered below are based on lengthy interviews with ICPD
and City leadership, and some of the participants in the protest activity. It relies on
official ICPD reports and documentation relating to the events, as well as many hours of
recordings from the scene itself: primarily body-worn camera video produced by the
Department, but also news video that provided an important view of events on Dubuque
Street from what was literally the opposite direction.
While the focus of the report is on the events of June 3, our review of the incident
suggests that is it best understood in the context of the preceding and subsequent days
of public protest in the City. The shifting developments within that larger span of time
help to explain the decision-making on Dubuque Street, show the limitations of that
decision-making, and illustrate how, to its credit, ICPD and the City evolved in their
approach and avoided similar clashes in the days to follow – even as the protest activity
continued unabated well into June.
Like other jurisdictions around the country, Iowa City was in many ways unprepared for
the scope and intensity of response to George Floyd’s death; veteran law enforcement
personnel from multiple agencies told us that the demonstrations were unprecedented
in their own long careers. Prior to June 3, the involved agencies were dealing with a
growing level of unrest that had several different facets. They were adjusting as they
went along and needed to adjust again when the hundreds of protestors decided on the
night of June 3 to direct their collective attention to the I-80 as part of their
demonstration against police violence. This effort constituted a “ramping up” of intensity
to the protest and involved a target that was newly complicated from a public safety
perspective.
As discussed below, the Iowa City Police Department was working throughout those
days as part of an effort at “unified command” in which different agencies were
contributing to the response – and had different areas of primary responsibility. The
Interstate fell under the ultimate jurisdiction of the Iowa State Patrol (“ISP”), which
committed to the blocking of access on June 3 and made the key decisions about
effectuating it. But ICPD ended up playing the dominant role in the actual force
deployments to effectuate it.
In retrospect, the decisions to “draw a line in the sand” on Dubuque St. that night, to
move to the ultimatum phase with little attempt at negotiation or de-escalation, to
consider the crowd members to be collectively on notice after an acoustically limited
effort at warning them, and to use flashbangs and tear gas in effectuating the dispersal
order, are all subject to fair criticism and disapproval. The ICPD, even though providing
9 | P a g e
support to ISP as opposed to being primarily responsible, owns some of these
shortcomings.
But fairness and accuracy also require a recognition of the imperfect information,
experience level, and resources that hampered law enforcement effectiveness on June
3. It deserves mention that potential concerns about aggression and threats from a
contingent of the protestors were seemingly merited. Additionally, it should be noted
that, with rare exception, officers were professional and controlled in their performance
throughout a tense, dynamic situation – attributes that distinguished them from some of
their peers across the country in those volatile weeks.3 And the lack of serious
documented injury to crowd members or law enforcement was a positive outcome that
more traditional force options – such as the use of batons and shields to drive the crowd
from the restricted area – may well not have produced.4
Most notably, if June 3 represented a nadir of sorts, its flaws and hard lessons also
prompted shifts in enforcement strategy that paid dividends on future nights: protestors
were allowed safe access to the interstate on both June 4 and June 5, and no further
uses of tear gas or other less lethal munitions occurred. ICPD’s role was marked by a
new and more deferential approach to the demonstration activity – and an overt shift
into a support role (behind the State Patrol) with regard to demonstrations that had the
I-80 as focus. Better information and further on-the-ground familiarity led to more
productive dialogue and other approaches that defused confrontation. And the protests
themselves took on a substantive momentum that has influenced – and will seemingly
continue to influence – City government in the direction of concrete policy changes.
By offering an objective, outsider’s consideration of June 3, this report will ideally
contribute to the City’s ongoing efforts to identify issues, promote positive changes, and
rebuild trust. It brings an objective, independent eye to the task of explaining what
occurred and gleaning useful lessons for the future. And it does these things with a
3 We regularly review police and video recordings in the context of our oversight work and have
done so for several years. The use of profane, demeaning, or otherwise unprofessional
language is unfortunately a regular feature of those recordings. This is especially true in
antagonistic, high-stress contexts – as seen in the various examples of gratuitous police
conduct that emerged from protest scenes throughout the U.S. in the summer of 2020. With
this in mind, the consistently controlled demeanor of the ICPD officers made a positive
impression.
4 Four injuries related to this event were reported. One officer reported being struck in the head
with an object thrown by a protestor, a protestor experienced what was identified by the
responding EMS unit as a “panic attack,” and two protestors reported leg injuries related to
being struck with tear gas canisters – none of these required treatment or hospitalization. We
did not receive report of any other injuries.
10 | P a g e
sense of optimism. The number of people we spoke to who were involved in the
incident – on both sides of the skirmish line that night – was small. But they were each
extremely thoughtful, sincere, and genuinely dedicated to the City and its people. To
the extent they are representative of larger dynamics in Iowa City, there is cause for
encouragement.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
11 | P a g e
Methodology
In keeping with the scope of work prepared by the City for this project, we studied the
Iowa City Police Department’s actions on June 3 in two primary ways: by reviewing
written and recorded evidence of various kinds, and by speaking with representatives
from both the City and ICPD. Unfortunately, travel restrictions precluded our ability to
physically meet with people and to learn about the City and its communities in a more
organic way – and in keeping with our usual approach to assignments such as this. But
thanks in large part to the cooperation of City officials and the extensive amount of
recorded evidence at our disposal, we were able to develop the foundation that informs
the findings and recommendations we provide below.
Our insight into the ICPD perspective on events was shaped by lengthy interviews with
key members of the Department’s leadership, who also provided responsive
supplemental materials as our process continued over several weeks. We also got a
first-hand perspective with respect to the ICPD response at the scene of the June 3
confrontation. The people we spoke with were candid in their appraisal of the events
and constructive in both their defenses and self-critiques of what had occurred.
Our request for written reports and other documents produced the following materials:
Documents related to ICPD’s public After Action Report
Materials related to the City’s press release
ICPD’s internal After-Action Reports written by personnel who responded to
Dubuque Street on June 3
All operational materials, including any Incident Action Plans, related to events
from May 30 to June 3
All relevant Department policies regarding uses of force, tactics (for responses
generally and specifically, such as those of ICPD’s Special Response Team),
crowd control, civil rights, mass arrest, and communications
Reports that detailed the types and counts of less lethal munitions used on June
3
Memoranda of Understanding regarding mutual aid agreements between
responding agencies.
Central to our impressions of what happened were the 82 unique, time-stamped videos
provided by ICPD, each containing up to two hours of footage. This video evidence
included clips from City surveillance cameras located at City Hall and other locations in
downtown Iowa City. It also featured the full, unadulterated Body-Worn Camera (BWC)
and In-Car Camera footage of all ICPD officers who responded to the events of June 3,
12 | P a g e
both in downtown Iowa City in the early evening and on Dubuque Street in the later
evening.
OIR Group team members also collected extensive digital evidence from public
sources, including social media platforms, to better inform our review. OIR Group
discovered digital evidence in personal and organizational Facebook and Instagram
pages and Twitter feeds. We reviewed Live Feed and streaming video footage from
mainstream and alternative media pages in Iowa City. We especially benefitted from
reviewing the extensive live coverage of the June 3 Dubuque Street clash that was
reported by KCRG-TV9.
Additionally, OIR Group reviewed media articles about the events both in Iowa City as
well as throughout the State to understand the full context of the event and identify
important players. This review largely contributed to our understanding of the events
around Iowa City from late May to early June.
OIR Group also reviewed all Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) evidence, including
written logs and all radio broadcast communications, from June 3. We used this
detailed evidence, plus BWC, In-Car, and surveillance video, to construct the detailed
timeline included in this report.
The City also requested that we incorporate interviews with complainants into our
process. Five individuals who had participated in the protests had submitted formal
written complaints about their experience to the Iowa City Community Police Review
Board, which provides independent civilian oversight of ICPD. Because the acting Chief
– who has a customary role in the intake and investigation of complaints – was a
potential subject (as a decision-maker on June 3) in these cases, the City believed that
submission of OIR’s report to the CPRB as the “Police Chief’s report” under the
ordinance would be preferable, including independent interviews of complainants.
We reached out to the five individuals and heard back from two. We interviewed each
of them at length, and their perspective contributed significantly to our overall
impressions; their cooperation is appreciated.
Lastly, OIR Group also sought perspective from representatives of the primary agencies
that provided mutual aid to and with ICPD during the days at issue. These included the
Iowa State Police, the University of Iowa Police Department, and Johnson County
13 | P a g e
Sheriff.5 To their credit, UIPD and the Sheriff responded to our questions via email in
written format, although we would have greatly preferred an opportunity to talk with “on
the ground” representatives of the two agencies. However, ISP responded to our
request with an emailed declination.6 We were therefore unable to gather any direct
information about their involvement and command, which, as we note throughout this
report, was significant both on June 3 and on subsequent nights. Nor are we aware of
any public report of significance produced by ISP regarding its own involvement in
responding to the protests of this past summer. The chance to gain that agency’s
perspective would obviously have helped fill relevant gaps in the understanding of
influential decision-making that occurred at that time and the lack of any substantive
responsiveness to requests for information from ISP is disheartening.
The reticence of other involved agencies enhances our appreciation for the full
cooperation we received from ICPD and the City. It also reflects well on the City’s
commitment to address this incident through a public report by an independent entity.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
5 Our understanding is that other neighboring law enforcement agencies also provided
assistance in Iowa City during that time; however, their role was largely supportive in nature and
involved a relatively small number of personnel.
6 We were also advised that entreaties for information directly from Iowa City about its role in the
events of June 3 were similarly rebuffed by ISP.
14 | P a g e
Before June 3: A Growing Protest Movement
Background
Law enforcement in Iowa City is primarily the responsibility of the ICPD. However, a
number of features of the city complicate this from a jurisdictional perspective, and other
agencies play a prominent – or even leading – role with regard to both responsibility and
decision-making at specific locations within the city limits. Some of the key components
to this dynamic include the following:
Iowa City local streets and City Hall are the primary jurisdiction of ICPD
The County courthouse and jail facilities are the primary jurisdiction of the
Johnson County Sheriff
The “Old Capitol,” including the Pentacrest, is the primary jurisdiction of the
University of Iowa Police Department (UIPD)
The interstates, the most relevant herein being Interstate 80, are the primary
jurisdiction of the Iowa State Patrol.
The UIPD has a memorandum of understanding with the ICPD that members of
UIPD make up part of ICPD’s Special Response Teams (SRT)
In the days leading up to June 3, each of the above agencies responded to or became
aware of incidents of protest accompanied in some cases by civil unrest elsewhere in
the state, both within Iowa City and in other Iowa cities, such as Coralville, Davenport,
Cedar Rapids and Des Moines. How these incidents played out, and, more importantly,
law enforcement’s significantly varied responses to them, resulted in uncertainty about
the intentions of some of the protestors and best strategies for law enforcement.
Events in Other Jurisdictions
Iowa residents, like those in cities across the US, responded to the May 25 killing of
George Floyd through protest, the first of which occurred in Des Moines on Friday, May
29. These continued daily throughout Iowa (see Appendix A). For example, Davenport
experienced a high level of activity from May 29 to May 31. Late night events at the
Coralville Mall on May 31, in which suspected looting activity and vandalism prompted a
significant police response, which in turn generated a spontaneous demonstration by
protestors, typified the blurred lines that were at times complicating the narrative locally
and around the country.
15 | P a g e
The incidents in the jurisdictions surrounding Iowa City created a heightened tension
and uncertainty around what might happen next and what the appropriate police
response should be.
In the days leading up to June 3, ICPD officers provided mutual aid to their adjacent
neighbor, Coralville, and Department leadership tracked neighboring protest activity.
According to one Department official, these escalating events had an impact on ICPD’s
uncertainty regarding the intention of protestors overall and also served to inform what
responses were and were not effective to address protest activities. Law enforcement
responses to these initial events spanned the spectrum of possible outcomes, from
deployment of less lethal munitions and arrests to negotiation with protestors and
officers removing riot gear or “taking a knee” in support of the protest. In Des Moines on
May 29, negotiation with protestors failed; officers eventually deployed tear gas to
disperse the crowd.
The conduct of protestors and their intentions also spanned the spectrum. While the
majority of participants in the growing movement were peacefully expressing First
Amendment rights, others were finding an outlet for their frustration (or exploiting
unstable conditions) in conduct that was aggressive or even criminal.
When violence did occur, the officers and their equipment (specifically, police vehicles)
or city or private property were often the primary targets of the protestors’ anger. The
ambush of police in the early morning of June 1 in Davenport was perhaps the most
extreme example of this, and presumably contributed to heightened safety concerns
among law enforcement.
Events Within Iowa City
On May 29, the ICPD Interim Chief made a public statement in which he condemned
the murder of George Floyd, stating, “The manner in which these officers treated Mr.
Floyd is inconsistent with how we train police officers to conduct their interactions with
the public.” The following day, Iowa City had its first large-scale demonstration, and the
protest activity grew and took on new forms as the week progressed.
The first event in Iowa City was the planned “Say Their Names” Rally. Held on May 30
at noon in the Pentacrest (the primary jurisdiction of UIPD), the rally was organized by
residents and supported by the Mayor and a County Supervisor.7 Portions of downtown
7 The organizers of that rally and other participants would soon coalesce into a grassroots
activist group known as the Iowa Freedom Riders. They continued to be an influential driver of
16 | P a g e
Iowa City, specifically, Clinton Street and Iowa Avenue, were closed with road
barricades for the safety of protestors. ICPD was prepared to respond should a
“significant disturbance” occur, and then only to take life-saving measures. ICPD noted
specifically within its internal directives that, while they might take measures to protect
property, this was a lower priority than life and safety. UIPD was similarly briefed. A
series of speeches gave the rally its focus, and hundreds attended what proved to be a
peaceful gathering that did not involve any sort of police response.8
The City and ICPD leadership maintained this posture for other local events leading up
to June 3. Actively monitoring events as they unfolded, the authorities worked to strike
a balance between respect for the protests and the obligation to preserve order and
safety. Even with increased protest activity, including vandalism on the evenings of
June 1 and 2 (see Appendix A), ICPD did not actively deploy to protect property or
impede protest. ICPD leadership informed us that they observed, but did not prevent,
vandalism of City and County property. On June 1, one window of City Hall was
reportedly broken and significantly more on June 2, with a total of 19 glass panels that
needed to be replaced. There was also spray painting of City Hall and the County
Courthouse and reported spray painting and damage to private property along the
course of the protestors’ march.
While recognizing that protest activity was becoming progressively more varied and
intense during June 1 and 2, and that clashes with law enforcement from different
agencies were taking on an increased edge (including an episode in which Johnson
County Sheriff’s deputies deployed pepper spray and encountered projectiles thrown by
protestors), ICPD maintains that it lacked a workable sense of who (if anyone) was
emerging as the organizers of the growing crowds. But there did seem to be greater
levels of coordination in terms of both the acts of vandalism (with, for example, some
participants obscuring their cohorts’ faces with cardboard and seemingly being more
intentional in carrying tools to break windows), and the more traditional, constructive
planning of demonstrations (with “meet-ups” publicized on social media and the
Pentacrest emerging as a regular gathering place). And, as we discuss below, it is
unfortunate that more outreach and efforts at communication were not achieved early
on – a dynamic that may have helped de-escalate the later dynamics on Dubuque
Street.
reform efforts and strategic demonstration activity through the summer and beyond, and we
mention some of their accomplishments below.
8 As we discuss below, the adoption of this “low profile” approach from ICPD was partly the
function of a request by rally organizers, who expressed their preference that law enforcement
refrain from a significant presence in order to forestall potential conflict.
17 | P a g e
The objective of allowing protest activity with no response to acts of vandalism
remained the mission on the afternoon of June 3 even as ICPD observed a 300-400-
person crowd marching through and, on occasion, vandalizing downtown Iowa City. On
the afternoon of June 3, ICPD increased their visible presence throughout downtown
Iowa City deployed in riot gear but they did not inhibit or otherwise engage with
protestors marching or intercede to prevent vandalism. Street units lined downtown
streets and were later joined by the Special Response Teams (SRT), tactical teams that
were deployed to critical locations such as the courthouse and jail.
As they did on May 30, ICPD and other responding agencies set up barricades to direct
traffic for safety in downtown but did not otherwise intervene. But this approach
changed significantly when the interstate highway became a discernible focus for the
protestors as the evening of June 3 progressed.
November 11, 2016: Precedent on I-80
The incidents in the days immediately prior to June 3, 2020 certainly created a
heightened tension around what should be the appropriate police response. But it is
also relevant to note that this was not the first time in recent memory that protestors in
Iowa City had attempted to access the Interstate 80. A similar situation played out
during the “Not My America” march on November 11, 2016 and resulted in protestors
ultimately gaining access to the highway.
On November 11, 2016, a group of approximately 100 protestors marched from
downtown Iowa City to the Interstate 80 via Dubuque Street in response to the election
of President Donald Trump. According to media reports, ICPD patrol cars accompanied
the protestors, though ICPD officials informed OIR Group that they were not prepared to
respond to this march. The protestors successfully entered the I-80, where they
physically blocked traffic for approximately 30 minutes. The Iowa State Patrol
eventually responded; within 19 minutes, the group was removed from the highway with
no use of force reported.
In what one official called a “political storm,” Iowa City officials were rebuked for having
“allowed” protestors on the I-80. In addition to the significant safety risk to both civilian
and officer safety, the State argued that the highway blockage was costly to the State,
both in terms of resources to clear (or close) it and delays in interstate travel. The
incident even prompted a proposed law in early 2017, which would have increased the
penalty for persons obstructing a highway to a Class D felony. Preventing protestors
from having access to the I-80 clearly emerged as the State leadership’s preferred
18 | P a g e
approach, and presumably shaped the mindset of decision-makers within the unified
command.9
Less Lethal Munitions Defined
In the interest of informing those who may not be familiar with less lethal force options
used by ICPD over the course of this incident, we provide the following definitions.
Later in this report, we detail the count and estimated timeline of each munition and
analyze their deployment.
Flash bang(s). These were the first devices deployed by ICPD to disperse the
crowd on June 3; these devices create a loud explosive sound and bright light
that is meant to shock, surprise or otherwise distract a subject in the context of a
tactical operation. Contrary to their name and sound, flash bangs are not
actually an explosive device.
Tear gas. This term is applied to two different types of chemical munitions. The
first is Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) gas, commonly referred to as “OC” or “pepper
gas.” OC gas is an inflammatory agent derived from the oil of hot pepper plants,
which causes heat, redness, and swelling to the skin and irritation to the nose
and eyes. The second is Ortho-Chlorobenzalmalononitrite (CS) gas, or what
most people refer to when they say, “tear gas.” CS gas is an irritant, which
causes intense stinging to the eyes and respiratory system.
CS and OC gas was disseminated on June 3 using one of three methods. The
first method was via a “triple chaser grenade,” a hand-held grenade that
contained three separate canisters of the gas that released in three increments.
CS and OC gas was also deployed via a launcher, sometimes referred to as a
“37-millimeter (mm) launcher,” which looks something like a shotgun. In this
deployment method, the gas is contained in up to five canisters within a single
shell (“skat shell”) that is ejected from a launcher. The canisters deploy in rapid
sequence. This method is used to shoot the gas canisters to a father distance.
9 ICPD leadership acknowledged experiencing considerable external criticism after having
“allowed” the 2016 protest to reach the interstate, but offered two points in addition to this: first,
that it simply lacked the resources to blockade the highway in time to forestall that November 11
event, which had put it in a completely different decision-making posture than on June 3; and
second, that the political fallout from that earlier event had not influenced its resolve in
supporting ISP’s highway blockade plan on June 3.
19 | P a g e
OC spray was deployed using a handheld canister that an individual officer
wears on his/her belt and is typically carried by most law enforcement officers.
At least one ICPD officer used pepper spray on protestors on June 3.
Smoke. ICPD officers also deployed canisters of Saf-Smoke. This less lethal
tool disseminates white smoke and is typically used by law enforcement for
distraction or concealment during an operation. On June 3, ICPD reported that
they used smoke to increase the effect of the tear gas because the smoke can
trap and suspend gas for a longer increment of time. While it is non-toxic, smoke
can sometimes cause dizziness or a choking sensation.
Stinger Grenade. A “stinger grenade” is a tool that combines approximately 180
small rubber pellets and a chemical agent like OC or CS powder into an
approximately 3-inch ball that looks like a traditional military grenade. It is meant
to cause both irritation of the skin/respiratory system and pain. These are
different from “rubber bullets.” As detailed below, ICPD deployed stinger
grenades on June 3.
Pepper balls. These are small, powder-filled projectiles that are shot from a
37mm launcher similar to that referenced above. These are meant to be target-
specific; upon impact, they cause pain and saturate the area with the enclosed
powder. ICPD used two types of pepper ball on June 3. The first contained OC
powder, which, like the gas, is an inflammatory agent. The second contained an
inert powder.
Wednesday, June 3: Overview of Events
Timeline
A detailed timeline is presented below. Dispersal orders, declarations of unlawful
assembly, and warnings of use of chemical munitions, all issued by ISP via their
vehicle’s loudspeaker, are in blue. Deployment of less lethal munitions are listed in red.
We list “protestors” as a collective, while also understanding that the group was not one
cohesive unit but rather made up of various types of protestors with differing goals and
intentions. We included University of Iowa Police Department personnel in the category
“ICPD” because UIPD officers were part of ICPD SRT Metro.
20 | P a g e
Table 1: Timeline of June 3, 2020
Time of Day Event/Action Agency/ Group
6:36:39 PM
Crowd of 300-400 protestors convene at the Pentacrest
in downtown Iowa City. Protestors block traffic and
vandalize areas of downtown Iowa City. Protestors
6:36:58 PM Crowd marches through downtown Iowa City Protestors
7:06:55 PM
Special Response Team (SRT) deploy to various
locations in downtown Iowa City ICPD
8:58:37 PM
Iowa State Patrol (ISP), 11 units, arrive to downtown
Iowa City ISP
9:17:58 PM Crowd moving east away from Pentacrest Protestors
9:21:28 PM Report of male carrying infant and toddler in crowd Protestors
9:57:06 PM Crowd begins movement toward I-80 NB Dubuque Protestors
9:58:41 PM Reports of crowd burning things Protestors
10:00:17 PM
DOT aware of potential I-80 blockage; changes signs to
warn drivers
Dept of
Transportation
10:29:41 PM
Request assistance shutting down I-80 on ramps - EB
Dubuque
Johnson County
Sheriff
10:29:59 PM
ICPD deploys to Dubuque and I-80. Arriving units to
park N of I-80 on ramps. ICPD units walk toward Foster
Rd. ICPD begins to deploy in formation across lanes of
Dubuque St. ICPD
10:34:21 PM
Sheriff receives instruction from ISP to shut down EB
Dubuque St.
Johnson County
Sheriff
10:35:34 PM Crowd estimate at "300+" Protestors
10:37:28 PM Reports of 20-30 vehicles behind crowd Protestors
10:46:00 AM
First protestors arrive to police line on foot, bicycle, and
motor scooter Protestors
11:03:04 PM
Warning issued - unlawful assembly, dispersal
order, and warnings of use of chemical munitions -
from ISP loudspeaker ISP
11:04:49 PM
Flash bangs deployed, followed by tear gas
canisters ICPD
11:06:09 PM Hold the line ICPD
11:09:29 PM Need global command ICPD
11:09:29 PM Emergency medical required - notify all hospitals of gas ICPD
11:11:17 PM Additional warnings and dispersal order from ISP ISP
11:12:19 PM Additional order to disperse ISP
11:12:45 PM
Protester(s) heard shouting, “we have the right to
assemble” Protestors
11:13:02 PM
ICPD instructs officers to use targeted less lethal if
protestors throw items at the police line. Instructs line to
watch for the vehicles ICPD
11:13:33 PM Additional orders to disperse ISP
11:13:37 PM Crowd heard chanting, “We won’t go” Protestors
21 | P a g e
Time of Day Event/Action Agency/ Group
11:14:01 PM
Additional orders to “Disperse from this area. Turn
around and go the other direction, please.” ISP
11:14:02 PM
Crowd/individuals stating, “we have the right to be here”
and “we haven’t done anything” Protestors
11:14:34 PM
“Those of you in the vehicles, turn them around in
the other direction” ISP
11:14:48 PM Crowd chants, “hands up, don’t shoot” Protestors
11:15:40 PM Members of the crowd heard calling out for a medic Protestors
11:16:03 PM A vehicle approaches line from within the crowd. Protestors
11:16:13 PM
ISP loudspeaker warns vehicle to turn around or
less lethal munitions will be deployed. ISP
11:16:59 PM Vehicle moves back. ISP
11:17:08 PM
ICPD instructs officers that if crowd comes closer, they
can use additional less lethal munitions ICPD
11:17:37 PM
ISP again instructs vehicle to turn around and go
the other direction ISP
11:19:40 PM
Deployment of less lethal (pepper ball used, tear gas
used) ICPD
11:21:53 PM
Discussion of plan if protestors breach the line. ISP
informs ICPD that there may be a traffic plan for I-80
closure. Not confirmed. ISP
11:22:20 PM ICPD officers request to use additional less lethal ICPD
11:22:46 PM ICPD requests that ISP give another warning ICPD
11:22:48 PM Order heard to deploy less lethal munitions ICPD
11:22:52 PM Tear gas deployed ICPD
11:23:23 PM Tear gas deployed, PepperBall deployed ICPD
11:23:42 PM Tear gas deployed ICPD
11:24:39 PM
Protestor on bike approaches. Officer requests
permission to use targeted less lethal. ICPD instructs
officer to “leave him” and use gas instead. ICPD
11:25:42 PM
ICPD officers request to spray protestors who are not
leaving. ICPD instructs officers to “Leave them.” ICPD
11:26:12 PM
EMS requesting assistance Dubuque/Foster; things
being thrown at them/surrounded Johnson County
11:27:05 PM Reports of vehicles approaching the skirmish line ICPD
11:27:12 PM Ambulance to drives over the median ICPD
11:27:38 PM People running away ICPD
11:28:29 PM Officer warns that a group is coming up the side ICPD
11:29:02 PM Fire truck approaches, moves through line Johnson County
11:31:02 PM Various less lethal munitions deployed ICPD
11:31:31 PM Small groups of protestors to Dubuque/Park ICPD
11:32:21 PM ICPD instructs officers to hold the line ICPD
22 | P a g e
Time of Day Event/Action Agency/ Group
11:33:21 PM
ICPD requests a team to arrest a protestor that refuses
to move ICPD
11:35:25 PM
ICPD officers report that they are nearly out of less
lethal munitions except handheld Stinger rounds. ICPD
instructs officers to use those rounds ICPD
11:36:53 PM
ICPD and ISP discuss plan. Second discussion about
letting protestors reach the highway; ISP attempts to
confirm if highway is closed. Both officers resolve to
"wait [it] out." ICPD
11:41:24 PM Crowd begins to disperse. ICPD
11:53:11 PM Protestors moving back to downtown ICPD
11:54:27 PM Abandoned car in Dubuque/Foster Rd ICPD
The Confrontation on Dubuque Street
As the marchers made their way from downtown to the Interstate 80 onramp on
Dubuque Street, the law enforcement “unified command” began to consider its
response. The first decision – and the one from which others followed – was the most
basic: whether the protestors would be allowed to access the highway in furtherance of
their demonstration. Given the understanding between the different agencies involved,
this decision fell to the Iowa State Patrol by virtue of its jurisdictional authority over the
interstate system. ISP was led by a lieutenant who had been given overall responsibility
for the joint operation. And ISP’s choice was to deny access but knowing it did not have
sufficient officers to do so, it recognized it would need to enlist the aid of the other
departments in order to be able to effectively block Dubuque Street.10
Approximately 37 ICPD patrol-level officers were deployed to Dubuque Street to
effectuate the skirmish line that was being formed across all lanes of Dubuque Street.11
Additional officers from ISP and from the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office 12 also
responded to this location.
10 Because ISP did not cooperate in this review, we were unable to learn how many ISP officers
were actually deployed on June 3.
11 A “skirmish line” in this context refers to a side-by-side line of officers, typically wearing
tactical or “riot” gear and holding batons and/or shields, used to prevent forward movement (e.g.
of a crowd) or protect assets. A second line of officers or specialized teams (e.g., officers
specially trained to deploy less lethal munitions) often stands behind the first line of officers.
The line is usually led by one or more squad leaders or other command-level personnel.
12 Asked several months later about the number of JCSO officers involved, that department’s
leadership was unsure about the exact total, but characterized it as “more than 10.” It is curious
23 | P a g e
In addition to these patrol-level resources, another prominent component of this rapidly
assembled response was the Iowa City Metro Special Response Team (“SRT”). This
cadre of officers existed within ICPD “to handle unusual operational activities and
problems, such as hostage situations, barricaded situations, and high-risk
apprehensions.”13 Participation in the SRT was a collateral duty for the involved officers
and entailed a significant amount of specialized training and equipment.
There were 22 SRT members on duty that night (18 of whom were from ICPD and 4
from the University of Iowa Police Department), divided into two groups that were each
led by an ICPD sergeant. They had begun their shift at about 6:00 PM and were initially
deployed in various locations throughout downtown Iowa City in response to unfolding
developments. Their first role was to provide “as needed” support for the regular patrol
officers in case arrest or other enforcement scenarios engendered a large-scale hostile
response from the crowds in the streets. In this context, SRT members reported verbal
aggression from protestors that was later characterized as “violent and threatening”; as
they stood by the Civic Center (which had been vandalized the night before), they
encountered at least one individual who challenged them to fight.
As the assembled crowd began to march, protest leaders made announcements
relating to the intention to go to the Interstate 80 – and allegedly included warnings to
participants about the possibility of confrontation. At one point, observing officers
broadcast information about a group member carrying a “red bucket with chemical odor”
and individuals “starting to burn some things.” These factors contributed to the mindset
of officers as they prepared to block Dubuque Street – which led to the most proximate
onramp to the I-80 from the downtown area. With various stops at intersections along
the route, the group of marchers took the better part of an hour to proceed from
downtown to the eventual site of the incident with police personnel.
As for the SRT, its members received direction at approximately 10:15 to bring their
teams to the staging area on Dubuque Street that ISP was establishing. Other
preparations were unfolding as well. Significantly, these included efforts (in
coordination with Iowa State’s Department of Transportation) to close a portion of the
that an agency would not have more precise records of deployment of officers to an event such
as this.
13 This language comes from the 2017 agreement between the City and the University of Iowa,
which provided for the addition of University Police Department members to the SRT for the
mutual benefit of the parties in terms of shared resources and distinctive opportunities for
staffing and training. Since the time of the agreement (and on the night of June 3), most of the
SRT personnel continue to be ICPD members.
24 | P a g e
interstate as a precaution for drivers and any protestors who managed to reach highway
area in spite of police operations. Computer dispatch records note that by 10:00 PM,
the Department of Transportation was “aware of potential interstate blockage” on the
part of the demonstrators.
As the SRT units arrived in two separate vans, one ICPD sergeant took the lead in
coordinating with supervisors from ISP and the Johnson City Sheriff’s Office. SRT
personnel, armed with less lethal munitions, took support positions behind the front line
of officers that was forming a “skirmish line,” across the four lanes of Dubuque Street.
The first-row officers wore helmets and carried plastic shields for crowd control and
protection.
Meanwhile, as they awaited the marchers, the ISP incident commander worked with
leadership from the other law enforcement agencies to devise a plan for engagement
with the protestors. It consisted of announcements that would formally declare an
unlawful assembly, followed by orders to disperse, followed by warnings about chemical
munitions, the deployment of “flash bang” diversionary devices, and then the
deployment of tear gas. The point person for communications – including the formal
announcements – was to be the ISP lieutenant on scene. And, because of their larger
numbers and their specific tactical resources and training, the SRT members agreed to
take the lead role in the potential execution of the ISP plan’s final phases: the
deployment of the munitions.
At this point, the crowd of marchers was estimated to be between 300 and 500 people.
They had come together somewhat organically and were proceeding in a loosely
coordinated fashion as they made their way from downtown to the I-80 via Dubuque
Street. Along the way, they stopped periodically at intersections and for
communications purposes. Informal preparations for a possible conflict intensified as
they approached the police line: a telephone number for bail services was distributed,
and marchers were asked to kneel so that participants with medical aid abilities could
be identified.
It was approximately 10:45 PM when a lead group of several protestors, seemingly self-
appointed, arrived at the police line well ahead of the main crowd of participants. Some
were on foot, while others were on bicycles; one person was riding on a motorbike.
They engaged with the police for several minutes in an exchange that was less about
dialogue or negotiation than a forum for the protestors to express their grievances
against police violence and discrimination, make occasional taunts, and issue
challenges relating to the group’s intent to breach the line. One individual offered
25 | P a g e
assurances that the crowd’s intentions were peaceful, and they did not intend an
aggressive breach of the line.14
For his part, the ISP incident commander had a focused message: he urged the
leadership to turn back and keep the rest of the protestors from advancing and warned
that chemical munitions would be used if they did not comply with law enforcement
directives. This was unavailing.
After about fifteen minutes, some members of the small group made their way back to
the main crowd of protestors that was waiting about a hundred yards away – and the
crowd then came forward toward the police line. Many of the protestors in the front of
the crowd were chanting in unison as they advanced within a few feet of the front line of
officers. Some of the first row of protestors were animated and gesticulating while
others were relatively steady in holding their position. Per the plan, the ISP commander
again issued formal announcements through the public address speaker of a law
enforcement vehicle. These had no discernible effect on the crowd, which continued to
chant loudly. At least one of the protestors was unequivocally “on notice” of the intent to
use tear gas and used a megaphone to alert the others to that effect. But the extent to
which the protest group as a whole had heard and understood the warnings is very
much unclear.
Approximately two minutes after the front of the main crowd reached the skirmish line,
the order to “deploy munitions” was issued by the ISP commander, and several flash
bangs were deployed by ICPD. Seemingly startled by the flash bangs, the crowd
scrambled back, with many of them screaming. After a brief pause and without waiting
to see whether the flash bangs alone had effectively defeated the crowd’s intent on
advancing, ICPD deployed tear gas, and the main group of protestors further retreated
for a hundred yards or more. Others remained near the police line, either laying on the
ground, on their knees, or standing in the cloud of gas. But those few did not leave.
A large percentage of protestors remained in the area – back from the skirmish line area
but clearly determined to remain a presence on Dubuque Street in defiance of (or
response to) the law enforcement actions. Some worked to assist people who had
become affected by the gas and others regrouped as if to advance toward the line
14 This same protester encouraged the officers to kneel as the large group arrived, presenting it
as a potential way to defuse tension. There was no direct response from either ICPD or ISP
leadership to this request; ICPD had already decided that it was not going to take a knee. We
discuss this further below, in the context of a larger discussion about the limited range and
effectiveness of communications with the protest group.
26 | P a g e
again. And video footage shows a few moving on Dubuque Street back toward Foster
Road away from the event.
Additional orders and warnings were provided by the ISP lieutenant at intervals in the
next half hour. Further munitions – including a second round of tear gas canisters,
pepper balls, handheld OC spray, and “stinger grenades” that carried rubber pellets –
were used to offset crowd actions and continue to promote departure from the area.
Meanwhile, the anti-police rhetoric (including some recorded music) and the passion of
remaining protestors intensified. In the first recorded act of physical aggression,
protestors on Dubuque Street threw munitions canisters back in the direction of the
police. On the other hand, others seemed to be genuinely mystified by what had
happened. At one point, a protestor appeared to be in medical distress, and bystanders
called out that he was having a seizure. With no coordination from law enforcement, (a
matter we discuss in detail below), a Johnson County Ambulance made its way on to
the scene to render aid, although the man ultimately declined to be transported and left
the area under his own power.
Finally, and gradually, the remaining members of the crowd decided to leave the area.
Approximately one hour had passed since the group leaders had first approached the
skirmish line on Dubuque Street to engage with the police. One individual who
continued to refuse orders to leave was taken into custody by ICPD after minimal
controlling force, but that was the only arrest at the scene.15
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
15 A second person was arrested for offenses related to the Dubuque Street protest, but this did
not occur until a few days later. We talk later about the implications of this arrest decision.
27 | P a g e
ICPD on June 3: Issues and Assessments
Jurisdiction, M utual Aid and Responsibility for Decision-
Making
Once it became known that the protestors were intent on marching from the downtown
area to the interstate as a next phase in their demonstrations, the primary jurisdictional
authority for the law enforcement response fell to the Iowa State Patrol. It is clear that
on June 3, 2020, the ISP was intent on not allowing the protestors to access the I-80
and assumed the ultimate responsibility for figuring out how to effectuate that decision.
It was the ISP on-site commander who represented law enforcement presence in
speaking with the lead cadre of protestors, and who formally declared the unlawful
assembly, who issued the order to disperse, and who ordered the deployment of the
munitions soon thereafter.
It is, however, also true that the other involved agencies – and particularly the ICPD and
the Sheriff’s Office – accepted ISP’s decision and agreed to participate in the operation.
On June 3, ISP lacked the on-site resources to accomplish its objective without the
assistance of the other agencies who on the ground comprised the “unified command”
in Iowa City. Accordingly, it fell to the other agencies to provide the needed personnel
and equipment to supplement ISP’s presence. And it was the Iowa City Metro Special
Response Team (ICPD and UIPD), at the behest of ISP, that actually provided and
deployed most of the crowd control munitions (flash bangs, tear gas, pepper balls) that
became the source of consternation and concern in the ensuing days.
Importantly, in our repeated interactions with ICPD for this review, the Department’s
representatives were steadfast about acknowledging their own agreement with the plan
and contributions to its particulars.16 They recognized the criticism that the events of
June 3 have provoked and are open to the idea that there were shortcomings in their
overall preparedness and handling of specific incidents. But they continue to maintain
that the overarching objective of ISP to prevent protestors from reaching the Interstate
was sound, and in order to effectuate this objective the decision to block the highway
and disperse the crowd with gas was justified by the circumstances – and was
16 The same was true of the JCSO, although those communications with us were limited to
relatively brief email exchanges. While we appreciated the information provided, it would have
obviously been immensely more preferable to have had the opportunity to talk with “on the
ground “JCSO leadership.
28 | P a g e
decidedly preferable to other force options such as a forward push with batons and
shields.
This is important insofar as it allows for a critique of the decision-making that, for better
or worse, is fairly attributable to ICPD itself rather than treating it as a scapegoat for the
choices of other participants.17 We therefore proceed from that perspective, while noting
that the changes in strategy in subsequent days (and the new “divisions of labor” among
the agencies in the joint command) are also critical for purposes of analysis.
But we were also struck by the relative paucity of written material or agreements to
stipulate or guide the understanding between the agencies. Iowa City is home to
multiple law enforcement agencies within a relatively small geographic space, making
the question of “who commanded where” a key point of evaluation. This incident
spanned the jurisdiction of various agencies. And, significantly, while a 4-page
agreement (from 1985) between the City, the city of Coralville, Johnson County, and the
University provides at least some guidance, it does not include ISP and could potentially
benefit from updating and further detail.18
As detailed below, the agreement by ICPD leadership to accede to the overarching
objective of ISP of preventing the protestors to reach the interstate and then to become
the instrumentality of that objective by deployment of tear gas, pepper balls, and flash
bangs was countermanded the next day by City leadership. Appropriately, ICPD
responded to this different direction with ICPD advising ISP that it could no longer
deploy less lethal munitions to keep protestors off the interstate for future protests.
UIPD’s direction from University leadership was to remove its officers from the Special
Response Team altogether.
Especially now that those directions have been verbally provided by the City’s
leadership, ICPD should set out in writing and advise other law enforcement entities of
evolutions in its enforcement and deployment parameters, so that all are clear about
them on a forward going basis.
17 It is also interesting to note in this context that ICPD’s General Order 89-04, “Civil Rights,”
states that “the City of Iowa City and the Iowa City Police Department expressly prohibit any law
enforcement agency operating within its jurisdiction from using excessive force against any
individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations.” Thus, the Department would, on
some level, be accountable for the actions on Dubuque Street even if it sought to deflect
responsibility to ISP.
18 A comparable agreement was reached in 1994 that included Iowa City and a total of eight
other jurisdictions (including Johnson County and Coralville). Again, though, ISP is not part of
this mutual aid protocol.
29 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 1
ICPD should re-visit its existing mutual aid/joint law enforcement agreements with
outside agencies and should develop or refine as needed any written protocols that set
out limitations on deployment of munitions or enforcement activity with which the Police
Department will not assist.
RECOMMENDATION 2
ICPD should endeavor to reach a mutual aid/joint law enforcement agreement with ISP
regarding its limitations on deployment of munitions or enforcement activity, and if one
cannot be struck advise ISP in writing of these limitations.
Decision to Deny Access and Block Dubuque Street
The decision by ICPD leadership to accede to ISP’s determination to prevent the
protestors from reaching the Interstate was framed in terms of concern for the disruption
of traffic and the safety of motorists and protestors themselves. There is obviously
legitimacy to this position. We acknowledge that, in theory and under ordinary
circumstances, the presence of pedestrians on an interstate highway is fraught with
problems from a safety and logistics perspective.
But these were not ordinary circumstances. Instead, it was period of protest and
emotion unprecedented in recent memory, at a scale reflective of a strong community
voice coming together to be heard. The various efforts to accommodate the protests in
prior days had, to some extent, been reflective of the City’s recognition of this
phenomenon. Moreover, and as set out above, protestors had accessed the highway
four years earlier with no reports of injury and with considerably less time for authorities
to prepare.19
An additional counterweight to the stated justifications for the blockage – and the
insistence on enforcing it through deployment of munitions – is the supplemental steps
that were taken by authorities on June 3 to close down a section of the I-80 during the
time in question. This was meant to provide an added safeguard against injury or
accident in case protestors somehow got beyond the skirmish line. Recorded
transmissions address the involvement of the Department of Transportation in providing
19 We do note here that vehicles on the interstate ended up being quite close to the 2016
marchers, and that the situation was a dangerous one. But the precedent of a “no injury”
shutdown – and the additional time that authorities on June 3 had to prepare for an occurrence
that was happening much later in the evening than the 2016 protest – is nonetheless instructive.
30 | P a g e
assistance, and our understanding is patrol personnel from neighboring cities were also
involved in this effort.
To this day, it is not entirely clear whether and when the law enforcement leadership on
Dubuque Street “knew” the highway had been closed.20 Obviously, clear information in
this regard could and should have been a priority. It follows also that it could and
should have shaped decision-making as to the level of conflict with protestors that was
proportional to the articulated public safety rationales.
If the law enforcement contingent gathered on Dubuque Street knew or could have
known that the primary asserted reason for not allowing the crowd to move forward was
no longer “real”, it then causes one to question why the police contingent there
remained so intent on preventing the crowd from proceeding, to the point of eventual
deployment of tear gas and other munitions. While we reiterate that decisions by ICPD
to follow the lead of ISP were made in the midst of a challenging situation and in mutual
aid of another agency’s plan, the creditable efforts to close the interstate as a backstop
safety measure reduce the legitimacy of the inflexible mindset that prevailed on
Dubuque Street.
20 We did not receive a conclusive response when we asked if the I-80 at Dubuque was, in fact,
successfully closed at the time of the standoff on June 3. When we asked ICPD leadership,
they were unable to provide a definite statement that the I-80 was closed. And because ISP did
not cooperate in our review, we were unable to learn whether the I-80, over which it has primary
jurisdiction, was in fact closed, and if it was, the precise time that such occurred.
We noted two relevant conversations that occurred on the line between ICPD and ISP
leadership that further evidence the “in the moment” uncertainty over the highway closure. The
first, occurred at approximately 11:21PM and immediately before the second round of less lethal
munitions was deployed. An ICPD officer asked the ISP commander, “what do we do if [the
protestors] go around us?” The ISP commander responded, “there’s another 16 troopers at the
top of the hill.” The ICPD officer asked, “have we diverted any traffic yet?” And ISP responded,
“we had a traffic plan to move […traffic],” but this conversation is interrupted with questions
about deploying less lethal munitions. At this point, there is no further recorded conversation
about the highway closure.
In the second conversation toward the end of the incident (approximately 11:36PM), ICPD again
asked the ISP supervisor about the highway. The ICPD officer, concerned that they had nearly
run out of less lethal munitions, asked the ISP commander, "If we're diverting traffic, what are
the odds that we let them get there? What do we lose? There's nobody up there, right?" To
which ISP responded, “Should not be.” After speaking into his radio, the ISP officer returned and
reported, "they're checking the cameras to see if we got it, everything shut off." Again, there is
no subsequent recorded conversation on Dubuque Street about whether the highway was
closed.
31 | P a g e
For the City’s civilian leadership, the countermand the next morning to the decision the
night before was swift and unequivocal. And the subsequent decision by ISP itself the
very next evening to no longer press the issue and allow protestors to gain access to
the interstate on subsequent nights raises further questions about Dubuque Street’s
status as a definitive “line in the sand.” 21
Of course, some of this analysis is much clearer in hindsight. And we mention again
that the jurisdictional and decision-making authority rested first and foremost with the
State Patrol. But ICPD now has the benefit of that hindsight on a going forward basis.
As recommended above, it should memorialize its City’s expectations in light of this
experience and the evolving standards to which law enforcement is always rightfully
attuned.
RECOMMENDATION 3
ICPD, with input from the City, should evaluate its protocols for responding to
pedestrian activity on the interstate, both on its own and in a mutual aid context with
ISP, to provide more specific guidance as to enforcement strategies and priorities.
Lack of Negotiation with Protestors on June 3
One of the noteworthy features of the encounter was the lack of effective
communication between the protestors and police. This had different components –
some of which preceded the night of June 3 and some of which related to the unfolding
events on Dubuque Street.
Iowa City’s “Say Their Names” rally on May 30 provides an instructive contrast in terms
of the relative challenges faced by law enforcement as events progressed. Organized
by young activists who remained prominent in the protest movement as the summer
progressed, this pre-planned, well-publicized, daytime event attracted a few hundred
participants and featured speeches from a range of organizers and elected officials. It
was put together in direct response to the death of George Floyd and the broader
injustices exemplified by that tragedy; in fact, a few carloads of participants left for
Minneapolis from the rally with support from local grassroots fundraising.
21 In fairness, a variety of factors (including outreach by elected officials and a strong public
reaction) made circumstances different on June 4 and 5; we discuss some of these dynamics
below. But we note that the end of the tear gas deployments also coincided with ISP learning it
would have virtually exclusive responsibility for deploying those munitions on subsequent nights.
32 | P a g e
While issues of police violence were central to the themes of the “Say Their Names”
rally, there were no reported clashes with ICPD, and the event remained peaceful.
Several factors contributed to this – not the least of which was the intentional, pre-
arranged “low profile” that the Department maintained. Organizers had reached out to
City officials, including ICPD representatives, to express their interest in avoiding
conflict by not having the police be an overt and potentially antagonizing presence. And
ICPD had cooperated, while developing a plan to be available quickly should a public
safety issue emerge.
Several factors distinguished June 3’s march to the I-80 from this earlier event. These
included daytime vs. night, planning vs. spontaneity, outreach to officials vs. none, and
– perhaps most significantly – a static, peaceful series of speeches vs. an effort to gain
access to an interstate highway. Underlying all of this was a change in the energy of
the crowd and of the movement itself into something more overtly confrontational.22
Taken together, these elements may have made any efforts by law enforcement to de-
escalate the situation on Dubuque Street through outreach or dialogue more
challenging. Yet a more overt focus on such gestures may have been productive, and
the effort would at least have helped solidify the legitimacy of subsequent decision-
making: if they had at least tried, the police would be in a better position to cite
reasonable efforts at collaboration and the provision of unequivocal warnings.
Sometimes, police agencies have achieved success by the introduction of agency
personnel who have special crisis negotiation training. Those officers with this special
skill are regularly deployed to talk to those in confrontations with police to resolve issues
peaceably. There was no evidence that on June 3 there was consideration by ICPD
command to deploy those specially trained ICPD personnel in an effort to de-escalate
this situation.
As cited above, prior to the June 3 march toward the I-80, ICPD had observed that
protest activity generally in Iowa City was becoming progressively more intense over
June 1 and 2, that protest activity was seemingly more organized, and that crowd size
22 One of the repeated themes from our discussions with ICPD representatives was their
familiarity with – and support for – demonstration activity as a common feature of civic life in
Iowa City. They professed to be well-accustomed to facilitating large crowd dynamics and
promoting First Amendment expression and were struck by the difference between their usual
ability to serve as – and be recognized as – a constructive presence and the antagonism that
marked the early June days of the protest movement. Of course, one significant difference is
that unlike, for example, the Women’s March, the whole raison d’etre for the protests this past
summer was concerns about police abuse.
33 | P a g e
was steadily growing. Moreover, ICPD and other affiliated agencies were attempting to
gain insight into potential “next moves” by monitoring social media and providing
informational bulletins to each other. But these efforts did not pay dividends, at least in
terms of helping ICPD identify parties who were recognized leadership figures.
One ICPD official informed us that, because they did not have robust intelligence on the
ground, law enforcement command was watching live media feeds in the Command
Post as their means of information (see Command Structure) and gleaning what it could
from officers in the field overhearing communications among the protestors. Instead of
outreach that might have led to clarification of expectations and the facilitation of
peaceful protest, law enforcement was in reaction mode – and scrambled to gather on
Dubuque Street just as the crowd of marchers began to move from downtown.
RECOMMENDATION 4
ICPD should dedicate resources to strengthening its ability to gather useful information
from social media and other sources about community sentiment, activism, and
potential protest activity.
RECOMMENDATION 5
When circumstances allow, ICPD should pursue a strategy of more pro-active
identification of and outreach toward protest leadership in an effort to achieve beneficial
clarity on both sides.
RECOMMENDATION 6
ICPD should consider using personnel specially trained in crisis negotiation techniques
to de-escalate potentially tense confrontations with protestors prior to resorting to
deployment of force.
RECOMMENDATION 7
ICPD should develop a crowd control policy that requires, when feasible, attempts at
de-escalation with protestors through negotiation, pace, and other de-escalation
strategies and documentation of all efforts to de-escalate the situation.
Interestingly, a “last chance” presented itself in the form of the small group protestors
who first reached the law enforcement skirmish line on Dubuque Street. Those people
were speaking with (or yelling at) the police for at least ten minutes as the main crowd
assembled and then waited a hundred yards away.
34 | P a g e
It was during this time that the incident commander from the ISP stated to these
individuals that they were not going to be allowed to access the interstate, that they
needed to leave, and that they would ultimately be subjected to tear gas and other
interventions. He urged them to go back to the crowd and tell them not to advance. In
response, while one female protestor did state they could breach the line if they wanted
to, she also said that they came in peace. And another vocal male protestor stated
several times that they would not push the line.
These exchanges were significant in a couple of ways. One was the overt and
unequivocal expression by law enforcement of their own intentions to deny access and
to effectuate that by force if necessary. This goes to the issue of whether the protestors
were collectively “on notice” that the use of tear gas and other munitions was imminent
– an issue that was much disputed and which we discuss in more detail below. The
other was the lack of effectiveness in terms of de-escalation and/or constructive impact
on the events that followed.
It should be noted that the initial group to arrive at the police line appeared to be there
informally (as opposed to serving as a designated leadership team representing the
hundreds of individuals behind them), and that their own communications lacked focus
and any clear sense of negotiation or collaboration with law enforcement.23 But it is
nonetheless striking that, beyond articulating its own position as clearly and firmly as
possible, the police command made no efforts to engage, defuse, or otherwise move
the encounter off a confrontational footing.
As the larger mass of marchers began coming forward, chanting as they walked, one of
the ICPD officers can be heard on the body camera recordings talking about “taking a
knee” as a gesture of solidarity and compromise that could help avoid a more direct
conflict. The idea did not take hold. It was literally a last-minute suggestion; moreover,
we were advised that ICPD’s executive team had already decided against this form of
conciliation (which was occurring in locations around the country) out of concerns for
officer safety.24
23 While it was understandable that the joint law enforcement presence considered this first band
of protestors to be representative of the group, it also caused them to impute their seeming
intractability and expressions of aggression to the crowd as a whole. Our sense – as later
acknowledged in discussions with ICPD – was that the crowd was far from monolithic in its
specific intentions and attitudes toward antagonism with the police.
24 To this point, the Department had identified and forwarded to its officers a June 2 tweet sent
by a University of Iowa student stating: “if a cop takes a knee in a protest, take the opportunity
to blow their kneecaps out”. And in Coralville, during the May 31/June 1 unrest, an ICPD officer
had been assaulted with a closed fist, projectiles had been thrown at officers with a Coralville
35 | P a g e
There are a couple of dimensions of this worth exploring. The first is ICPD leadership’s
blanket rejection of “taking a knee” out of safety concerns. While safety is always of
course a worthy consideration, we are unaware of incidents in which that conciliatory
gesture has led to actual harm for officers; conversely, we can cite instances in which it
helped to defuse conflict or build relationships. Law enforcement’s willingness to show
solidarity with demonstrators who are seeking a connection (as opposed to capitulating
to antagonistic demonstrators who are testing them) has powerful symbolic
resonance.25 As such, it merits due consideration as an option that should be available
when circumstances align appropriately.
This leads to the more specific issue of whether this specific context was or would have
been an effective one for attempting the gesture. We refrain from definitive speculation
in this regard, given the momentum of the crowd and the poor acoustics and lack of
advance planning among the different agencies. But the mention of taking a knee
showed both the desire by at least one ICPD officer for a different outcome and the
unsettled nature of the police response plan. As difficult – and potentially fruitless – as
it might have been, some effort to communicate with the protestors in a mode other than
stern authority could and should have been part of the law enforcement approach – as it
was in subsequent days.
Indeed, our understanding is that the Iowa State Patrol sent specially experienced
personnel to Iowa City in the aftermath of June 3 with the specific goal of improving the
quality and effectiveness of dialogue with protest leadership. This is a reflection of two
things: the evolution of law enforcement’s approach within that week (for which it
deserves credit), and the benefit of this skill set as part of an agency’s “tool kit” for
navigating new public expectations.
RECOMMENDATION 8
ICPD should assess its internal capabilities (in terms of training and expertise) with
regard to effective communication with protestors or adversarial groups, and devote
resources as needed to increase its options for dialogue and negotiation in future
events.
officer being rendered unconscious, and firearms had been taken from protestors. We do not
dispute the officer safety issues that existed on June 3; we simply question whether their
presence demanded the summary rejection of a de-escalation approach that had been effective
in other jurisdictions.
25 In fact, as noted above, City leadership had already taken a knee in different contexts during
the prior days of protest.
36 | P a g e
Crowd Proximity to Skirmish Line
In our different discussions with them, ICPD personnel acknowledged they allowed the
crowd to get too close to the skirmish line. Indeed, shortly before the main group began
marching, recordings from the scene show the supervisors from different agencies
discussing how close to let the marchers get and settling on a streetlamp that was
approximately thirty yards away – only to concede that they did not have a specific
vision for enforcing that idea. Instead, the marchers proceeded steadily until they came
within a few feet of the skirmish line.
In reviewing the BWC recording from officers at the scene, we observed that protestors
were nearly face to face with officers, and certainly within just a few feet of them. In
some instances, protestors were screaming directly into the faces of the front-line
personnel.26 While these officers maintained their composure, the proximity
undoubtedly contributed to their perceptions of crowd aggression, and presumably
accelerated the pace with which they believed escalated action was necessary.
The crowd’s proximity created other tactical disadvantages as well. For one thing, it
precluded effective dialogue with the group as a whole. For another, it meant that the
deployment of less lethal munitions would occur without any initial margin for the
protestors to react and leave the area before experiencing the gas directly.
One means of creating a more tactically beneficial gap could have been the use of
portable barricades, such as the “Jersey Barriers”27 that were initially deployed by the
City’s Department of Public Works throughout the city to protect various public facilities.
The Jersey Barriers were utilized effectively to preclude highway access during
subsequent days of the protest activity. Again, this speaks to the improved planning
and preparedness that subsequently created a contrast with June 3. It is difficult to
know whether there would have been time on June 3 for ICPD to request Public Works
to bring physical barriers to the scene and thereby create the desired space for more
deliberate engagement. Clearly, though, officers themselves were deployed from
26 It should also be noted that, however unpleasant, most verbal antagonism falls within the
category of protected speech. Moreover, many of the protestors were simply chanting a
message – “Hands up, don’t shoot” – that is overtly intended to be non-threatening.
27 A Jersey Barrier is a temporary and mobile sloped concrete or plastic barricade,
approximately 30 inches tall and 10 -30 feet long, typically used to block or direct traffic.
37 | P a g e
various locations and were staged prior to the arrival of the first protestors at
approximately 10:45 PM.28
The value of distance is a key tactical principle for law enforcement (and was cited as
such in the “After Action” memo prepared by ICPD’s on-site lead supervisor, who
acknowledged the disadvantages that protestor proximity created). While we reiterate
the extraordinary nature of events in early June, and the preparedness issues
confronted by agencies across the country, we encourage ICPD to incorporate this and
other lessons into its training and future strategies.
RECOMMENDATION 9
When possible, ICPD should utilize physical barriers or other methods to maintain
distance in crowd control contexts, so as to improve potential for communication and
increase time for evaluation of potential threats.
Declaration of Unlawful Assembly
As detailed above, the incident command team put together a plan as the main body of
marchers was still about ten minutes from reaching their blockade line. It entailed the
formal declaration of an unlawful assembly, the issuing of orders to disperse, and then
the deployment of chemical munitions. This declaration and plan was initiated and
formally executed by the Iowa State Patrol in its capacity as the lead agency for this
operation within the unified command. Accordingly, it is ISP that “owns” the lion’s share
of responsibility for the decision-making and its rectitude. Nonetheless, we pursue the
following analysis with the idea that ICPD pointedly declined to dodge its accountability
and involvement, and with the goal of offering useful considerations for the future.
While there was potential legal justification and legitimacy to each of these steps, the
speed with which they unfolded contributed to much of the subsequent perception that
law enforcement had been heavy-handed and excessive in its response. Within about
ninety seconds of the crowd’s arrival at the line, the initial flashbang and tear gas
combination was deployed.
28 Deployment of such barriers is the responsibility of the City’s Department of Public Works;
Public Works personnel may not have been available to respond on the evening of June 3.
Subsequent to June 3, and to the credit of the City, Public Works was placed on standby to set
up Jersey Barriers on roadways as needed to help manage protest activity after June 3.
38 | P a g e
The relevant code section for an Unlawful Assembly in Iowa is 723.2, which reads as
follows:
An unlawful assembly is three or more persons assembled together, with them or
any of them acting in a violent manner, and with intent that they or any of them
will commit a public offense. A person who willingly joins in or remains a part of
an unlawful assembly, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that it is
such, commits a simple offense.
Assuming that the protestors remained determined to advance past the skirmish line
and make it to the interstate (and there is considerable evidence that this was true for
“them or any of them”), then the second part of the state’s legal definition was satisfied.
Less obvious was the notion that the behavior of the protestors upon their arrival
satisfied the “acting in a violent manner” prong of the offense.
Asked about this, one of ICPD’s representatives whom we spoke with was clear about
his own perception of threat. Even while acknowledging his familiarity with more overt
acts of aggression from other protest scenes across the country, he took exception to
the characterization of the Dubuque Street protestors as uniformly and unquestionably
“peaceful.” But there are important gradations between “not entirely peaceful” and a
conclusion that they were “acting in a violent manner”.
Along with the belligerent and threatening comments from some of the protestors and
their preparations to persevere in spite of potential tear gassing, he also cited the
several vehicles that were idling among the crowd as a concerning variable. The feeling
was that there was no advantage – in terms of de-escalation or alternative resolution –
to be gained by waiting. On the contrary, in his view, the likelihood of actual violence
and physical attempts to breach the line was only bound to increase.
With due respect for this officer’s experience and firsthand perceptions, we again note
that the unlawful assembly call and dispersal order was made by ISP and we were not
able to learn from that agency what facts formed the basis for that decision. And we
also note that on June 3, officers did report receiving continual and sustained threats of
harm by some of the protestors. The question becomes whether the reported sustained
“threats” of violence (as opposed to actual “acts” of violence) qualify as “acting in a
violent manner”.
The multiple instances of property damage observed by officers during the course of the
march, while complicating the portrayal of the crowd’s “peacefulness,” was also not a
direct threat to law enforcement – and was consistent with conduct that had been
39 | P a g e
tolerated earlier in the days of unrest. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, it is
obvious that large swaths of the group were indeed peaceful, sign-holding individuals
whose priority was to exercise their First Amendment rights of expression in a non-
violent way.
We have looked at scenarios from different jurisdictions during the same period, in
which the mixture of motivations and behaviors of large crowds contribute to the
challenging circumstances for law enforcement. Even in the face of more overt
provocations, agencies can bear the brunt of sincere criticism from participants whose
own behavior was completely restrained, and who were genuinely unaware of any
inciting conduct that led to an “unlawful assembly” determination. Here, this dynamic
was even more in play.
This reality gave additional import to the dispersal orders and accompanying warnings
that were the precursor to the use of force. Unfortunately, that process turned out to be
a significant weakness in the operation. On a forward going basis, it would be helpful for
ICPD and the City to further consider what set of facts should be requisite in a public
protest setting prior to the use of the state’s Unlawful Assembly Statute.
RECOMMENDATION 10
The City should consider what specific manner of statement or acts constitute “acting in
a violent manner” in a protest situation and would be requisite prior to the initiation of
Iowa’s Unlawful Assembly Statute, so as to better equip ICPD in making these
assessments.
Dispersal Orders and Warnings
It is clear that the incident commander from ISP did issue the order to disperse and
accompanying warnings on multiple occasions in the moments preceding the use of
chemical munitions. It is also clear that some members of the protest group heard
these communications and were aware of the possibility that tear gas would follow from
a failure to leave the area; one woman (who had been part of the first contingent to
engage) announced this very fact to the crowd through a megaphone in the seconds
before deployment. Additionally, the identification of “street medics” within the protest
group, and the availability on scene of materials to treat those affected by the gas,
suggests that some level of awareness existed among the crowd at large of the
potential deployment of tear gas.
But a significant amount of evidence also supports the notion that many of the individual
marchers had no awareness that the actual deployment of tear gas was about to
40 | P a g e
happen.29 In reviewing the relevant recordings from multiple perspectives, we were
struck by the way that, from many angles, the relevant announcements through the
police loudspeaker system were simply inaudible. This limited capacity – another
function of preparedness challenges – undermined the notion that the crowd was
collectively and meaningfully “on notice” and thus accountable for the consequences
that ensued.
While the dispersal declaration and orders were taken directly from the Iowa statute,
there should be care taken to ensure that the instructions are able to be heard by all
protest participants. Moreover, while not required by the statute, protestors should be
advised on what route the crowd should take to disperse.
These circumstances had important implications for the deployment of munitions that
followed, and certainly factored into the widespread negativity that characterized public
(and local government) response to the events of June 3.30 Accordingly, improvements
and innovations in this arena are a worthwhile focal point.
RECOMMENDATION 11
ICPD should ensure that any future declarations of unlawful assembly and orders to
disperse in a protest situation are audible and include directions for crowd departure.
RECOMMENDATION 12
ICPD should include specific language in its crowd control policy, which we discuss in
greater detail below, to provide more specific guidance than the current direction to
“issue warnings.”31
RECOMMENDATION 13
ICPD should invest in equipment and study alternative techniques that would help
ensure that orders and warnings were comprehensively clear and audible in the large
crowd context.
29 This was a consistent theme in both the written complaints to the Community Police Review
Board and the supplemental interviews we had with participants: each insisted that the tear gas
came as a complete and unjustified surprise, and the lack of forewarning contributed to their
strong criticism of police action that night.
30 In our and others’ evaluation of these types of events throughout the summer, we have found
that unclear or unheard dispersal orders are a repeated tactical deficiency.
31 We discuss ICPD’s crowd control policy more generally, and with additional
recommendations, below.
41 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 14
ICPD should explore innovative approaches to crowd notification – such as real-time
social media broadcasting– that could facilitate enhanced communications with the
public.
Use of Flashbangs, Tear Gas, and Other Munitions
It is noteworthy that the Iowa City Metro Special Response Team, staffed and led
primarily by ICPD personnel, was the on-scene group with the most training and
experience in deploying the chemical munitions that were used on June 3. It is also
noteworthy that, prior to June 3, they had not been deployed in crowd control contexts,
and lacked experience and training that was specific to the situation that confronted
them that night. Indeed, flashbangs and tear gas are most frequently used in very
specific contexts involving armed and dangerous individuals, such as hostage rescue or
“dynamic entries” against barricaded suspects.
Accordingly, their use against a crowd of a few hundred marchers who were
demonstrating against racial injustice and who were largely static (if clearly animated),
had a particular resonance. It clearly shocked and frightened many of the participants.
By their very nature, the munitions did not distinguish between the aggressive and the
passive, the aware and the unaware, or the defiant and the obedient. In these ways,
and in the specific context of George Floyd movement, these tactics invoked images of
“crackdowns” against dissent in other countries and in other repudiated chapters of our
own country’s racial and political history.
All of this is problematic, and the best evidence of the disconnect between the
deployment and the larger circumstances is that tear gas was effectively “taken off the
table” as an option for ICPD’s ongoing participation in the joint command.32 City officials
issued a formal apology for what had happened, and assured protestors that they were
committed to ensuring that it did not recur.
That said, ICPD’s representatives respectfully continued to defend the tactic in
discussions for this review. And they did so for a simple reason: that the situation was
an untenable one, that action to enforce the dispersal order was needed, and that other
methods could well have resulted in significantly greater injuries to both the public and
law enforcement.
32 Additionally, in the aftermath of June 3, the University of Iowa Police Department directed its
own members of the Metro SRT to “stand down” from operations within the joint command in
which the use of chemical munitions was likely to occur.
42 | P a g e
In other words, their strongest defense of use of gas was that it obviated the need to
confront the crowd by other means – specifically the batons and shields with which their
frontline officers were equipped. They took some measure of pride in the lack of arrests
and reported injuries and felt that the criticisms had been based on an incomplete
characterization of the dynamics on Dubuque Street.
ICPD’s framing creates a thought-provoking new dichotomy: not between tear gas and
nothing, but instead between tear gas and other physical force options that presented
their own risks of harm to both officers and crowd members. However, while we
acknowledge that other physical approaches to enforcement of the order carried their
own pitfalls (if not some of the stigmas associated with tear gas), we also see flaws in
this argument.
The problem with ICPD’s proposed framing is that it takes as a presumption that force
of any kind was justified. It assumes with questionable legitimacy that the requirements
for declaring the unlawful assembly that legally predicated the force had in fact been
satisfied. And it accepts that preventing the protestors from reaching the interstate was
itself a goal worth engaging in acts of crowd control and deployment of munitions
unprecedented in Iowa City’s recent history.
Most significantly, the haste with which the final moments before deployment unfolded
are a cause to second guess.33 The formulation of the plan and sequencing minutes
before the large group had actually arrived was, on the one hand, necessary if it were to
happen at all. And ICPD’s preliminary encounter at the blockade line with several
members of the group presumably did little to increase the Department’s optimism
about compliance and non-aggression. But the rapidity of the actual deployment,
particularly in relation to the close proximity of the only (and somewhat inaudible)
warnings and the apparent lack of direct physical aggression from the crowd, suggests
that at some point the result had become foreordained.
We make these observations while reiterating our overall impression of the officers’
professionalism and lack of malice throughout the event – again in marked contrast to
other jurisdictions. In our extensive review of body camera video and accompanying
audio, we heard very few comments that were even arguably hostile to crowd members.
This reflected well on the agency and its personnel.
33 We again note that the ultimate decision-making authority in the operation – including the
timing of the order to deploy the munitions – rested with the Iowa State Patrol supervisor. But if
ICPD had wanted to, they could have declined the mission.
43 | P a g e
At the same time, we note at least one exception to this finding. During the lengthy
aftermath of the initial flashbangs and munitions, a supervisor was asked about
additional responses to remaining protestors and remarked that they should just “Let
‘em enjoy the gas.” While this was said in the context of limiting further force, the tone
suggested a callousness that did not comport with the larger quality of the
communications. In an era of both increased transparency and strained relations
between law enforcement and the community, we encourage ICPD to be mindful of
these recorded demeanor issues as part of its regular review process.
RECOMMENDATION 15
ICPD should review body camera footage after critical incidents, identify any remarks
that are inconsistent with Department expectations, and ensure accountability and
remediation as appropriate.
More broadly, these techniques – and others that were used later in the encounter (as
we discuss next) – have raised questions about whether their use in the crowd control
context is consistent with public expectations and best practices. Ideally, there is
considerable overlap between these two standards. We know that the City is committed
to hearing and responding to the concerned voices that have emerged since June 3.
For example, City Council members drafted a 17-point resolution that incorporates
some of the reforms proposed by the Iowa Freedom Riders.
Additional Force Deployments
After the initial use of flashbangs and tear gas drove the crowd back and changed the
dynamics of the encounter, a significant number of protestors remained in the area for
the better part of an hour. The unified law enforcement agencies on the skirmish line
held their ground and periodically used additional measures – including further chemical
munitions – to reinforce the dispersal order and to respond to subsequent individual
acts of aggression (which included crowd members throwing projectiles – such as gas
canisters – back at the line of officers).34 The table on the following page details
deployment.
34 We know that the majority of the force on June 3 was used by members of the Iowa City
Metro SRT, most of whom were from ICPD and who acted at the direction of an ICPD
supervisor. In response to a Public Records Act request, the Iowa State Patrol acknowledged
its personnel using one tear gas canister. The Sheriff’s Office informed us that its personnel did
use force at the scene but did not provide particulars.
44 | P a g e
Table 2: Less Lethal Munitions Deployed on June 3, 2020
Less Lethal Name Classification Delivery
Method
Time Total
Count
Oleoresin Capsicum (OC)
Triple-Chaser Grenade
Inflammatory:
localized heat,
redness, swelling,
and pain to
skin/tissue
Hand
thrown
11:04,
11:22
7
Ortho-
Chlorobenzalmalononitrite
(CS) Triple-Chaser
Grenade
Irritant: irritation to
eyes and
respiratory system
Hand
thrown
11:04,
11:22
9
Saf-Smoke White
Grenade
Distraction/conceal-
ment; can multiply
effect of OC/CS
gas
Hand
thrown
11:04,
11:31
5
37mm OC Skat Shell Inflammatory Launched 11:04,
11:22,
11:35
4
37mm CS Skat Shell Irritant Launched 11:04,
11:22,
11:35
4
Stinger Grenade Rubber
Pellets CS
Pain compliance /
irritant
Launched 11:19
and/or
11:22
2
Live (OC) & Inert (no
irritant) PepperBall
Pain compliance /
inflammatory
Launched 11:19
or
11:22
or
11:31
15
(estimated)
12g Distraction Devices
(“flashbang”)
Distraction device Hand
thrown
11:04 5
OC Spray Inflammatory Handheld 11:04 Various
officers
deployed
While the use of tear gas seemed to generate the most notoriety and criticism in the
incident aftermath, it was accompanied by other types of munition that included
45 | P a g e
handheld OC (or “pepper”) spray, rubber pellets for pain compliance, and pepper balls
fired from a special less-lethal weapon.35
Overall, the assessment of these additional measures in the later stages of the
encounter falls within a different context than the initial flashbangs and tear gas
combination. This is because, whatever the initial confusion, the remaining protestors’
subsequent awareness of the circumstances (including the “unlawful assembly” and
related orders and warnings) is obviously clear – as were the overt acts of aggression
from a small number of participants. Still, to the extent possible, ICPD should make a
formal assessment of each use of force to evaluate it within the context of prevailing
facts and Department policy.
In our review of the recordings, for example, we had questions about an ICPD officer’s
visible use of handheld OC spray in the face of a non-aggressive (if non-compliant)
protestor; this was in seeming contravention of the “active resistance” requirement
under which the use of such spray is characterized. Conversely, the ICPD’s lead
supervisor provides guidance that is clear and consistent with policy when he authorizes
the PepperBall launcher specifically for protestors who are throwing things at the line.
Our understanding from ICPD leadership was that, in lieu of their normal force review
process, they asked participating officers for a written narrative describing their
observations and actions on Dubuque Street.36 This was in part because of their
awareness that outside scrutiny of the incident – including this review – was going to
occur, and they therefore wanted to refrain from reaching judgments prematurely. This
view appears to be a misperception of the objective of this review; it is not an internal
investigation into specific uses of force by ICPD officers that should be undertaken in
every force incident.
35 We noted that, sometime toward the latter half of the incident, ICPD command discussed that
it might “run out” of less lethal munitions at the scene and requested that additional munitions be
brought to Dubuque Street. It was, perhaps, because of this that ICPD deployed inert
PepperBall rounds, which are more commonly used in training scenarios rather than in live
incidents. We also noted that, in their report regarding the types of munitions used, ICPD
reported that they requested additional munitions from the City’s Emergency Management
Department, and that Emergency Management provided several Stinger Grenades from the
Iowa Medical and Classification Center (IMCC), a correctional facility located in Coralville. The
incident was resolved without needing additional munitions. But that they nearly “ran out” again
points to the scale of the incident, the extensive and sustained deployment of munitions, and the
extent to which it exceeded the agency’s normal preparedness level.
36 We were provided these narratives, which range in detail and were clearly considered
unusual by the officers from a protocol perspective.
46 | P a g e
And it was in contrast to the standard protocol they followed in conjunction with the
controlling force used to effectuate the one arrest that night (of the lone individual who
was the last to remain on scene and showed no intention of leaving). While we
understand this rationale – and while the highly unusual scope and volume of force
against individuals who were not taken into custody created documentation issues for
myriad agencies during this time – we recommend that the Department conduct a more
formal force investigation review and glean what it can from the actions of its personnel
on June 3.
RECOMMENDATION 16
ICPD should assess the individual uses of force by its personnel on June 3 in keeping
with its standard protocol, and should respond with accountability measures, additional
training, or other feedback as appropriate.
Coordination of Medical Response
There was seemingly confusion about the Fire Department and Johnson County
Ambulance’s response to June 3, especially as it related to providing medical care to
protestors immediately following the first deployment of less lethal. We identified this
briefly in our review, above, and elaborate upon it here.
In reviewing evidence, we determined that emergency medical assistance was
requested to Dubuque Street via dispatch at 11:09 PM, approximately five minutes after
the first deployment of less lethal munitions. An ambulance arrived at the scene
sometime shortly thereafter and, as viewed in video evidence, drove slowly into the
crowd to assist with what was reported to be a seizure victim.37 Around this same time,
ICPD deployed a second round of less-lethal munitions, some of which appear to have
struck the side of the ambulance. At approximately 11:25 PM, the responding
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) team requested assistance as Dubuque Street and
Foster Road via radio, stating that “things were being thrown” at them and that they
were being surrounded by the crowd. At approximately 11:30 PM, ICPD requested, via
radio, that the ambulance shut off its headlights as the oncoming beams were “blinding”
the officers on the skirmish line and instructing the ambulance to drive over the median
and cross the skirmish line to a safer location.
37 As mentioned previously, our understanding is that the afflicted individual ultimately declined
medical transport of his own volition.
47 | P a g e
City leadership reported that the Johnson County Ambulance and the Iowa City Fire
Department fire engine were instructed to stage on the west side of the Iowa River at
the onset of the June 3 incident. When these stand-by units received the radio call from
dispatch to respond into the crowd for the seizure incident, the responding Ambulance
unit assumed that this order had already been approved by the law enforcement on
scene and responded into the crowd.
However, according to ICPD leadership, the medical response had not been approved
by law enforcement at the Command Post or on the ground. As such, ICPD reported,
the Ambulance unit, staffed by two Paramedics, responded prematurely into the crowd
and into an active scene before receiving clearance to do so. As a result, the
ambulance and Paramedics were impacted by less lethal munitions and by the agitated
crowd (one Paramedic reported that she felt “threatened” by the crowd and that one
protestor grabbed her vest).38
Clearly, there was miscommunication and lack of coordination here that could have had
dire consequences and did not contribute to a sense of professionalism expected of
individuals working toward a common goal. It is incumbent upon the various
stakeholders to consider this part of the response with an objective of improving
coordination on a going forward basis.
RECOMMENDATION 17
The City, in collaboration with ICPD, Johnson County Ambulance, the Joint Emergency
Communications Center, and the Iowa City Fire Department, should review the
miscommunication that occurred and work to develop protocols intended to improve
coordination for police and rescue response for future incidents.
Inability to Identify Officers
On June 3, all ICPD patrol level officers were attired in the agency’s tactical uniform:
black pants with external cargo pockets, black long or short-sleeved shirt, external
protective vest, gloves, and helmet with face shield. Some officers wore a gas mask
throughout the incident and others put it on immediately prior to deployment of gas.
Some line officers carried a shield and/or baton. ICPD Special Response Team officers
were attired in a gray tactical uniform with external leg holster; the front and back of
38 One of the protestor participants whom we interviewed mentioned specifically that the sight of
munition canisters striking an ambulance that was there to render aid contributed significantly to
the impression of police wrongdoing.
48 | P a g e
their external vests were labeled with the word “POLICE” in white and their gray long-
sleeved shirts had the ICPD insignia.
Both ICPD tactical uniforms do not have any identifying information and, when coupled
with a face shield and/or a gas mask, it is nearly impossible to identify individual
officers. One officer in command on the scene noted that his inability to identify the
officers on the line made command and control difficult as he could not identify who was
who. To his credit, this supervisor included this same issue in his post-incident written
summary and suggestions for improvement.
In the wake of “para-militarized” police responses to protests across the nation, there
has been much discussion of law enforcements’ tactical uniform, often referred to as
“riot gear.” Some argue that the tactical uniform creates a perception of domination and
militarization, serving to hide and dehumanize officers and strike fear and intimidation.
Others retort that the tactical uniform increases officer safety and provides the
command presence necessary in crowd control events. Regardless, one theme
emerges from many of these discussions: the tactical uniform should provide clear
identification of the officer, both for the public and for effective command and control as
well as post-incident review of force incidents. Many agencies now label tactical gear,
such as helmets and vests, with badge numbers and/or officer last names for the
purposes of identifying officers; ideally, the identification should be visible from both
front and back. We encourage ICPD to align its uniform policy in keeping with this
approach.
RECOMMENDATION 18
ICPD should revise its uniform regulations to ensure that officers in tactical gear can be
clearly identified during their operations, both internally and for purposes of public
accountability.
Decision to Arrest Protester
As noted above, on June 7, 2020, ICPD arrested a protester (and leader of the Iowa
Freedom Riders) for his actions on June 3 (as well as a possession of marijuana charge
that was discovered incident to his arrest). The protester was charged with unlawful
assembly and disorderly conduct, spent several days in jail, and while in custody, was
not able to participate in subsequent protest activity.
This action temporarily sidelined one of the movement’s more provocative members,
and it came at a cost regarding public trust: there was speculation that the “retroactive”
49 | P a g e
arrest of this individual, who had emerged as a vocal Black leader of the protest
movement, was a form of disparate treatment that was motivated by a desire to interfere
with his First Amendment activity. The arrest itself became the basis for further
protests.
The narrative of the police report speaks of a group of individuals vandalizing street
signs and committing other property damage but does not attribute any act to this
arrestee. And the narrative notes that several individuals threw rocks, bricks, and tear
gas canisters and that a police officer was injured as a result of a thrown object – but
again does not attribute any of these actions to the person arrested. Finally, the report
notes that a female in the group stood nearby the arrestee and threatened officers with
violence, but the report does not attribute the arrestee with making similar statements.
In short, the report itself does little to dissuade those who believe that the man arrested
several days later was singled out more for his believed leadership role in the process
than his direct involvement in any violent criminal activity. The City has provided us with
further details about the rationale behind the decision and the legitimacy of concerns
about the man’s actions; additionally, our understanding is that other justice system
entities were consulted. These factors – and the resultant conviction – are relevant as
counterbalance to the notion that the arrest was baseless. Nonetheless, the perception
gap was real, and the explanations only go so far in closing it for those who believed the
arrest to be unreasonably selective.
On June 17, 2020, the Mayor of Iowa City wrote a letter to the Johnson County Attorney
on behalf of City Council requesting that all charges be dismissed against Black Lives
Matter protestors, including this individual. He had been charged with both unlawful
assembly and disorderly conduct, but, two days later, pursuant to a plea agreement,
pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct while the unlawful assembly charge was dismissed.
He received “time served” for his days in jail prior to the plea.39
Police agencies generally and traditionally have had largely unfettered discretion
regarding when and whether to arrest individuals, particularly misdemeanors. The
opportunity to deliberate is even greater when enforcement action is not
contemporaneous. In the context of policing and First Amendment activity, it would be
39 The issue of the charges pending against the protestors as a result of the June 3 and other
protests was recently revisited in the public narrative when it was reported that a man who
drove his car purposely in the direction of protestors later in the summer received a plea
arrangement whereby he also received a “time served” sentence after spending over two
months in jail and avoided additional jail time. Allegations were again made about disparate
treatment within the justice system considering the difference in severities of the two offenses.
50 | P a g e
helpful to have engagement and dialogue with Iowa City leadership and the public to
receive input on when and whether to arrest individuals on the basis of their conduct,
and whether charges should be pursued when arrest occurs.40 Such an exchange
would help ensure not only that the Department was reflecting community priorities in its
approach but that the consensus was based on accurate information as to the
underlying facts.
As Iowa City continues to reimagine its public safety response, this is a policy area
where the Police Department could benefit from additional community input on a
forward going basis.
RECOMMENDATION 19
Iowa City should engage in dialogue with its police department on how best to address
protestors involved in disorderly conduct and use the tools available within the criminal
justice system.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
40 Once the case is filed by the County Attorney, these decisions no longer belong to the Police
Department; at that point, disposition of the charges becomes the County Attorney’s
prerogative.
51 | P a g e
After June 3: A Shift in Approach
As discussed above, the actions of law enforcement on Dubuque Street were met with
strong public disapproval throughout Iowa City. The choice to thwart the protestors’
desire to demonstrate on the I-80 was itself likely to be unpopular in the context of the
powerful, heartfelt reactions to the death of George Floyd; the use of tear gas and other
munitions to forcefully drive away a crowd of hundreds compounded this disconnect.
The aggressive crowd control tactics were unprecedented in recent memory, and they
prompted anger, bewilderment, and official apologies in the coming days.
The events of June 3 had two other immediate consequences as well: they galvanized a
broader and deeper wave of support for the local Black Live Matter movement, and they
provoked a significant alteration of strategy and operational responsibility among the
participating agencies of the joint command.
On June 4, protestors again met at the Pentacrest in downtown Iowa City, this time
accompanied by the Mayor and other elected officials. After marching for nearly five
hours, the crowd again marched down Dubuque Street toward the highway. Shortly
after 9:30 PM, the crowd, numbering more than 1,000 people, moved toward the on-
ramp. Along the way, some protestors vandalized the pavement, exit signs, and road
barriers.
At the on-ramp, protestors were met with ICPD and ISP police vehicles and officers.
Unlike on June 3, however, the officers reportedly moved their police vehicles. At some
point, ISP requested that the Department of Transportation reroute traffic on the I-80.
Shortly after 10:00 PM, the protestors marched onto the empty highway. After marching
for approximately 20 minutes, the crowd exited the highway and returned to downtown
Iowa City via Dubuque Street.
And this access to the I-80 occurred again on June 5, though for a much longer length
of time and with considerable spray painting to the roadway and median barriers, but
with no clashes between police and protestors.
On June 6, ISP again prohibited access to the highway. Protesters in other jurisdictions
throughout Iowa State, such as Coralville, were copying Iowa City by marching on their
local highways (such as Highways 1 and 218), creating a state-wide situation that ISP
52 | P a g e
indicated it could not adequately staff.41 Instead, the protestors marched to Kinnick
Stadium, where they vandalized the stadium statue, stadium, and surrounding buildings
and roadways. As noted above, on June 7, ICPD arrested a protest leader, prompting
more protests on the evening of June 7 and 8.
On the evening of June 8, the Iowa Freedom Riders (“IFR”) – a grassroots activist group
that had organized and found its voice with remarkable speed – called for the end of
vandalism and, on June 9, urged the halt of all protest activity while focusing on direct
engagement with elected officials.42 The City Council called an emergency session to
hear the Iowa Freedom Riders’ demands in an effort to address the structural dynamics
that had prompted nation-wide reform movement in late May.
Protests and demonstrations recurred intermittently in the latter stages of the summer,
and ICPD was sometimes a focus of criticism for its handling of these subsequent
events. Late August, for example, saw the Iowa Freedom Riders call for four days of
additional protest, and there were incidents involving cars allegedly driving into
demonstrators on purpose before leaving the scene, including the arrest of one
described above. Through all of these developments, there were no further tear gas or
other less lethal munition deployments in the City after June 3.
The stark differences between the law enforcement tactics on June 3 and the approach
on the subsequent days of the protest movement – particularly as illustrated by the
facilitating of access to the interstate on the nights of June 4 and 5 – were the function
of several factors. Some of these related to evolutions in the agencies’ ability to
recognize and adjust to the scale of what was occurring.43 Preparedness, or the lack
thereof, was a consistent issue in jurisdictions across America that had not foreseen the
sudden and dramatic rise of demonstration activity and unrest that unfolded at that time.
And, in Iowa City and for ICPD, the shift was a direct response to perceived and actual
missteps in the handling of Dubuque Street.
Iowa City’s leadership made a collective decision that ICPD was to stand down from
any sort of additional front-line participation with the Iowa State Patrol in blocking
41 It would have been helpful to have learned what ISP’s plan would have been should the
protestors have demanded to access the Interstate on this date. Unfortunately, we were not
able to do so as a result of ISP’s determination not to cooperate in this review.
42 While the IFR called for an end to vandalism, some continued to vandalize Iowa City public
and private property.
43 For example, we discuss below the bolstering of the unified command structure in Iowa City
that occurred after June 3.
53 | P a g e
protestor access to the interstate.44 This was particularly true in relation to the Metro
SRT forces, and the responsibility for using chemical munitions of any kind against
protestors.
Moreover, the City took steps to actively engage with and support subsequent protest
activity – including the march that reached the I-80 on June 4.
City officials and ICPD communicated this new mandate to the Iowa State Patrol, which
reportedly accepted and accommodated it without significant friction between the
agencies. Indeed, a significant change in the course of that week stemmed from the
simple fact of ISP’s devotion of greatly increased resources to Iowa City in terms of
personnel, equipment, and command-level staff. By the afternoon of June 4, ISP had
substantially more capability on scene, thus lessening its reliance on ICPD and other
agencies. And, in a notable adjustment, for two days ISP changed its insistence on
blocking highway access to protest activity.45
As a result of increased ISP deployment, ICPD could provide mutual aid of a different
nature. On June 4 and 5, then, ICPD deployed officers and vehicles to the highway to
support various missions, ranging from “peacekeeping,” traffic control, and highway
safety to, at some points, front line support and arrests.46 This “freed up” all State Patrol
personnel to be the commanding front line and, if needed, to deploy their own chemical
munitions. (They did not do so.) Our further understanding is that ISP pursued avenues
of communication/negotiation with protestors to a much greater extent, and with
beneficial results.
ICPD leadership also reported that both its Command Post and command structure
became more robust as the days progressed. On the evening of June 4 and for
approximately ten days after, the Command Post was staffed with the City Manager,
more senior personnel from ISP, including the ISP Commander at some points, the
Sheriff, Johnson County Emergency Management, the Fire Dept. Deputy Chief, and
personnel from the County Attorney’s office. These higher-ranking personnel brought
more experience and the capacity to make executive decisions. The Command Post
44 The new direction was for the Department to provide backup resources as needed, and only
to directly engage or use force in the event of an emergency situation.
45 We were told that this happened, at least in part, at the request of Iowa City officials.
46 While the fundamental shift away from the latitude to use tear gas was relatively clear, it
should be noted that the dynamic conditions on the ground made the subsequent days
challenging in their own right, and the leadership’s vision for how and where to engage was not
always seamless or consistent. This was, understandably, a source of frustration for line-level
officers at times.
54 | P a g e
also established an intelligence capacity, including ICPD and Coralville detectives and
agents from the State Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI). The technological
capacity increased as well, with monitors to view live feeds from the University
surveillance cameras and a dedicated technology officer.
The adjustments made by law enforcement were to their credit in many respects, and
they illustrate the ways that some of the troubling aspects of the June 3 confrontation
were reflective of preparation issues and inexperience more than malice toward the
protestors or a disregard for their cause.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
55 | P a g e
Additional Policy and Procedural Issues
As part of the scope of our assignment, ICPD provided relevant General Orders,
Guidelines, manuals, and plans for our review. OIR Group noted that ICPD’s policies
related to crowd control and use of less lethal weapons call for updating and
consolidation to ensure that future events are managed with more efficacy and are in
line with modern policing models for crowd control. We also take this opportunity to
address other structural issues relating to large-scale events like the summer’s protests
and discuss them in the context of guidance already provided by City officials.
Use of Force Directives in Resolution 20-159
On June 16, 2020, Council passed a 17-point resolution calling for a “restructuring” of
ICPD with more focus on community policing – a continuation of the model that the
Department has pursued since 2013 but one infused with new thinking and driven by
the direct input of activists in the aftermath of the June protests. This resolution also
featured responsive elements that related to use of force. For example, and
significantly, the resolution directed the City Manager to “expressly ban, in the ICPD’s
general orders, any use of chokeholds or any other maneuver that cuts off oxygen or
blood flow.” The resolution further prohibits “the use of tear gas, rubber bullets and
flashbangs against peaceful protestors.”
With regard to the use of neck restraints, direction for ICPD leadership and its officers is
clear: the use of the hold is no longer authorized as a force option. However, the
resolution provides considerably less clarity about the conditions under which less lethal
munitions may be used against individuals engaged in protest activity. This speaks in
part to the difference between “crowd control” (which refers to a range of activities, from
a large-scale public celebration to civil unrest) and Constitutionally-protected “speech”
or “assembly” in the form of marches of other demonstrations – which can, of course,
involve large crowds.
Interestingly, the resolution does not apparently contemplate a “ban” on deployment of
less-lethal munitions, even in dealing with protest activity (which leadership in other
cities has done). Rather, the current language infers there may be situations
authorizing use of the identified munitions against “non-peaceful” participants engaged
in protest activity. But there is no further guidance regarding the conditions under which
such munitions might be deployed.
56 | P a g e
While the disapproval of certain techniques “against peaceful protestors” seems
eminently reasonable and appropriate – and while it is partly a reaction to actual
excesses by American law enforcement agencies this summer – the application of that
concept is complicated by blurred lines and the divergent conduct found within crowds
of demonstrators. The intentions of the majority of peaceful, passively resistant
participants can easily be undermined by the aggressions or assaultive behavior of a
few, with detrimental implications for crowd and officer safety.
Accordingly, the most useful policies will reflect – and try to accommodate – the
complexities that often arise. Designing such a policy is, of course, easier said than
done. But there are core principles that can help constructively shape the mindset of
officers while providing them with the discretion to respond effectively under exigent
circumstances.
First is an emphasis on alternatives to force that promote the use of de-escalation
tactics (including patience, clear announcements, negotiation, and other techniques).
The use of less-lethal munitions and other force options in the protest context should be
reserved for “last resort” situations involving actual assaultive behavior and/or
significant, potentially dangerous threats of property destruction. Crowds should be
given every opportunity to understand the bases for enforcement action, time to comply,
and a clear means of avoiding munitions (such as tear gas) by leaving the area through
an obvious route. Another important principle relates to targeting any necessary force
to the extent possible: looking for proportional responses that focus on violent
behaviors and individuals while preserving the rights and safety of the larger group.47
The City might consider providing the police further instruction that invectives, verbal
aggression, hostile gestures, and threats alone are insufficient to justify the use of less
lethal munitions but authorizing potential use in situations where police are being
subject to hurled projectiles or other physical activity jeopardizing their safety.
The City should advise the police on what type of property protection would justify the
use of less lethal munitions with perhaps minor vandalism such as defacing of signs or
breaking of windows being insufficient to deploy munitions but authorizing potential
deployment to prevent major and dangerous property damage such as arson of police
vehicles or city buildings or looting of businesses.
47 Some agencies found success during the summer’s challenging, large-scale crowd events by
designating specific, small cadres of officers to move with more flexibility and address specific
problems through targeted arrest or other focused interventions.
57 | P a g e
Finally, the City should provide further guidance on whether less lethal munitions are
authorized to prevent unauthorized access or forced entry to some sensitive City
facilities such as City Hall and the Police Station within but that they are not to be used
to prevent access to City streets or the Interstate.
It is, of course, important for ICPD to be active participants in this process – responsive
to the City’s policy vision while contributing its own expertise and ideas about how best
to effectuate it. We also take the view that the City and its police department should not
develop and finalize policies relating to crowd control completely on their own. Rather,
consistent with former President Obama’s Task Force on 21 st Century policing and the
current commitment that the City has placed on community engagement as it
reimagines its public safety function, the parties should continue to engage the Iowa
City community as policies are being reconsidered and refined.
RECOMMENDATION 20
Iowa City leadership should seek community input and feedback from ICPD experts in
crafting policy parameters for use of force and deployment of munitions in the context of
protest activity.
Crowd Control Policy
Throughout this report, we make recommendations related to crowd control policies and
tactics. As such, we evaluated ICPD’s currently existing crowd control policy and
determined that ICPD does not have a comprehensive policy to guide operations.
Below, we provide a detailed analysis of ICPD’s current guidelines and the gaps within
them.
Specifically, we found references to crowd control guidelines and tactics in three
different, currently active, ICPD policy documents. These documents each have
elements of crowd control policy, but as shown in the table below, none are
comprehensive. For example, the “Mass Arrest / Disturbance” policy provides
guidelines for use of less lethal munitions in a “situation that escalates or appears that it
may escalate to the point where [less-lethal] munitions are being considered” but does
not explicitly define if or how to deploy less lethal in a crowd control scenario except for
use of pepper ball. The policies are summarized in Table 3, below.
58 | P a g e
Table 3: Existing Policies Related to Crowd Control
Name Updated Policy Contains “Gaps” in Policy
SOG 01-01:
Mass
Arrest/
Disturbance
October
2001
Details some procedures
to be followed in crowd
and mass arrest
situations
Guidelines for use of less
lethal in a “situation that
escalates or appears that
it may escalate to the
point where [less-lethal]
munitions are being
considered” but no
specific crowd control
language
Details calling other
agencies for mutual aid
Specific guidance on use
of PepperBall
Detailed arrest protocol
Specific guidelines for
use of force (all kinds)
in crowd control
Specific tactics for
crowd control
Dispersal order
language or
instructions
Does not provide
guidance for
form/function of mutual
aid
SOG 07-01:
All Hazards
Plan
August
2019
Details the Incident
Command System, or
actions required when
responding to an
“unusual occurrence” like
June 3
Includes Command,
Planning, Operations,
Logistics, and
Finance/Admin
Comments on requests
for mutual aid, stating that
ICPD retains command
Requires mandatory
annual training on ICS
Any policy / guidelines
for use of force (all
kinds) in crowd control
Dispersal order
language or
instructions
Does not provide
guidance for
form/function of mutual
aid
General
Order 89-
04: Civil
Rights
April
2020
Policy to consolidate all
other polices related to
Civil Rights, including
right to peaceful
assembly
Any guidelines for use
of force (all kinds) in
crowd control
Any tactics related to
crowd control
59 | P a g e
Name Updated Policy Contains “Gaps” in Policy
Police are responsible for
protecting participants
and non-participants and
for “dealing” with illegal
acts promptly
Details that ICPD
prohibits other agencies
operating in their
jurisdiction to use
excessive force on non-
violent demonstrators
Dispersal order
language or
instructions
Various organizations have recently offered guidance for law enforcement agencies that
are creating updated, comprehensive crowd control polices.48 Importantly, some of the
common themes to emerge reflect current sensibilities about the evolving relationship
between police practices and demonstration activity – including protests against the
police. They include the following focal points:
Protecting and facilitating peaceful free speech and expression
The likelihood that police action will improve the situation
The seriousness of the offense(s) and objective dangers that they present
Minimizing the use of weapons/militarization: specific guidelines for uses of force,
and, when appropriate, explicit prohibition of use of some munition types
Increasing communication and coordination: specific guidelines for de-escalation
techniques, mutual aid coordination, etc.
Indeed, there are specific model policies from which ICPD can create a comprehensive
and clear crowd control policy. Specifically, this policy should contain the elements
noted above.
48 A good example of the work product that has emerged this year was issued by the Policing
Project at the NYU School of Law in October. It is entitled “Policing Protests to Protect
Constitutional Rights and Public Safety.”
60 | P a g e
We also suggest the addition of specific operational guidelines or protocols related to:
Definitions of crowd control-related terms as defined/established by Iowa City
and/or ICPD, specifically. For example, how to define an “unlawful assembly” or
“civil disturbance” or “demonstration”
Specific tactics and techniques related to crowd control, especially those related
to officer deployment, information gathering, negotiation and de-escalation
Crowd dispersal, including specific dispersal order language, instructions for
dispersal, method(s) for issuing the order, and designation of dispersal routes
Specific role/expectations for mutual aid/joint responses
Logs, such as logging when and by whom dispersal orders were made,
munitions deployed or injuries
Specific guidelines for deployment of less lethal munitions (discussed in more
detail later in this report) in crowd control
Deactivation
We do note that ICPD does have a robust policy related to management response and
logistics planning for mass disturbances such as protests. ICPD’s “All Hazards Plan”
clearly defines and outlines the Incident Command System, a management response
system used by many agencies nationwide. As we detail later in this report, however,
ICPD did not effectively utilize the Incident Command System on June 3. These
specific cases highlight that merely having a policy does not always result in successful
implementation of said policy. Other factors, such as training, planning, and
coordinated leadership in the face of unfolding events, are generally needed to reinforce
the guidance policy provides. Still, we recommend that ICPD create a consolidated,
clear policy related to crowd control as a foundation for its future responses.
RECOMMENDATION 21
ICPD should review, consolidate, and update its different crowd control policies to
eliminate gaps, increase clarity, and reflect current community standards and
expectations, in consideration of the principles articulated herein.
With regard to the use of PepperBall in a crowd control context, the relevant policy
language reads as follows:
PepperBall may also be used to disperse unruly or rioting crowds which
have or are threatening to unlawfully damage property or threatening physical
violence.
61 | P a g e
There is no definition in the policy as to what constitutes an “unruly” crowd, providing
insufficient guidance as to appropriate deployment of the weaponry and leaving its use
to a wide range of interpretation. ICPD should revise its existing policy and limit use to
physically aggressive or combative individuals, rather than as a general tool for
dispersal of an “unruly” crowd.
RECOMMENDATION 22
ICPD should re-evaluate and codify its approach to the use of less lethal munitions for
crowd control in a manner that, by creating narrow, particularized standards for
deployment, emphasizes the wide latitude that should be given to speech activities and
recognizes the public’s right to peaceably demonstrate.
RECOMMENDATION 23
ICPD should modify policy related to use of pepper ball rounds in crowd control
situations to limit use only against physically aggressive or combative individuals, rather
than as a general tool for dispersal of an “unruly or rioting” crowd.
Additionally, we note that, in the interest of transparency and fostering community trust,
increasingly law enforcement agencies are publishing all policies, such as entire Policy
Manuals, on their Department websites.49 ICPD’s website lists the Department’s
General Orders, but these are not searchable nor comprehensive, and the website does
not list Special Operations Guides. Consistent with former President Obama’s 21 st
Century Policing Task Force Recommendation, posting an online, public and
searchable policy manual may go a long way as ICPD seeks to establish more
transparency with its community.
RECOMMENDATION 24
ICPD should post its policy manual on its website with a searchable function.
Training
One consistent theme nationwide is that agencies were largely insufficiently trained for
the magnitude and nature of the summer’s protest activity. This was especially true in
Iowa City.
49 Some agencies have chosen not to post operating guidelines that, if public, might undermine
their efficacy (for example, policies related to Special Operations teams tactics or protection
details). Because we have seen overuse, this practice should be carefully crafted and limited to
only the most sensitive of policies.
62 | P a g e
While the City was familiar with peaceful protests, especially protests held in the
University setting, ICPD reported that it had not deployed less lethal munitions for crowd
control in over 30 years, nor had they engaged a crowd of the nature and magnitude of
June 3. At all levels, those that we spoke to stated that, from a training standpoint, the
officers were largely unprepared for June 3 and the scale of the demonstration and
protest activity as a whole.
We noted that crowd control training is not a regular part of the training curriculum as
listed in ICPD’s annual training curriculum and related policy. ICPD personnel reported
that the last time that ICPD officers had any training regarding crowd movement was
likely during the 2011 “Occupy” movement, and that this training was related to how to
move individuals out of tent cities, not related to skirmish lines or deployment of less
lethal munitions.
Further, while SRT members (including UIPD officers) train frequently on specialized
skills such as barricaded suspects or hostage situations and are all currently qualified in
deployment of less lethal munitions, they had not, in recent years, formally trained for
crowd control. Their own specialized SRT Tactics manual does not refer to crowd
control tactics.
ICPD also reported that it had not formally trained with Johnson County Sheriff, UIPD or
other local agencies that might provide mutual aid since a County-wide training held in
2018.
Given the nationwide political climate and the potential for future civil unrest, ICPD
should evaluate its training curriculum to include periodic, formal training on crowd
control. This may include periodic refresher training on specific tactics as appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION 25
ICPD should update its annual training curriculum and related General Order to reflect
the addition of formal crowd control training.
RECOMMENDATION 26
Metro SRT should specifically update its Tactics manual to include model policing
tactics for modern crowd control.
63 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 27
Metro SRT should train regularly on crowd control tactics so that they are prepared to
respond in a command capacity when necessary, and should train with other
specialized units within ICPD and other agencies that are likely to provide mutual aid.
RECOMMENDATION 28
When practicable, ICPD should host or engage in joint training exercises on crowd
control tactics and responses with other local agencies County-wide.
RECOMMENDATION 29
ICPD should incorporate current case law related to protest activity as well as best
practices and trends in crowd management when delivering its annual use of force
training.
Use of the Incident Command System & Incident Action
Plan
According to their Standard Operating Guideline 07-01, “All Hazards Plan,” ICPD should
follow an Incident Command System (ICS) to respond to crowd management and civil
disturbances like the event on June 3.
Established in the 1970s, the ICS is a commonly used management response system
that allows for multiple agencies to collaborate in emergency situations by establishing a
unified command, maintaining clear mission objectives, and sharing logistics and
resources.
With respect to crowd control situations like June 3, the goals of an ICS are to:
Protect persons, regardless of their participation in the disturbance.
Disperse disorderly or threatening crowds in order to eliminate the immediate
risks of continued escalation and further violence and
Arrest law violators, including those responsible for property damage, and
remove or isolate persons inciting violent behavior.
The response is defined by incident using an Incident Action Plan (IAP). Creating a
comprehensive IAP can be challenging, if impossible, in the face of spontaneous events
such as June 3. In recognition of this reality, some experts recommend that agencies
may wish to establish various crowd management plan templates in advance of protest
64 | P a g e
activity. These generic plans can cover various types and sizes of protests to provide
general strategy and working tactics. These plans can then be quickly tailored and
adjusted when Incident Commanders are responding to a spontaneous event.
An IAP, even one that is generic, provides guidelines regarding incident objectives and
response strategies by stage or period, and formally documents procedures and
logistics. The IAP also serves to identify command structure, roles and responsibilities,
and communication (e.g., radio call signs), all aspects that were missing in ICPD’s
overall response to protest activity.
Not ever clearly documenting mission objectives and, more importantly, changes in
mission objectives, left room for confusion and misinterpretation in the hours leading up
to and the weeks following the June 3 incident. While ICPD leadership and responding
officers were aware of the new mission on the evening of June 3 – to be mutual aid to
ISP to keep protestors off the I-80 highway – this shift in mission objective was not
clearly articulated for officers or documented in any way.
Indeed, not having any clearly documented plan throughout this period had an impact
all the way down the ranks to officer morale, confidence, and mission command. One
ICPD officer reported that the officers were receiving ever-changing missions and rules
of engagement every day, sometimes hour-by-hour, and often conflicting. The officers
on the ground did not always know what decisions were being made in the Command
Post, nor their mission objectives. Not having an IAP, even one that was periodized
and fluid, made deployment and planning difficult. Not having a consistent plan or
mission objectives, reported one officer, created stress for officers on the ground.
We noted that ICPD followed the ICS approach, including creation of an Operations
Plan (similar to an IAP) for the pre-planned “Say Their Names Rally” held on May 30 but
did not clearly do so as on subsequent days as protest activity increased and the
mission shifted. Specifically, ICPD did not follow the ICS recommendations of creating
a robust Command Center, a clear Incident Action Plan and effective communication,
which we detail below.
We do commend ICPD for establishing some components of the ICS on the days
following June 3 when it became clear that the protest activity would continue. As we
discuss in more detail in the following sections, on June 4 and beyond, ICPD set up a
unified command at the formal Command Post, established formal intelligence and
surveillance, set up staging areas, and shared deployment resources with other
responding agencies.
65 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 30
ICPD should follow the Incident Command Structure and related components, including
establishing an Operations or Incident Action Plan when practical in future operations of
this scope and magnitude.
RECOMMENDATION 31
ICPD command staff, including all supervisors and team leads, should have initial and
refresher training on incident command.
RECOMMENDATION 32
ICPD should establish various, generic crowd management plan templates in advance
of protest activity to be adjusted when Incident Commanders are responding to a
spontaneous event. This should be completed internally and in joint training exercises
with agencies that will likely provide mutual aid.
Command & Communication
According to one ICPD official, Iowa City’s protest activity began later than in
neighboring jurisdictions and, as such, they did not set up a formal Command Post until
after June 3. In the “early days,” ICPD set up an impromptu Command Post in the
Johnson County Sheriff station in downtown Iowa City, where leadership from the City,
Sheriff, and UIPD met to discuss how to respond safely to the unfolding incidents.50 This
Command Post lacked the structure to effectuate the mission.
On the afternoon of June 3, the “impromptu” Command Post was initially staffed by
ICPD leadership, possibly Sheriff personnel, and the County Attorney. ICPD reported
that four lieutenants held logistics roles, ranging from providing food and meal breaks to
coordinating scheduling and equipment.51 In the later afternoon, personnel from ISP,
though not Command Staff, joined the Command Post.
50 The Command Post at the Sheriff’s Department was in the center of protest activity within a
building that was the target of protest activity (protestors gathered at the jail and courthouse,
housed in the same location as the Command Post). ICPD leadership acknowledged that the
Sheriff Department location was “too close” to the protest activity, yet they did not change the
Command Post location for the duration of unrest activity despite having a dedicated Command
Center facility at another location approximately five miles from downtown.
51 That ICPD lieutenants would be deployed in this manner on June 3 strikes us as a highly
questionable allocation of leadership resources, and as much as anything reflects the lack of an
integrated command or plan.
66 | P a g e
We noted that several operational aspects missing from command may have had an
impact, albeit peripheral, on the execution of the mission on June 3:
The Command Post lacked technological and deployment capacity for
surveillance and intelligence. ICPD leadership reported that the Command Post
did not have any technology infrastructure to monitor the City and University’s
surveillance cameras, leaving a deficiency in “live” event tracking. The
Command Post also did not have any formal intelligence on or communication
with the protest leaders despite having knowledge of the leaders and ability to
contact them on the ground as the days unfolded, creating uncertainty around
the protest plans and actions.
ICPD did not establish a field Incident Command Post on Dubuque Street.
Despite having a large contingency of officers on scene and being at the forefront
of a major incident, ICPD did not establish a field command post to manage the
operation. Further, the Department’s senior command staff were occupied with
management roles, leaving a sergeant in charge of operations at the scene.
Incident command on the scene attempted to communicate tactics and strategy
to officers on the skirmish line face-to-face, verbally, in a loud and chaotic
situation. At some points, we observed officers seemingly play a game of
“telephone” with the tactical plan, leaving out information as the message
traveled down the line. 52
Officers on the skirmish line seemingly lacked information about the tactics and
overall mission and scope of the operation. One ICPD officer stated that they
chose one-to-one verbal communication because they did not have a dedicated
tactical channel and did not want to clog radio communication from the
Command Post or other important agencies (e.g., the Fire Department) with on
the ground tactics communication. In reviewing the BWC from officers on the
line, we noted that on-scene communication between incident command and
officers on the skirmish line was, at times, ineffective.
The ineffective communication extended to on-scene command coordinating with
the Command Post. While some communications occurred over the radio via
dispatch, other communication, even of crucial information such as intelligence
on protestors, mission, and tactics, occurred via one-to-one cell phone calls
52 This phenomenon was also identified as a shortcoming in the after-action memo prepared by
the ICPD on-site incident commander.
67 | P a g e
between command staff in the Command Post and ICPD incident command on
the ground. This meant that not all involved personnel were apprised of
significant intelligence, planning, and tactics.
As detailed above, the (mis)communication failures also affected other
responding agencies, such as Johnson County Ambulance, to receive clear
instructions regarding their clearance to enter the scene.
We have acknowledged that that the Command Post became more robust as the days
progressed. However, the Command Post remained at the same location, which, as we
noted above, was not ideal.
RECOMMENDATION 33
In future events requiring centralized incident command, ICPD should set up a robust
Command Post at the onset of the incident in their dedicated facility, which, they report,
has the technological capacity for communication and surveillance.
RECOMMENDATION 34
In future events requiring field command, ICPD should set up a field Incident Command
Post with appropriate leadership capacity.
RECOMMENDATION 35
ICPD should provide a dedicated tactical channel for communication between ICPD’s
specialized units and among officers on the ground.
RECOMMENDATION 36
ICPD should include training on effective verbal communication specifically when
training on crowd control tactics generally. Specifically, this training might include a
preference for squad leaders to command one-on-one to line officers, when practicable,
rather than officers playing “telephone” with commands down the line.
RECOMMENDATION 37
ICPD should explore alternative communication methods that reduce or eliminate the
need for personal cell phone calls as a means of tactical communications.
RECOMMENDATION 38
ICPD should request that in large protest scenarios that the Joint Emergency
Communications Center provide a dedicated channel for other agencies, such as
68 | P a g e
Johnson County Ambulance and Iowa City Fire Department, to communicate with ICPD
directly.
Public Information Officer
Throughout the days of unrest in Iowa City, the Department did not have a uniquely
assigned Public Information Officer to communicate with the public at large. On June 3,
the role of PIO was assigned to the sergeant who was also one of the SRT Leaders.
He was, therefore, unable to act in his capacity as PIO. The Department eventually
assigned this position to another sergeant, but it reported that there were restrictions
placed on what they were able to report.
Accordingly, the community had little insight into police responses, and this contributed
in part to the momentum of criticism and disapproval that built over the subsequent
days.53 By not being more responsive and prioritizing its public information function, the
Department missed a potentially valuable opportunity to create transparency and to
dialogue with the community at a time of genuine tension. This was also in apparent
contravention of “Standard Operating Guidelines” for crowd control and civil
disturbances: “Since these types of events are often covered by the media, the
departmental Public Information Officer or officer designated as PIO for the incident
should be briefed in advance of the event. A pre-determined location should be used
for meeting with the media. All media contact should be through the PIO or the Incident
Commander.”
Our understanding is that the City is in the process of re-organizing this function, to
civilianize it and bring it under the umbrella of the City Manager's Office. We support
the notion of a police agency that is fully integrated with the mission, vision, and policy
initiatives of the community as a whole, and have no reason to believe this concept
won’t work. At the same time, recognition of law enforcement’s distinctive expertise and
responsibilities means that internal collaboration and communication will be essential to
the effectiveness of this model.
53 It is clear that – beyond the particular actions of ICPD – the prevailing momentum in Iowa City
was a backlash against police-centered injustice, and the Department’s explanations may well
have been dismissed amidst the larger tide of frustration. But months later, ICPD’s
representatives expressed their regret over not receiving what they considered to be an
objective airing of their perspective on what occurred. This is a point worth considering, insofar
as healthy police-community relations take place on what is of course a two-way street.
69 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 39
The new Public Information Officer concept should revolve around a constructive,
mutually respectful relationship between City officials and ICPD leadership in providing
timely, accurate, and candid information to the community about its policing services.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
70 | P a g e
Conclusion
For several days in June of 2020, public reaction to the death of George Floyd
blossomed into large-scale demonstrations, unrest – and concrete calls for change.
The above report, which of course focuses primarily on June 3, talks about those first
two components at length: the protests (as complicated by peripheral acts of vandalism
and safety concerns) obviously presented local law enforcement agencies with a
significant challenge. Like their cohorts around the country – even in jurisdictions with
much more resources and experience – ICPD found itself strained to capacity in its
efforts to respond to unfolding events. If these efforts were flawed at times, they were
also accompanied by long shifts of dedicated, well-intentioned service from officers who
sought to meet community expectations and comport with direction from City leaders.
We end by turning some attention to the prompt and very specific reform initiatives that
arose from the protest, as galvanized by the Iowa Freedom Riders and other activists
and as actualized by the Mayor and City Council. Turning protest and strong public
sentiment into meaningful policy is, of course, the phase that in some ways matters
most. And it is to the credit of the City and its residents that subsequent months have
seen progress in this regard. 54
One notable development is the October selection of a new Chief of Police to replace
the Department’s prior head, who retired in February of 2020. Coming from an out of
state agency, the Chief was chosen in the immediate context of the summer’s
developments and aftermath; ideally his leadership with help effectuate the progressive
vision that continues to emerge.55
As referenced above, on June 16, 2020, the City Council passed a 17-point resolution,
Resolution 20-159, calling for a “restructuring” of ICPD with more focus on community
policing. On December 15, 2020, pursuant to the resolution, the City Manager’s Office
54 We note also that this positive arc has not advanced in an unbroken line, and that
controversies and additional periods of protest emerged in the second half of 2020. But the
continued engagement and ongoing focus on the central issues of concern are themselves
distinguishing features of the Iowa City response.
55 The fact that ICPD was acting under the authority of an Interim Chief– albeit a very
experienced supervisor – during the summer’s unrest was perhaps an additional factor in some
of the dynamics related to the Department’s preparation and response. We spoke often with
this person in preparing this report, and we appreciate his insights and full cooperation. But
supervisors serving in this temporary capacity are presumably constrained in ways that would
not ordinarily apply to a permanent Chief.
71 | P a g e
presented the Department’s Preliminary Plan to Accelerate Community Policing. In this
plan, the Department committed to three main areas of change: 1) create a Continuum
of Response that directs calls for service to the agency most suited to handle the calls,
partners law enforcement with these agencies, and increases officer training
opportunities; 2) a commitment to unbiased policing by increasing diversity and bias
training, incorporating more civilian and community-based oversight, and review of
policies through the equity lens, among other changes; and 3) recruitment and training
focused on increasing diversity in the Department through a “Policing Forward” model.
The Department’s constructive participation in the process merits attention for a couple
of reasons. The first is for the impression it makes. Incidents that strain the trust
between the police and the community are difficult for both sides, and it can be hard for
law enforcement not to respond to criticism with defensiveness, or to reform ideas with
resistance. ICPD’s active engagement (in spite of whatever frustration or
discouragement the summer may have engendered) is accordingly to its credit – and to
the credit of a City structure that expects and facilitates responsiveness.
The second is substantive. The reform movement is a powerful force that is very much
in the process of changing the justice system. Many of these changes are long overdue
and transcend the role or fault of current participants. At any rate, the lasting
effectiveness of those changes will depend in part on the positive contributions of all key
stakeholders – including the law enforcement personnel whose specialized training and
expertise merit an active seat at the table when fundamental shifts are being
considered.
Our hope, for ICPD and the City, is that the painful chapters of 2020 will be understood
in the future as a turning point that redounds to the benefit of all concerned. We offer
this report as an element in that ongoing process, appreciate the opportunity to be part
of it, and intend to track future developments with optimism.
72 | P a g e
Appendix A: Lead Up Timeline
Monday, May 25
George Floyd is killed by Minneapolis Police Department Officer Derek Chauvin
Tuesday, May 26
Protests against police brutality begin in several major cities around the United States
Friday, May 29
In a prepared statement, ICPD Interim Chief Bill Campbell condemns the killing of
George Floyd, stating, “The manner in which these officers treated Mr. Floyd is
inconsistent with how we train police officers to conduct their interactions with the
public.”
First night of protests in Des Moines
o The Rally for George Floyd, 1,000+ people, ends peacefully
o A group of approximately 200 protestors move to Court, where Des Moines
Police Department was blocking streets
o Protestors surrounded police vehicle, break out windows, throw water
bottles. Officers respond with OC spray
o Organizers meet with Des Moines police to unsuccessfully diffuse the
conflict
o As crowd grows, officers deploy tear gas to disperse as protestors break
windows
o Polk County Sheriff and Iowa State Patrol arrive for mutual aid
o 12 arrests made
Saturday, May 30
First planned rally held in Iowa City: “Say Their Names” Rally
o Speakers included Iowa City Mayor Bruce Teague, Mayor Pro-Tem Mazahir
Salih, Johnson County Supervisor Royceann Porter, and North Liberty City
Councilor RaQuishia Harrington
o Agencies responding none. Organizers requested that ICPD not attend or
patrol the event
o Organizers: sisters Lujayn and Raneem Hamad
o Location: Pentacrest (downtown Iowa City)
o Roadblocks were used to close sections of Clinton Street and Iowa Avenue
for safety
o Rally was peaceful
Protests continue in Des Moines
o Organizers: Mothers Against Violence and Des Moines Stop the Violence
Crew
o Crowd estimate of 1,000+
o Separate protest branched off, approximately 300 people, moving to:
73 | P a g e
. At the Polk County Courthouse crowd threw rocks at police
skirmish line and broke windows
. Crowd then moved to the Capital building, where police line was
deployed, dispersal order issued
. Crowd moved up the steps to the police line, police used OC
spray on individual protestors
. Police deployed tear gas to disperse the crowd
. Crowd moved to Court Avenue (“entertainment district”), where
the crowd began fighting
. At approximately 12:30am, police deployed to Court Avenue
. At 2:30am (May 31) crowd broke into the Court Avenue Hy-Vee
. Police deployed tear gas and other methods to disperse the
crowd at various downtown locations
.
o 25 - 47 arrests reported
. Charges: Rioting, Failure to Disperse, 2nd Degree Criminal
Mischief
. Two handguns recovered
Polk County (Des Moines) issues curfew of 9pm – 5am
Sunday, May 31
Protest in Coralville (25th Avenue entrance of Coral Ridge Mall)
o Location: 25th Avenue entrance of Coral Ridge Mall
o Crowd approximately 50 individuals
o Agencies responding Coralville Police, Coralville Fire Department, North
Liberty Police, Iowa City Police, Johnson County Sheriff’s Office and Iowa
State Patrol
o Social media posts (Twitter and Facebook) state, “Coral Ridge mall hit loot.”
Vandalism and looting occured
o Protesters state that they were separate from the mall looting
o At approximately 11pm – midnight:
. Officers detain two individuals
. A third individual rushes the police line
. Officers from other agencies deploy chemical munitions and
flash bangs to disperse the protestors
Protests continue in Des Moines
o Davis Park March and Vigil in Union Park in the afternoon/early evening are
peaceful
o Des Moines Police Department (Historic East Village), approximately 150
people
. Police barricade the Department
. At 9pm, the curfew hour, protestors take a knee
. Protestors tell officers that, if they take a knee, everyone can go
home
. Officers kneel for a prayer
. The crowd disperses
o Target/Merle Hall Mall, approximately 75 people at start, grows to 200
. Protestors riot/looting mall area, break windows
74 | P a g e
. Some officers kneel with protestors
. At some point, officers deploy tear gas and protestors respond
with fireworks
. Discussion of starting Iowa Youth Power Movement
Davenport Protests, Shooting, Officer Ambush
o Approximately 100 people and vehicles protested at the North Park
Mall/Walmart parking lot
o Davenport Police Department responded to 45 “serious disturbance” calls
o Davenport Police Department responded to “shots fired” calls
. Four civilians shot
. Two of the four died
o At approximately 3:00AM (June 1), three officers were ambushed in their
patrol vehicle
. One officer shot
. Two officers returned fire, shooting perpetrator’s vehicle
Monday, June 1
Protests begin in Iowa City
o Old Capital
. Crowd of approximately 200 people gather
. Focus is “Black Lives Matter” movement
o Johnson County Jail
. Approximately 20 Johnson County Sheriff officers surround jail
. Crowd chants “take a knee” and officers kneel
. Johnson County Sheriff’s Sgt. Jeff Gingerich addresses the
crowd using a megaphone and sates that he “felt sick” watching
the Floyd video
o Iowa City City Hall
. Crowd moves to City Hall
. Organizer announces that “the night was about to turn violent” “
. Some individuals threw rocks, shattering glass in one front door
o Johnson County Courthouse
. Crowd moves to Courthouse
. Individuals spray paint street and Courthouse
. Agencies responding: ICPD, Sheriff
. Agency unknown issues a dispersal order
. White protestors move to front of crowd, link arms as if to
“protect” others, then move back to Old Capital and disperse
City Manager emails ICPD to show support/increase morale
o Email to officers to let them know they had the City support.
o Instructs that police do not intervene in situations that can’t be safe (e.g.,
“windows can be replaced, but people cannot”)
Protests continue in Des Moines
o What started as a peaceful protest at Statehouse and Police Department
turns violent around 11:30pm
75 | P a g e
. Prior to this, officers had knelt with protestors, negotiated,
removed riot gear
o Police issued a dispersal order at Statehouse in attempts to enforce the
9pm curfew
o Police deployed tear gas, flashbangs, to disperse the crowd
o 60+ arrests made throughout the evening
Coralville, Scott County and Davenport impose a curfew of 8pm to 6am and 9pm to
5am, respectively, “until further notice”
Tuesday, June 2
Vandalism in downtown Iowa City
o Johnson County Sheriff deploy pepper spray at protestors
o “Rocks and bottles” thrown at officers
o Windows broken at County Building
o Extensive vandalism to public and private property throughout Iowa City, including
broken windows, graffiti, damage to vehicles and other vandalism
o Damage to City Hall, including several broken window panes
Iowa City Council meeting held with two members, including the Mayor, and several staff
persons present in City Hall
Des Moines protest continue, but are peaceful
o March of 1,000+ to Gov. Mansion remained peaceful, no less lethal munitions
deployed
o Mayor issues mandatory Stay at Home order for City of West Des Moines
Wednesday, June 3
Iowa City Mayor hosts first “Speak Up, Speak Out” event
See June 3 Timeline
76 | P a g e
Appendix B: Recommendation Summary
RECOMMENDATION 1
ICPD should re-visit its existing mutual aid/joint law enforcement agreements with
outside agencies and should develop or refine as needed any written protocols that set
out limitations on deployment of munitions or enforcement activity with which the Police
Department will not assist.
RECOMMENDATION 2
ICPD should endeavor to reach a mutual aid/joint law enforcement agreement with ISP
regarding its limitations on deployment of munitions or enforcement activity and if one
cannot be struck advise ISP in writing of these limitations.
RECOMMENDATION 3
ICPD, with input from the City, should evaluate its protocols for responding to
pedestrian activity on the interstate, both on its own and in a mutual aid context with
ISP, to provide more specific guidance as to enforcement strategies and priorities.
RECOMMENDATION 4
ICPD should dedicate resources to strengthening its ability to gather useful information
from social media and other sources about community sentiment, activism, and
potential protest activity.
RECOMMENDATION 5
When circumstances allow, ICPD should pursue a strategy of more pro-active
identification of and outreach toward protest leadership in an effort to achieve beneficial
clarity on both sides.
RECOMMENDATION 6
ICPD should consider using personnel specially trained in crisis negotiation techniques
to de-escalate potentially tense confrontations with protestors prior to resorting to
deployment of force.
RECOMMENDATION 7
ICPD should develop a crowd control policy that requires, when feasible, attempts at
de-escalation with protestors through negotiation, pace, and other de-escalation
strategies and documentation of all efforts to de-escalate the situation.
77 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 8
ICPD should assess its internal capabilities (in terms of training and expertise) with
regard to effective communication with protestors or adversarial groups, and devote
resources as needed to increase its options for dialogue and negotiation in future
events.
RECOMMENDATION 9
When possible, ICPD should utilize physical barriers or other methods to maintain
distance in crowd control contexts, so as to improve potential for communication and
increase time for evaluation of potential threats.
RECOMMENDATION 10
The City should consider what specific manner of statement or acts constitute “acting in
a violent manner” in a protest situation and would be requisite prior to the initiation of
Iowa’s Unlawful Assembly Statute, so as to better equip ICPD in making these
assessments.
RECOMMENDATION 11
ICPD should ensure that any future declarations of unlawful assembly and orders to
disperse in a protest situation are audible and include directions for crowd departure.
RECOMMENDATION 12
ICPD should include specific language in its crowd control policy, which we discuss in
greater detail below, to provide more specific guidance than the current direction to
“issue warnings.”
RECOMMENDATION 13
ICPD should invest in equipment and study alternative techniques that would help
ensure that orders and warnings were comprehensively clear and audible in the large
crowd context.
RECOMMENDATION 14
ICPD should explore innovative approaches to crowd notification – such as real-time
social media broadcasting– that could facilitate enhanced communications with the
public.
RECOMMENDATION 15
ICPD should review body camera footage after critical incidents, identify any remarks
that are inconsistent with Department expectations, and ensure accountability and
remediation as appropriate.
78 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 16
ICPD should assess the individual uses of force by its personnel on June 3 in keeping
with its standard protocol, and should respond with accountability measures, additional
training, or other feedback as appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION 17
The City, in collaboration with ICPD, Johnson County Ambulance, the Joint Emergency
Communications Center, and the Iowa City Fire Department, should review the
miscommunication that occurred and work to develop protocols intended to improve
coordination for police and rescue response for future incidents.
RECOMMENDATION 18
ICPD should revise its uniform regulations to ensure that officers in tactical gear can be
clearly identified during their operations, both internally and for purposes of public
accountability.
RECOMMENDATION 19
Iowa City should engage in dialogue with its police department on how best to address
protestors involved in disorderly conduct and use the tools available within the criminal
justice system.
RECOMMENDATION 20
Iowa City leadership should seek community input and feedback from ICPD experts in
crafting policy parameters for use of force and deployment of munitions in the context of
protest activity.
RECOMMENDATION 21
ICPD should review, consolidate, and update its different crowd control policies to
eliminate gaps, increase clarity, and reflect current community standards and
expectations, in consideration of the principles articulated herein.
RECOMMENDATION 22
ICPD should re-evaluate and codify its approach to the use of less lethal munitions for
crowd control in a manner that, by creating narrow, particularized standards for
deployment, emphasizes the wide latitude that should be given to speech activities and
recognizes the public’s right to peaceably demonstrate.
79 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 23
ICPD should modify policy related to use of pepper ball rounds in crowd control
situations to limit use only against physically aggressive or combative individuals, rather
than as a general tool for dispersal of an “unruly or rioting” crowd.
RECOMMENDATION 24
ICPD should post its policy manual on its website with a searchable function.
RECOMMENDATION 25
ICPD should update its annual training curriculum and related General Order to reflect
the addition of formal crowd control training.
RECOMMENDATION 26
Metro SRT should specifically update its Tactics manual to include model policing
tactics for modern crowd control.
RECOMMENDATION 27
Metro SRT should train regularly on crowd control tactics so that they are prepared to
respond in a command capacity when necessary, and should train with other
specialized units within ICPD and other agencies that are likely to provide mutual aid.
RECOMMENDATION 28
When practicable, ICPD should host or engage in joint training exercises on crowd
control tactics and responses with other local agencies County-wide.
RECOMMENDATION 29
ICPD should incorporate current case law related to protest activity as well as best
practices and trends in crowd management when delivering its annual use of force
training.
RECOMMENDATION 30
ICPD should follow the Incident Command Structure and related components, including
establishing an Operations or Incident Action Plan when practical in future operations of
this scope and magnitude.
RECOMMENDATION 31
ICPD command staff, including all supervisors and team leads, should have initial and
refresher training on incident command.
80 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION 32
ICPD should establish various, generic crowd management plan templates in advance
of protest activity to be adjusted when Incident Commanders are responding to a
spontaneous event. This should be completed internally and in joint training exercises
with agencies that will likely provide mutual aid.
RECOMMENDATION 33
In future events requiring centralized incident command, ICPD should set up a robust
Command Post at the onset of the incident in their dedicated facility, which, they report,
has the technological capacity for communication and surveillance.
RECOMMENDATION 34
In future events requiring field command, ICPD should set up a field Incident Command
Post with appropriate leadership capacity.
RECOMMENDATION 35
ICPD should provide a dedicated tactical channel for communication between ICPD’s
specialized units and among officers on the ground.
RECOMMENDATION 36
ICPD should include training on effective verbal communication specifically when
training on crowd control tactics generally. Specifically, this training might include a
preference for squad leaders to command one-on-one to line officers, when practicable,
rather than officers playing “telephone” with commands down the line.
RECOMMENDATION 37
ICPD should explore alternative communication methods that reduce or eliminate the
need for personal cell phone calls as a means of tactical communications.
RECOMMENDATION 38
ICPD should request that in large protest scenarios that the Joint Emergency
Communications Center provide a dedicated channel for other agencies, such as
Johnson County Ambulance and Iowa City Fire Department, to communicate with ICPD
directly.
RECOMMENDATION 39
The new Public Information Officer concept should revolve around a constructive,
mutually respectful relationship between City officials and ICPD leadership in providing
timely, accurate, and candid information to the community about its policing services.
Item Number: 8.
J anuary 28, 2021
B L M & Systemic Racism Detailed Status Report
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
B L M & S ystemic Racism Detailed S tatus Report
1
City of Iowa City
COMMITMENT TO ADDRESSING BLACK
LIVES MATTER & SYSTEMIC RACISM
Resolution No. 20-159
Status Report
January 28, 2021
2
SUMMARY OF COMMITMENTS
The City of Iowa City is committed to embracing the Black Lives Matter Movement and addressing
Systemic Racism. The City Council unanimously passed Resolution No. 20-159 on Tuesday, June
16, 2020 which outlined seventeen initial actions. A copy of that signed resolution, along with
other related resources, is available at www.icgov.org/BLM.
The seventeen actions have been identified in this initial commitment and are summarized below.
Click on an action to be taken to the status report page for that item:
Policing & the Future of Public Safety
• Develop a preliminary plan to restructure Iowa City Police Department (ICPD) towards
community policing.
• Receive a report of ICPD involvement in use of gas and flash-bang devices during a June
2020 Black Lives Matter protest in Iowa City.
• Increase accountability and oversight authority of CPRB, where legally possible.
• Improve transparency and accessibility of detailed ICPD budget expenditures.
• Review inventory of military grade equipment in ICPD, evaluate federal contracts with the
ICPD and express support for divestment of the Johnson County Sherriff’s Mine Resistant
Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle.
• Enact ICPD General Order to expressly ban the use of chokeholds & any maneuver that
cuts off oxygen or blood flow.
• Continue ICPD policy and practice to be consistent with IA H.F. 2647, ensuring police
officers in Iowa have not committed serious misconduct.
• Investigate compliance and evaluate disciplinary action related to proper use of body
cameras and vehicle recording devices.
• Ensure the duty to intervene and stop excessive force, in both ICPD General Order and an
MOU with area law enforcement agencies.
• Prohibit use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash bangs against peaceful protestors.
• Adopt 2021 state legislative priorities related to criminal justice reform, enhanced
authority of the Community Police Review Board (CPRB), and decriminalization of small
amounts of marijuana.
Truth & Reconciliation
• Create an ad hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission to carry out restorative justice.
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
• Commit $1,000,000 to local efforts promoting racial equity + social justice, including
development of a new Affordable Housing Plan.
• Increase opportunities for artistic expression by communities of color.
• Establish Juneteenth as an official city holiday beginning in 2021.
• Increase diversity of City employees, expand equitable recruitment efforts, and elevate
organizational equity training, policies, and procedures.
• Continue use of a racial equity toolkit use in all city departments, expand training to the
City Council, and educate and train the local business community
3
PROGRESS SUMMARY
Policing & the Future of Public Safety
Truth & Reconciliation
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
*Note: Actions showing multiple icons have some council directives accomplished and others ongoing; details are provided on each action’s page.
$1m. committed to SJRE efforts + Affordable Housing Plan
Equitable recruitment, hiring, staff training
2021 legislative priorities supporting racial/social justice
Develop Truth & Reconciliation Commission
Preliminary plan to restructure the police
Report on gas/flash bang use on protestors
CPRB Report on Recommended Changes
Transparent and accessible ICPD budget details
Military-grade equipment inventory review, MRAP Letter
ICPD G.O.: Chokeholds and airway restricting maneuvers
ICPD G.O.: Police misconduct related to IA H.F. 2647
ICPD G.O.: Body camera + car recorder compliance
ICPD G.O.: Duty to Intervene & stop excessive use of force
ICPD G.O.: Tear gas, rubber bullets, flash bangs in protests
Racial & Equity Toolkit expansion of use + education
Increase art + celebrations of communities of color
Establish Juneteenth as official City holiday
Awaiting City
Council action Planning or action
currently underway
Some or all actions
accomplished
Action(s) completed Action(s) in progress Awaiting City
Council action
Last Updated: January 28, 2021
4
Resolution
“By December 15, 2020, develop a preliminary plan to restructure the Iowa City Police Department (ICPD)
towards community policing, including, but not limited to, reduction of the public’s reliance on police in non-
violent situations through use of unarmed professionals, and consideration of community policing initiatives in
other cities, including, but not limited to, Minneapolis, MN, Camden, NJ, Los Angeles, CA and San Francisco,
CA.” (Res. 20-159, p. 1, #1)
Status Summary
The City Manager’s Office has initiated the translation of the Preliminary Plan recommendations into
Spanish, French, and Arabic. Translated documents are expected to be available for the public in
February.
Staff will also work with Mayor Pro Tem Salih, Councilor Bergus, and Councilor Weiner to develop an
outreach plan that involves contracting with an independent party to solicit feedback on the plan,
focusing on BIPOC populations who often face barriers to providing input.
Residents can visit www.icgov.org/preliminaryplan to read the plan and a summary of recommendations
and view the City Manager’s presentation of the preliminary plan. The community is encouraged to
provide feedback on the preliminary plan by e-mailing PolicePlan@iowa-city.org or take a survey on
the recommendations.
Next Steps
Target Date Milestone Action Group(s)
Ongoing Visit www.icgov.org/preliminaryplan to provide comments. Public
Accomplishments
• Sept. 1, 2020: City Council approved the replacement of a vacant, full-time police officer
position with a civilian Victim Support Specialist position. More information is available here.
• Sept. 16 – Oct. 8, 2020: Six separate Listening Posts held on community policing with focus areas
including homelessness, crisis intervention/mental health/substance abuse, victims of abuse, youth
engagement, the special needs population, and UI students.
• Aug. 25 – Oct. 15, 2020: Comments welcomed through an online public input form.
• Oct. 15, 2020: Staff delivered a report to City Council which summarized the comments received
via the listening posts and online form during the initial public input phase.
• Oct. 29, 2020: ICPD issued a special order to no longer initiate stops based on non-public safety
secondary violations. Public safety data concerning this guideline will be reviewed after 60 days.
• Dec. 15, 2020: City Council adopted an unbiased policing ordinance
• Dec. 15, 2020: A preliminary plan to accelerate community policing was released.
ACTION 1: PRELIMINARY PLAN TO RESTRUCTURE ICPD
TOWARDS COMMUNITY POLICING
5
Resolution
“Allocate City funds in the amount of $1,000,000 during Fiscal Year starting July 1, 2020 for efforts to
promote racial equity and social justice, including expansion of the Special Populations Involvement (SPI)
program, creation of a new robust affordable housing plan, including, but not limited to, housing in the
downtown and core neighborhoods, support of the to be determined efforts of a Truth and Reconciliation
Commission, and hold a Council work session on or before August 1, 2020 to address specific allocations.”
(Res. 20-159, p. 1, #2)
Status Summary
Allocation plans for these funds are pending further City Council discussion.
The process for developing a new Affordable Housing Action Plan is underway with an emphasis on
engaging more voices in the community. Steering committee members have been selected and are in the
process of scheduling their first meeting.
Next Steps
Target Date Milestone Action Group(s)
TBD Hold City Council work session to address specific allocations City Council
Accomplishments
• August 18, 2020: City Council agreed to contribute $25,000 in funding to assist the Iowa City
BIPOC and Immigrant-Owned Businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, in collaboration
with ThinkIowaCity and Project Better Together’s Holding Our Own program. This funding is
separate from the $1 million commitment. View a list of funding recipients.
ACTION 2: COMMIT $1,000,000 TO LOCAL EFFORTS
PROMOTING RACIAL EQUITY + SOCIAL JUSTICE
6
Resolution
“Elevate the City’s commitment to racial equity and social justice, including expanding efforts to increase the
number of minorities employed by the City including eliminating barriers to applications, increase resources
devoted to those efforts as needed to better train all city employees and coordinate and report on the use of
funds dedicated for racial equity and social justice.” (Res. 20-159, p. 2, #3)
Status Summary
Staff have implemented several improvements for more equitable hiring and recruitment and continue to
actively explore additional opportunities, such as those ideas outlined in the staff report.
In early December, Iowa City was one of 20 local governments across the nation to join in an amicus
curiae brief in support of a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s Executive Order 13950, which attempts
to ban the use of comprehensive diversity trainings by federal contractors.
Next Steps
Target Date Milestone Action Group(s)
Ongoing, Monthly Staff Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Committee
meetings and efforts
Staff
Ongoing Diversity and equity improvements to hiring and
recruitment policy and practices.
All
Accomplishments
• July 29, 2020: Approximately 60 City and County staff participated in a virtual Cultural
Proficiency pilot training.
• August 2020: New staff DEI Committee was formed, with a mission to discuss opportunities and
plan for improving workplace culture related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. This committee will
continue to meet monthly and seek progress in these areas.
• August 20, 2020: Staff completed a report on Iowa City employee demographics, recruitment
efforts, and staff diversity, equity, and inclusion trainings.
• October 2020: A new employment opportunities flyer (available in English, Spanish, French
(Africa), Arabic, and Swahili) was created and distributed to approximately 300 community
organizations and local contacts who reach diverse populations.
• Human Resources has been working with hiring to staff to implement changes since this report was
published, including:
o Requiring all interviews to include at least one question on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
o More consistent data collection on how candidates learn about positions.
o Providing hiring managers with current employee demographics at the beginning of the
hiring process as well as post-hire recruitment analysis reports.
o Providing candidates with interview prep time prior to the start of an interview.
o Providing candidates with “Interview Tips for Success” when scheduling interviews.
ACTION 3: INCREASE DIVERSITY OF EMPLOYEES, EQUITABLE
RECRUITMENT EFFORTS, AND ORGANIZATIONAL EQUITY TRAINING
7
Resolution
“By August 1, 2020, receive a report from the City Manager on the ICPD’s involvement in the use of gas
and flash-bang devices during the protest in Iowa City on June 3, 2020.” (Res. 20-159, p. 2, #4)
Status Summary
The OIR Group completed their independent review of the June 3, 2020 protest event and this report was
delivered to City Council in their January 28, 2021 information packet.
The report from the OIR Group can be viewed online at www.icgov.org/blm under “Documents & Resources.”
Next Steps
Target Date Milestone Action Group(s)
TBD Deliver report from OIR Group to City Council Third Party
Accomplishments
• September 1, 2020: Councilors approved a contract with OIR Group (based in Playa del Ray,
CA) to conduct an independent investigation of the June 3, 2020 BLM protest incident that took
place near the Interstate 80 interchange and Dubuque Street.
• September 3, 2020: Per City Council direction, the City released a statement and video footage
related to the June 3, 2020 BLM protest incident.
• January 28, 2020: Completed report from the OIR Group’s independent review delivered to City
Council.
ACTION 4: RECEIVE REPORT ON ICPD INVOLVEMENT IN USE
OF GAS AND FLASH BANGS DURING JUNE 2020 BLM
8
Resolution
“By October 1, 2020, create an ad hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission to bear witness to the truth of
racial injustice in Iowa City and to carry out restorative justice, through the collection of testimony and public
hearings, with such work to include a recommendation to the Council of a plan for dedicating and/or
renaming public spaces and/or rights of way in honor of the Black Lives Matter movement.” (Res. 20-159, p.
2, #5)
Status Summary
The Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC) meets bi-weekly. Learn more and stay up-to-date on
meeting schedules and agendas here.
Next Steps
Target Date Milestone Action Group(s)
Every other
Thursday, 7 p.m.
Regular TRC meetings will be held bi-weekly on Thursdays at
7 p.m. until further notice
TRC, Staff
Accomplishments
• July – September 2020: Continued collaborative efforts to collect ideas and input from members
of the public, including councilor meetings and sustained communication with members of the Iowa
Freedom Riders (IFR), input from other community groups, and individual input collected via e-mail,
phone, and in-person at City Council meetings.
• July 21, 2020 – Public input opportunity at the regular, formal City Council meeting.
• August 18, 2020: Councilors Bergus and Weiner introduced a draft resolution.
• September 1, 2020: Councilors received public input and made plans to discuss further at the
next City Council meeting.
• September 15, 2020: City Council adopted a resolution forming a Truth & Reconciliation
Commission.
• November 17, 2020: City Council appointed nine board members to serve two-year terms on the
TRC, including: : Amel Ali, Anthony Currin, Raneem Hamad, T’Shaliyn Harrington (vice chair), Eric
Harris, Layana Navarre-Jackson, Royceann Porter (chair), Kevin John Rivera, and Mohamed
Traore.
• December 21, 2020: First TRC meeting held.
ACTION 5: CREATE AD HOC TRUTH & RECONCILIATION
COMMISSION TO CARRY OUT RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
9
Resolution
“Make it a 2021 City Council legislative priority to advocate for and support our state delegation in
enacting criminal justice reform, eliminating the war on drugs and making changes to state law that enable
the City’s plan to restructure the police department, enhance the authority of the Community Police Review
Board (CPRB) and reduce disproportionate minority contact, including support of state legislation
decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana.” (Res. 20-159, p. 2, #6)
Status Summary
Staff will work with state legislators, advocacy groups, and the City’s contracted lobbyists to advance the
City’s 2021 State legislative priorities, which include support for reform measures to reduce racial
disparity in the criminal justice system and address systemic racism and support for crisis services.
In January, the City worked with their contracted lobbyists to register in support of two bills that address
decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana; an offense which contributes to racial disparity in the
criminal justice system.
Next Steps
Target Date Milestone Action Group(s)
2021 State of Iowa
Legislative Session
Staff will work with state legislators, and City’s
contracted lobbyists on these issues during the 2021
session.
Staff, state legislative
delegation, contracted
lobbyists
Accomplishments
• June 19, 2020: Participated in joint work session between the NAACP and local, state and
federal law enforcement agencies.
• November 17, 2020: City Council adopted 2021 state legislative priorities, including support for
Policy changes recommended by the Governor’s FOCUS Committee on Criminal Justice Reform.
• November 23, 2020: City Council held a special work session to discuss the adopted priorities
with the legislators and contracted lobbyists.
ACTION 6: ADOPT STATE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES RELATED TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE
REFORM, CPRB AUTHORITY & DECRIMINALIZATION OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIJUANA
10
Resolution
“Continue use of the racial equity toolkit by city departments and expand such training to the City Council, and
work with our local business partners to educate and train the business community on use of a racial equity
toolkit.” (Res. 20-159, p. 2, #7)
Status Summary
City staff will continue to expand knowledge and use of the toolkit and update City Council as
appropriate. The City is sponsoring additional training opportunities for local businesses and
organizations to be held in February, covering topics including diversity, leadership, and effective
listening and diversity, bias, and microaggressions.
Several other trainings and education and engagement events are scheduled to be hosted or sponsored
by the City of Iowa City in the coming months. For a list of upcoming events, please visit
www.icgov.org/blm and check under the “Upcoming Education + Engagement Events” section.
To stay up-to-date on City events, follow @CityofIowaCity on social media, and sign-up for e-mail or
SMS/text message notifications (visit www.icgov.org/e-subscriptions, enter your preferred method of
contact, and select “Equity and Human Rights” under “News and Events”).
Accomplishments
• July 22, 2020: Culturally Responsive Communication training delivered to 100+ members of the
local business community.
• July 23, 2020: Staff presented a memo on the City’s use of the racial equity toolkit to Council.
• July 29, 2020: Approximately 60 City and County staff participated in a virtual Cultural
Proficiency pilot training.
• August 2020: New staff DEI Committee was formed, with a mission to discuss opportunities and
plan for improving workplace culture related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. This committee will
continue to meet monthly and seek progress in these areas.
• August 26, 2020: Staff, in collaboration with the ACLU, conducted a Know Your Rights
presentation with area youth through the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County.
• September 9, 2020: Culturally Responsive Communication training delivered to area property
managers and businesses. Approximately 45 individuals participated.
• October 13, 2020: The Office of Equity and Human Rights released an online fair housing
training, available on-demand at www.icgov.org/FairHousingTraining.
• October 22, 2020: Culturally Responsive Communication training delivered to area property
managers and businesses. Approximately 50 individuals participated.
• December 2, 2020: Implicit bias training was provided to City board & commission members
(approximately 21 people attended).
ACTION 7: CONTINUE USE OF RACIAL EQUITY TOOLKIT USE AND
EXPAND TRAINING TO CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL BUSINESSES
11
Resolution
“Request and receive, by January 1, 2021, a report and recommendation from the CPRB, in consultation
with an attorney of its choice, regarding changes to the CPRB ordinance that enhance its ability to provide
effective civilian oversight of the ICPD, including but not limited to those that address compelling the
testimony of officers, with the report to include a summary of measures considered and rejected by the CPRB,
whether it be for policy or legal reasons.” (Res. 20-159, p. 2, #8)
Status Summary
At their December 22 meeting, the Community Police Review Board approved a report to City Council of
proposed changes to the Board. At their January 19, 2021 meeting, the City Council requested a legal
analysis of the CPRB’s recommendations, including analysis of whether any of the recommendations would
require changes to State law before being implemented locally.
Accomplishments
• September 2020: Complaints can be now be filed with the CPRB using a new, online web form.
The option to submit a hard copy form remains.
• September 21, 2020: Virtual Community Forum held by the CPRB to collect public input on the
Board’s role and ICPD policies, practices, and procedures.
• October 9, 2020: An informational report summarizing the 27-year history of the CPRB ordinance
and a history of complaints filed with the Board was included in the CPRB agenda packet.
• December 22, 2020: CPRB delivered a report to City Council on proposed changes to the Board.
ACTION 8: INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT
AUTHORITY OF CPRB, WHERE LEGALLY POSSIBLE
12
Resolution
“Direct staff to provide a detailed expenditure summary of the police budget on the City’s website.” (Res.
20-159, p. 2, #9)
Status Summary
Staff will continue to increase transparency about the Police Department operations through revised web
content.
The preliminary plan to accelerate community policing released on Dec. 15, 2020 includes more
information about the Police Department’s operations and budget.
Accomplishments
• View additional fiscal year 2021 police department budget information (published June 2020).
• View additional fiscal year 2015 – 2019 Calls for Service + Crime Information
ACTION 9: IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY + ACCESSIBILITY OF
DETAILED ICPD BUDGET EXPENDITURES
13
Resolution
“Send the letter attached as Exhibit “A” to the Johnson County Sheriff supporting divestment of the MRAP
(Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicle and obtain a report from city staff on the military grade
equipment in the ICPD’s inventory and the federal contracts that provide support to the police department.”
(Res. 20-159, p. 2, #10)
Accomplishments
• June 17, 2020: Mayor Teague submitted a letter to the Johnson County Sheriff supporting
divestment of the MRAP vehicle. A copy of the letter can be viewed here.
• August 20, 2020: City staff prepared a memo outlining federal contracts from 2017 to the
present, that provide support to the Iowa City Police Department.
• Staff delivered a memo on ICPD military grade equipment to City Council on September 10,
2020.
ACTION 10: REVIEW ICPD INVENTORY OF MILITARY-GRADE
EQUIPMENT + SUPPORT COUNTY DIVESTMENT OF MRAP
14
Resolution
“Direct the City Manager to expressly ban, in the ICPD’s general orders, any use of chokeholds or any other
maneuver that cuts off oxygen or blood flow.” (Res. 20-159, p. 2, #11)
Accomplishments
• CPRB last reviewed the Iowa City Police Department’s General Order on Use of Force at their
October 8, 2019 meeting. The board recommended changes and those were incorporated by the
Iowa City Police Department. The General Order was re-issued by the Police Department on
October 23, 2019.
• The Community Police Review Board approved an updated Use of Force General Order (G.O.)
at their August 19, 2020 meeting. The G.O. was re-issued by the ICPD on August 20, 2020.
ACTION 11: ADOPT ICPD GENERAL ORDER (G.O.) TO EXPRESSLY BAN
CHOKEHOLDS & ANY MANEUVER THAT CUTS OFF OXYGEN OR BLOODFLOW
15
Resolution
“Direct the City Manager to ensure the ICPD’s policy and practices regarding employment of officers is
consistent with the goals of recently enacted Iowa House File 2647 to ensure that officers working in Iowa
have not committed serious misconduct, as defined therein.” (Res. 20-159, p. 2, #12)
Status Summary
The Iowa City Police Department recruitment process already contains a robust background check process
that includes a review of past employment history. Candidates with a history of serious misconduct are not
considered for employment with the Iowa City Police Department. As the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy
develops rules for the implementation of House File 2647, staff will adjust policies accordingly to ensure
complete compliance with the new law.
Next Steps
Target Date Milestone Action Group(s)
TBD – Dependent
upon when the State
of Iowa releases rules
Update Human Resource policies as needed to ensure
compliance with HF 2647
Staff
Accomplishments
ACTION 12: CONTINUE ICPD POLICY + PRACTICES REFLECT IA H.F. 2647,
ENSURING OFFICERS HAVE NOT COMMITTED SERIOUS MISCONDUCT
16
Resolution
“Direct the City Manager to review the systems and reporting mechanisms in place at the ICPD for evaluating
compliance with the ICPD’s Body Worn Cameras and In-Car Recorders general order, ensure that such
systems result in consistent compliance with the general order, revise as necessary to achieve that goal,
include real consequences for non-compliance, and report back to the Council upon completion of the
review.” (Res. 20-159, p. 3, #13)
Accomplishments
• The Community Police Review Board reviewed and approved the General Order on Body
Cameras and In-Car Recorders at their February 11, 2020 meeting.
• The Community Police Review Board reviewed and approved an updated General Order on
Body Cameras and In-Car Recorders at their September 8, 2020 meeting.
• Staff delivered a report on the revised General Order related to body worn cameras and in-car
recorders, to City Council on September 10, 2020.
• Staff updated monthly Use of Force reports provided to the CPRB to indicate body camera and
in-car recording compliance on all Use of Force incidents.
ACTION 13: EVALUATE COMPLIANCE + DISCIPLINARY ACTION
RELATED TO PROPER USE OF BODY CAMS AND CAR RECORDERS
17
Resolution
“Direct the City Manager to revise the ICPD’s general orders to require officers to intervene and stop
excessive force used by other officers and report the incident directly to a supervisor, and enter into a
memorandum of understanding with other law enforcement agencies regarding such intervention when the
excessive force is being used by an officer of another agency such as that currently being discussed and
circulated among area law enforcement attached as Exhibit “B”” (Res. 20-159, p. 3, #14)
Accomplishments
• June 19, 2020: ICPD staff participated in joint work session between the NAACP and local, state,
and federal law enforcement agencies. At the joint work session, Iowa City joined five area law
enforcement agencies in signing a Duty to Intercede MOU.
• On July 14, 2020, the Community Police Review Board (CPRB) approved, with no changes, the
new Duty to Intervene and Report General Order provided by staff. An executed copy of that
General Order can be viewed online and has been issued to ICPD staff/officers.
ACTION 14: ENSURE DUTY TO INTERVENE & STOP EXCESSIVE
FORCE, BOTH IN ICPD AND MOU WITH AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT
18
Resolution
“Request and receive a report and recommendation from the City’s Public Art Advisory Committee, after
input from and consultation with local Black artists, on measures Council should consider to provide
opportunities for artistic expression by the Black Lives Matter movement and communities of color, including
but not limited to visual arts as well as a public festival dedicated to the celebration of Black culture.” (Res.
20-159, p. 3, #15)
Status Summary
The Public Art Advisory Committee continues to collaborate
with Public Space One and the Center for Afrofuturist
Studies on a comprehensive public art and public
engagement project.
At their January 13 meeting, the Parks & Recreation
Commission agreed to move forward with a recommendation
to City Council for renaming Creekside Park in honor of
James Alan McPherson, an influential leader in the Iowa
Writer’s Workshop and the first African-American to win the
Pulitzer Prize for Fiction.
The City again helped sponsor the 2021 MLK Celebration
of Human Rights. With City funds, Rodney’s Jamaican Jerk
Chicken served 205 people who participated in the day of celebration and the Iowa City Public Library
hosted “We the People: Protest and Peace” in partnership with other community groups.
The Truth & Reconciliation Commission will also prepare recommendations for City Council related to
public art and/or public festivals dedicated to the celebration of Black culture.
Next Steps
Target Date Milestone Action Group(s)
TBD City Council to consider a recommendation to rename
Creekside Park after James Alan McPherson. City Council, Parks and
Recreation Commission
TBD Capitol Street Parking Ramp public art project, to include
community involvement
PAAC, public, Public
Space One, Center for
Afrofuturist Studies
Accomplishments
• August 18, 2020: City Council approved a resolution to proceed with a project in partnership with the
Center for Afrofuturist Studies.
• December 3, 2020: The Public Art Advisory Committee received a public art project concept and
approved a motion to move forward with the project with additional public input.
ACTION 15: INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ARTISTIC
EXPRESSION BY COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
The mural is proposed to be located on the stair towers of
the Capitol Street Parking Ramp along Burlington Street.
19
Resolution
“Prohibit the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and flashbangs against peaceful protestors.” (Res. 20-159, p.
3, #16)
Status Summary
Immediate direction has been provided to the Iowa City Police Department. Any policy update on this
item is on hold until the completion of the investigation in action item #4 of this resolution. Staff will use
the report of the June 3, 2020 events and City Council’s related discussion of these reports, to inform
their review of all policies and ensure any relevant updates to policies are completed.
Next Steps
Target Date Milestone Action Group(s)
TBD Receive and discuss report on June 3, 2020 protest
response
City Council
Accomplishments
ACTION 16: PROHIBIT THE USE OF TEAR GAS, RUBBER
BULLETS, AND FLASHBANGS AGAINST PEACEFUL PROTESTORS
20
Resolution
“Beginning in calendar year 2021, Juneteenth, June 19, shall be a city holiday and shall replace an existing
city holiday.” (Res. 20-159, p. 3, #17)
Accomplishments
Holidays are negotiated in the collective bargaining agreements with the City’s labor unions. The City
reached an agreement with the Police, Fire, and AFSCME unions to officially replace President’s Day (or
Washington’s Birthday) with the Juneteenth holiday. The City will also make the change for supervisory
and other non-bargaining unit staff.
The City will observe Juneteenth on June 19th annually as a City holiday. If June 19th falls on a weekend,
the City will observe it on the Friday preceding or the Monday following the June 19th date. The first
official recognition of Juneteenth as a formal City holiday will be Friday, June 18, 2021.
ACTION 17: ESTABLISH JUNETEENTH AS AN OFFICIAL CITY
HOLIDAY BEGINNING IN 2021
Item Number: 9.
J anuary 28, 2021
Q u arterly Investment Rep ort: O ctob er - December 2020
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Quarterly I nvestment Report: October - December 2020
Item Number: 10.
J anuary 28, 2021
F Y2020 Long-term Debt Discl osure Rep ort
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
F Y2020 L ong-term Debt Disclosure Report
Date: January 26, 2021
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director
RE: Long-term Debt Disclosure Report
In accordance with the City Council’s Debt Management Policy, an annual debt report is to be
submitted within 210 days after the fiscal year-end to the City Manager and the City Council. The
City’s fiscal year 2020 ended on June 30, 2020, and this report is intended to provide information
regarding 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 2020, the City incurred the following significant events regarding its bond obligations
and reported them on the Electronic Municipal Market Place (EMMA):
• 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 other material
January 26, 2020
Page 2
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: None*
* A partial early call of the Harrison Street Parking Lease-Purchase Agreement of
$8,671,165 was was made on June 1, 2020. This was not a reportable event on EMMA.
• Defeasances of the Bonds: None*
* The Harrison Street Parking Lease-Purchase Agreement balance of $174,876 was
defeased on June 29, 2020. This was not a reportable event on EMMA.
• 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:
i. Bank Note with MidWest One Bank for $1,000,000 was entered on 8/1/2019 and dated
8/1/2019 to 8/1/2020 for the UniverCity program to purchase properties for
redevelopment
1. This disclosure was not filed within 10 days of its occurrence. This filing was
made on 2/13/2020 along with a Notice of Failure to File.
ii. Bank Note with Greenstate Credit Union for $250,000 was entered on 2/6/2020 and
dated 2/6/2020 to 7/15/2021 for the UniverCity program to purchase properties for
redevelopment
• 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:
• 2021 General Obligation Bonds – 2021 CIP Program - $11,400,000
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 2020 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, 2021 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, 2020
Relating to
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Johnson County, Iowa
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 25, 2021
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 2
DEBT LIMIT
The constitutional general obligation debt limit of a political subdivision of the state of Iowa is equal to five percent
(5%) of the value of taxable property within its borders. According to and based upon the January 1, 2018 property
valuations, for taxes payable in September 2019 and March 2020 the general obligation debt limit of the City for the period
which began July 1, 2019 and ends June 30, 2020 is:
2018 100% Actual Valuation of Property ............................... $6,133,570,208
Constitutional Debt Limit ....................................................... $ 306,678,510
Outstanding Bonds/Notes Applicable to Debt Limit:
TIF Revenue Debt ................................................................. $ 14,790,000
Total G.O. Debt Subject to Debt Limit.................................... 53,370,000
Other Loans .......................................................................... 210,784
Other Legal Indebtedness (TIF Rebates) .............................. 25,876,859
Total Applicable Debt ............................................................ $ 94,247,643
Remaining Debt Capacity ...................................................... $ 212,430,867
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 6/30/20
June 2012 $ 9,070,000 Multi-Purpose 6/22 $ 1,980,000
July 2013 7,230,000 Multi-Purpose 6/23 2,560,000
June 2014 11,980,000 Refunded Multi-Purpose 6/24 3,950,000
June 2015 7,785,000 Multi-Purpose 6/25 4,150,000
June 2016 8,795,000 Multi-Purpose 6/26 5,875,000
June 2017 9,765,000 Multi-Purpose 6/27 7,040,000
June 2018 8,895,000 Multi-Purpose 6/28 7,260,000
June 2019 12,535,000 Multi-Purpose 6/29 8,410,000
June 2020 12,145,000 Multi-Purpose 6/30 12,145,000
Total General Obligation Bonds $53,370,000
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 3
GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT(1)
(Principal Only)
Fiscal Year
Ending Series Series Series Series Series Series Series Series
June 30 2012A 2013A 2014A 2015A 2016A 2017A 2018A 2019
2021 ............................................... $ 975,000 $ 835,000 $ 950,000 $ 785,000 $ 930,000 $ 940,000 $ 840,000 $ 905,000
2022 ............................................... 1,005,000 855,000 970,000 805,000 950,000 955,000 855,000 925,000
2023 ............................................... 0 870,000 1,000,000 830,000 965,000 980,000 875,000 955,000
2024 ............................................... 0 0 1,030,000 850,000 985,000 1,000,000 895,000 985,000
2025 ............................................... 0 0 0 880,000 1,010,000 1,025,000 915,000 875,000
2026 ............................................... 0 0 0 0 1,035,000 1,055,000 940,000 905,000
2027 ............................................... 0 0 0 0 0 1,085,000 960,000 940,000
2028 ............................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 980,000 960,000
2029 ............................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 960,000
2030 ............................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total ............................................. $1,980,000 $2,560,000 $3,950,000 $4,150,000 $5,875,000 $7,040,000 $7,260,000 $8,410,000
Fiscal Year Total
Ending Series General Obligation Cumulative Retirement Principal &
June 30 2020 Debt Amount Percent Interest
2021 ............................................... $ 3,600,000 $10,760,000 $10,760,000 20.16% $12,216,373
2022 ............................................... 1,800,000 9,120,000 19,880,000 37.25% 10,238,613
2023 ............................................... 1,200,000 7,675,000 27,555,000 51.63% 8,545,863
2024 ............................................... 805,000 6,550,000 34,105,000 63.90% 7,207,962
2025 ............................................... 790,000 5,495,000 39,600,000 74.20% 5,983,712
2026 ............................................... 790,000 4,725,000 44,325,000 83.05% 5,068,400
2027 ............................................... 790,000 3,775,000 48,100,000 90.13% 3,985,525
2028 ............................................... 790,000 2,730,000 50,830,000 95.24% 2,850,000
2029 ............................................... 790,000 1,750,000 52,580,000 98.52% 1,803,200
2030 ............................................... 790,000 790,000 53,370,000 100.00% 805,800
Total ............................................. $12,145,000 $53,370,000 $58,705,448
Note: (1) Source: the City.
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 4
INDIRECT GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT
DEBT RATIOS
STATEMENT OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS(1)(2)
City Actual Value, January 1, 2018 ............................................................................................................................................................. $6,133,570,208
City Taxable Value, January 1, 2018 .......................................................................................................................................................... $3,923,114,214
Per Capita
Applicable Ratio to City Ratio to City (2010 Pop.
Total Percent Amount Actual Value Taxable Value 67,862 )
Direct Bonded Debt ....................................... $ 53,370,000 100.00% $ 53,370,000 0.87% 1.36% $ 786.45
TIF Revenue Debt ......................................... 14,790,000 100.00% 14,790,000 0.24% 0.38% 217.94
Overlapping Debt:
Iowa City Community School District ............. $181,415,000 57.41% $104,150,352 1.70% 2.65% 1,534.74
Clear Creek-Amana Community School Dist. 85,095,000 0.04% 3,403,800 0.06% 0.09% 50.16
Kirkwood Community College(3) ................... 146,249,121 14.30% 20,913,624 0.34% 0.53% 308.18
Johnson County ............................................ 3,570,000 42.25% 1,508,325 0.02% 0.04% 22.23
Total Applicable Overlapping Bonded Debt ............................................... $129,976,101 2.12% 3.31% $1,915.30
Total Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt ................................................ $198,136,101 3.23% 5.05% $2,919.69
Per Capita Actual Value ................................................................................................................................................................................ $90,382.99
Per Capita Taxable Value .............................................................................................................................................................................. $57,810.18
Notes: (1) Source: the City, Audited Financial Statements and EMMA for the County, School Districts and Community College.
(2) As of June 30, 2020.
(3) Excludes $30,005,000 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 6/30/20
Nov 2012 $ 2,655,000 Developer Grant 6/32 $ 1,985,000
Sept.2016 12,805,000 Developer Grant 6/36 12,805,000
Total $14,790,000
The City has revenue debt payable solely from the net revenues of the Municipal Parking System as follows:
Date of Original Final Capital Lease Obligation
Issue Amount Issued Purpose Maturity As of 6/30/20
April 2017 $15,400,000 Parking 6/37 $ 0*
*On June 1, 2020, the City made a payment of $9,238,148 and June 29, 2020 the City defeased the remaining $174,876 capital
lease obligations.
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 6/30/20
June 2012 $ 4,950,000 Water Refunding 7/22 $ 1,590,000
June 2016 3,650,000 Water Refunding 7/24 2,445,000
June 2017 5,910,000 Water Refunding 7/25 4,665,000
Total $8,700,000
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 5
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 6/30/20
June 2016 $9,360,000 Sewer Refunding 7/21 $3,590,000
June 2017 4,550,000 Sewer Refunding 7/22 3,775,000
Total $7,365,000
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(1)
Multi- Ag Land
Fiscal Year Residential Residential(2) & Buildings Commercial
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%
2020/21 ................ 55.0743% 71.2500% 81.4832% 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: 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
New Construction
No. of New Permits............................................ 262 211 151 120 120
Valuation: .......................................................... $295,339,497 $108,285,647 $115,872,543 $134,485,833 $51,863,761
Remodeling Repair and Additions:
No. of New Permits:........................................... 532 507 467 484 430
Valuation: .......................................................... $ 93,087,526 $108,532,366 $ 76,942,267 $ 97,036,048 $35,438,412
Total Permits ..................................................... 794 718 618 604 550
Total Valuations ................................................. $388,427,023 $216,818,013 $192,814,810 $231,521,881 $87,302,173
Note: (1) Source: the City.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 6
PROPERTY VALUATIONS AND TREND OF VALUATIONS
ACTUAL (100%) VALUATIONS FOR THE CITY(1)(2)
Fiscal Year: 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20
Property Class Levy Year: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Residential ........................................................ $3,617,590,930 $3,893,541,900 $4,011,317,530 $4,279,194,820 $4,431,104,380
Agricultural ........................................................ 3,553,520 3,736,510 3,443,020 2,626,150 2,539,080
Commercial ....................................................... 1,155,761,766 856,972,664 877,491,737 964,588,039 1,000,704,323
Industrial ........................................................... 76,495,918 79,053,598 79,474,988 74,013,639 79,346,989
Multi-residential(3) ............................................. 0 415,208,021 420,082,751 482,118,763 502,252,347
Railroads ........................................................... 4,015,580 4,096,577 3,984,932 3,549,414 3,601,348
Utilities without Gas and Electric ........................ 8,239,789 7,375,066 6,734,894 7,099,293 7,386,408
Gas and Electric Utility ...................................... 87,728,294 92,987,351 94,582,279 97,050,716 109,124,421
Less: Military Exemption ................................... (2,828,002) (2,727,994) (2,635,396) (2,579,836) (2,489,088)
Total ................................................................ $4,950,557,795 $5,350,243,693 $5,494,476,735 $5,907,660,998 $6,133,570,208
Percent Change +(-) ........................................ 2.57%(4) 8.07% 2.70% 7.52% 3.82%
Notes: (1) Source: Iowa Department of Management.
(2) Includes tax increment finance (TIF) valuations used in the following amounts:
January 1: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
TIF Valuation ....................................................... $42,307,287 $72,650,838 $80,559,947 $85,379,369 $115,175,495
(3) New Class as of January 1, 2015, previously reported as Commercial Property.
(4) Based on 2013 Actual Valuation of $4,826,647,177.
For the January 1, 2018 levy year, the City’s Taxable Valuation was comprised of approximately 64% residential, 23%
commercial, 10% multi-residential, 2% industrial, 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: 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20
Property Class Levy Year: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Residential ........................................................ $2,016,210,314 $2,165,817,742 $2,284,007,603 $2,380,126,625 $2,522,095,595
Agricultural ........................................................ 1,588,496 1,706,955 1,618,090 1,429,547 1,425,151
Commercial ....................................................... 1,040,185,590 771,275,414 789,742,578 868,129,247 900,633,903
Industrial ........................................................... 68,846,326 71,148,238 71,527,489 66,612,275 71,412,290
Multi-residential(3) ............................................. 0 358,117,010 346,568,385 379,668,606 376,689,677
Railroads ........................................................... 3,614,022 3,686,919 3,586,439 3,194,473 3,241,213
Utilities without Gas and Electric(4) ................... 8,239,789 7,375,066 6,734,894 7,099,293 7,386,408
Gas and Electric Utility(4) .................................. 46,785,426 44,986,783 41,702,196 41,797,475 42,719,065
Less: Military Exemption ................................... (2,828,002) (2,727,994) (2,635,396) (2,579,836) (2,489,088)
Total ................................................................ $3,182,641,961 $3,421,386,133 $3,542,852,278 $3,745,477,705 $3,923,114,214
Percent Change +(-) ........................................ 1.46%(5) 7.50% 3.55% 5.72% 4.74%
Notes: (1) Source: Iowa Department of Management.
(2) Includes tax increment finance (TIF) valuations used in the following amounts:
January 1: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
TIF Valuation ....................................................... $33,331,128 $72,650,838 $80,559,947 $85,379,369 $115,175,495
(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 2013 Taxable Valuation of $3,136,795,629.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 7
LEVIES AND TAX COLLECTIONS(1)
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 59,115,402 99.90%
2018 ............... 2019-20 .............. 60,296,653 59,360,168 98.45%
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(1)
Levy Year 2018
Taxpayer Name Business/Service Taxable Valuation(2)
American College Testing, Inc (aka ACT, Inc.) .............. Commercial Property ................................................... $ 45,737,963
MidAmerican Energy ..................................................... Utility ........................................................................... 39,889,100
BBCS-Hawkeye Housing LLC ....................................... Real Estate Management/Apartments.......................... 25,816,098
Tailwind Iowa City, LLC ................................................. Real Estate Management/Apartments.......................... 24,790,776
Ann S Gerdin Revocable Trust ...................................... Warehousing/Commercial Property ............................. 22,903,407
MidWestOne Bank ......................................................... Banking ....................................................................... 21,267,216
Dealer Properties IC LLC ............................................... Care Dealership ........................................................... 19,318,887
Procter & Gamble LLC ................................................... Industrial ...................................................................... 16,809,668
Rise at Riverfront Crossings, LLC .................................. Real Estate Developer/Apartments .............................. 16,173,442
Vesper Iowa City LLC .................................................... Real Estate Developer/Apartments .............................. 15,476,241
Total ................................................................................................................................................................. $248,182,798
Ten Larger Taxpayers as Percent of City’s 2018 Taxable Valuation ($3,923,114,214) ...................................... 6.33%
Notes: (1) Source: Johnson County.
(2) Every effort has been made to seek out and report the larger 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 2019-20. 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 2019-20.
Debt service levies are not limited.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 8
TAX RATES
Levy Years 2014 - 2018(1)(2)
(Per $1,000 Actual Valuation)
Fiscal Year: 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20
Levy Year: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
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 .............................................. 3.92833 3.82846 3.57846 3.22846 2.97846
Employee Benefits ............................................. 3.11277 3.14415 3.14415 3.34415 3.24415
Capital Improvement .......................................... 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Other .................................................................. 1.50986 1.51044 1.51044 1.51044 1.51044
Total City .......................................................... $16.65096 $16.58305 $16.33305 $16.18305 $15.83305
Johnson County ................................................. $ 6.90337 $ 6.77140 $ 6.85143 $ 6.53594 $ 6.49278
Iowa City Community School District .................. 13.86773 13.98935 13.95855 14.85629 14.79097
Kirkwood ............................................................ 1.06125 1.08048 1.13174 1.20354 1.21331
Other .................................................................. 0.32784 0.32450 0.33036 0.30557 0.27066
Total Tax Rate(3) ............................................. $38.81115 $38.74878 $38.60513 $39.08439 $38.60077
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 City Council 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 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 9
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 Final 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, 2020, in thousands)
City Operating Funds $173,427
City Restricted Funds 50,167
Total $223,594
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 10
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES(1)
(Amounts Expressed in Thousands)
Audited as of June 30
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Assets:
Equity in Pooled Cash and Investments .................................. $ 84,052 $111,030 $109,860 $111,645 $113,883
Receivables:
Property Tax .......................................................................... 55,482 56,639 59,538 60,529 66,479
Accounts and Unbilled Usage ................................................ 953 820 817 941 707
Interest .................................................................................. 284 428 920 967 547
Notes ..................................................................................... 16,252 5,524 5,304 5,209 5,300
Internal Balances ..................................................................... (13,688) (15,494) (16,069) (20,055) (22,551)
Due from Other Governments.................................................. 5,987 4,519 4,067 7,584 7,125
Prepaids and Other Assets ...................................................... 10 811 810 907 13
Inventories ............................................................................... 688 730 602 650 793
Assets Held for Resale ............................................................ 582 750 562 689 480
Restricted Assets:
Equity in Pooled Cash and Investments................................. 36,914 24,560 26,108 18,553 19,743
Other Post Employment Benefits Asset ................................... 40 35 0 0 0
Capital Assets:
Land and Construction in Progress ........................................ 48,275 52,545 73,176 51,291 41,160
Other Capital Assets (Net of Accumulated Depreciation) ....... 158,947 173,598 174,835 210,302 232,717
Total Assets ....................................................................... $394,778 $416,495 $440,530 $449,212 $466,396
Deferred Outflows of Resources:
Pension Related Deferred Outflows ......................................... $ 7,192 $ 13,131 $ 11,477 $ 11,255 $ 10,119
OPEB Related Deferred Outflows ............................................ 0 0 637 1,467 1,302
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources ................................. $ 7,192 $ 13,131 $ 12,114 $ 12,722 $ 11,421
Liabilities:
Accounts Payable .................................................................... $ 3,374 $ 2,127 $ 5,168 $ 3,399 $ 3,494
Contracts Payable ................................................................... 2,773 2,521 3,663 5,864 3,725
Accrued Liabilities ................................................................... 4,143 4,182 4,193 5,231 5,558
Interest Payable ...................................................................... 110 133 134 151 158
Deposits .................................................................................. 1,715 1,230 952 1,008 1,222
Advances from Grantors .......................................................... 47 144 124 98 3
Due to Other Governments ...................................................... 402 42 29 31 38
Notes Payable ......................................................................... 582 663 475 602 0
Noncurrent Liabilities:
Due Within One Year:
Employee Vested Benefits ................................................... 1,185 1,252 1,253 1,308 1,525
Bonds Payable .................................................................... 10,384 8,230 9,612 11,534 11,119
Due in More Than One Year:
Employee Vested Benefits ................................................... 947 989 987 1,012 1,206
Net Pension Liability ............................................................ 30,539 39,080 38,867 38,890 39,796
Other Post Employment Benefits Liability ............................ 3,227 3,660 5,472 6,401 6,253
Notes Payable ..................................................................... 211 211 211 211 211
Bonds Payable .................................................................... 48,105 59,509 58,307 56,771 58,653
Total Liabilities ................................................................... $107,744 $123,973 $129,447 $132,511 $132,961
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Pension Related Deferred Inflows.......................................... $ 3,740 $ 1,603 $ 1,565 $ 1,940 $ 3,045
OPEB Related Deferred Inflows ............................................ 0 0 246 216 560
Succeeding Year Property Taxes .......................................... 55,330 56,459 59,173 60,296 65,850
Notes ..................................................................................... 11,226 0 0 0 0
Grants ................................................................................... 12 0 0 0 0
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources .................................. $ 70,308 $ 58,062 $ 60,984 $ 62,452 $ 69,455
(continued on following page)
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 11
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES(1)
(Amounts Expressed in Thousands)
(continued)
Audited as of June 30
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Net Position:
Net Investment in Capital Assets ............................................. $163,362 $183,651 $203,077 $208,028 $220,004
Restricted for or by:
Employee Benefits................................................................. 1,671 2,810 3,119 4,249 3,875
Capital Projects:
Expendable(2) ..................................................................... 31,456 30,856 21,463 17,020 11,464
Nonexpendable(2) ............................................................... 0 0 0 0 278
Debt Service .......................................................................... 6,463 7,221 8,423 9,514 9,590
Police .................................................................................... 458 349 283 214 294
Other Purposes
Expendable ......................................................................... 1,657 2,590 4,469 4,359 4,552
Nonexpendable ................................................................... 0 0 0 0 69
Grant Agreement ................................................................... 449 3,850 3,733 3,463 3,456
Unrestricted ............................................................................. 18,402 16,264 17,646 20,124 21,819
Total Net Position .............................................................. $223,918 $247,591 $262,213 $266,971 $275,401
Notes: (1) Source: Audited financial statements of the City for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2016 through 2020.
(2) For fiscal years 2016 – 2019 amount is classified as expendable.
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES(1)
(Amounts Expressed in Thousands)
Audited for the Year Ended June 30
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Function/Programs:
Governmental Activities:
Public Safety ........................................................................... $ (15,969) $ (18,053) $ (20,466) $ (20,862) $ (22,728)
Public Works ........................................................................... 998 6,746 (3,084) (2,516) (4,737)
Culture and Recreation ............................................................ (13,535) (14,573) (15,189) (14,834) (15,451)
Community and Economic Development ................................. (4,322) (6,264) (10,166) (14,116) (7,760)
General Government ............................................................... (4,988) (4,600) (5,338) (5,807) (6,137)
Interest on Long-Term Debt ..................................................... (1,287) (1,481) (1,414) (1,444) (1,452)
Total Governmental Activities ................................................ $ (39,103) $ (38,225) $ (55,657) $ (59,579) $ (58,265)
General Revenues:
Property Taxes, Levied for General Purposes ......................... $ 53,114 $ 57,649 $ 59,046 $ 61,739 $ 62,846
Hotel/Motel Tax ....................................................................... 1,079 1,137 1,046 1,302 1,135
Gas and Electric Tax ............................................................... 764 726 684 668 677
Utility Franchise Tax ................................................................ 874 939 976 965 884
Grants and Contributions Not Restricted to Specific Purposes . 2,080 1,583 1,547 1,552 1,513
Earnings on Investments ......................................................... 1,045 1,397 2,368 3,257 2,585
Gain on Disposal of Capital Assets .......................................... 218 2,151 140 186 111
Miscellaneous.......................................................................... 4,464 3,369 3,656 3,329 3,331
Transfers ................................................................................... (6,395) (7,053) 1,814 (8,661) (6,387)
Reassignment of Cable Television to Governmental
Activities .................................................................................. 82 0 0 0 0
Total General Revenues and Transfers ................................. $ 57,325 $ 61,898 $ 71,277 $ 64,337 $ 66,695
Changes in Net Position ...................................................... $ 18,222 $ 23,673 $ 15,620 $ 4,758 $ 8,430
Net Position Beginning of Year .................................................. 205,696 223,918 246,593(2) 262,213 266,971
Net Position End of Year ........................................................... $223,918 $247,591 $262,213 $266,971 $275,401
Notes: (1) Source: Audited financial statements of the City for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2016 through 2020.
(2) Restated.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 12
BALANCE SHEET
GENERAL FUND(1)
(Amounts Expressed in Thousands)
Audited as of June 30
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Assets:
Equity in Pooled Cash and Investments .................................... $30,214 $32,500 $36,321 $38,979 $42,371
Receivables:
Property Taxes ........................................................................ 31,825 32,965 34,973 36,301 40,081
Accounts and Unbilled Usage .................................................. 449 410 496 491 355
Interest .................................................................................... 163 161 276 360 163
Notes ....................................................................................... 1,305 1,292 1,276 1,329 1,252
Due from Other Funds ............................................................... 0 0 0 0 299
Advances to Other Funds .......................................................... 0 0 0 56 0
Due from Other Governments.................................................... 1,758 1,887 1,941 2,131 3,661
Prepaid Item .............................................................................. 10 719 726 818 13
Assets Held for Resale .............................................................. 582 750 562 689 480
Restricted Assets:
Equity in Pooled Cash and Investments................................... 21,277 10,268 1,904 2,028 2,209
Total Assets ....................................................................... $87,583 $80,952 $78,475 $83,182 $90,884
Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources and Fund Balances:
Liabilities:
Accounts Payable .................................................................... $ 1,376 $ 1,191 $ 1,492 $ 1,497 $ 1,356
Accrued Liabilities.................................................................... 1,141 1,321 1,391 1,466 1,673
Due to Other Governments ...................................................... 29 38 29 31 38
Interest Payable ...................................................................... 0 4 5 17 0
Notes Payable ......................................................................... 582 663 475 602 0
Liabilities Payable from Restricted Assets:
Deposits ............................................................................... 1,710 1,224 947 1,004 1,217
Advances from Grantors ....................................................... 0 7 113 94 0
Total Liabilities ................................................................... $ 4,838 $ 4,448 $ 4,452 $ 4,711 $ 4,284
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Unavailable Revenues:
Succeeding Year Property Taxes .......................................... $31,739 $32,863 $34,764 $36,176 $39,720
Notes ..................................................................................... 1,305 0 0 0 0
Grants ................................................................................... 15 6 9 34 1,791
Other ..................................................................................... 1,434 1,539 1,600 1,643 1,716
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources .................................... $34,493 $34,408 $36,373 $37,853 $43,227
Fund Balances:
Nonspendable ......................................................................... $ 69 $ 788 $ 793 $ 887 $ 549
Restricted ................................................................................ 18,975 9,974 1,942 1,808 1,747
Committed ............................................................................... 4,699 5,199 4,962 0 0
Assigned ................................................................................. 1,143 1,342 1,437 3,565 5,708
Unassigned ............................................................................. 23,366 24,793 28,516 34,358 35,369
Total Fund Balances .......................................................... $48,252 $42,096 $37,650 $40,618 $43,373
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources
and Fund Balances .......................................................... $87,583 $80,952 $78,475 $83,182 $90,884
Note: (1) Source: Audited financial statements of the City for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2016 through 2020.
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 13
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
GENERAL FUND(1)
(Amounts Expressed in Thousands)
Audited Fiscal Year Ended June 30
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Revenues:
Taxes ........................................................................................ $ 32,229 $ 34,290 $ 35,363 $37,426 $38,087
Licenses and Permits ................................................................ 3,056 3,521 2,734 2,981 2,352
Intergovernmental ..................................................................... 3,830 3,574 3,786 4,099 4,009
Charges for Service ................................................................... 1,543 1,665 1,465 1,595 1,113
Fines and Forfeits ...................................................................... 760 750 695 776 609
Use of Money and Property ....................................................... 749 839 1,164 1,599 1,102
Miscellaneous............................................................................ 1,430 1,692 1,878 1,950 2,031
Total Revenues ....................................................................... $ 43,597 $ 46,331 $ 47,085 $50,426 $49,303
Expenditures:
Current:
Public Safety ........................................................................... $ 20,967 $ 22,005 $ 22,762 $23,858 $24,611
Public Works ........................................................................... 1,312 1,803 1,871 1,922 2,219
Cultural and Recreation ........................................................... 12,038 12,890 13,099 13,096 13,146
Community and Economic Development ................................. 2,842 3,074 2,785 3,561 3,678
General Government ............................................................... 5,479 5,471 5,550 6,144 6,336
Capital Outlay ............................................................................ 1,651 1,463 2,124 1,718 2,088
Total Expenditures................................................................... $ 44,289 $ 46,706 $ 48,191 $50,299 $52,078
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures ... $ (692) $ (375) $ (1,106) $ 127 $ (2,775)
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Issuance of Debt ....................................................................... $ 0 $ 0 $ 17 $ 0 $ 0
Sale of Capital Assets ............................................................... 252 268 140 758 111
Transfers In ............................................................................... 10,692 10,725 10,138 11,548 12,578
Transfers Out ............................................................................ (11,129) (18,023) (13,635) (9,465) (7,159)
Total Other Financing Sources and (Uses) .............................. $ (185) $ (7,030) $ (3,340) $ 2,841 $ 5,530
Net Change in Fund Balances ................................................... $ (877) $ (7,405) $ (4,446) $ 2,968 $ 2,755
Fund Balances, Beginning ........................................................ $ 49,129 $ 49,501(2) $ 42,096 $37,650 $40,618
Fund Balances, Ending ............................................................. $ 48,252 $ 42,096 $ 37,650 $40,618 $43,373
Notes: (1) Source: Audited financial statements of the City for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2016 through 2020.
(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).
In fiscal year 2020, pursuant to the IPERS’ required rate, the City’s Regular employees (members) contributed 6.29%
of covered payroll and the City contributed 9.44% of covered payroll, for a total rate of 15.73%. The City’s contributions to
IPERS for the year ended June 30, 2020 were $2,958,649. 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.
At June 30, 2020, the City reported a liability of $23,474,689 for its proportionate share of the IPERS net pension
liability. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2019 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 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 14
In fiscal year 2020, pursuant to the MFPRSI’s required rate, the City’s employees (members) contributed 9.40% of
covered payroll and the City contributed 24.41% of covered payroll, for a total rate of 33.81%. The City’s contribution to
MFPRSI for year ended June 30, 2020 was $2,808,200. 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 MFPRSI.
At June 30, 2020, the City reported a liability of $24,170,107 for its proportionate share of the MFPRSI net pension
liability. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2019 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 7.5%. 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 MFPRSI participating employers.
OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB)
The City operates a single-employer 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 ................................................. $8,877,831
Changes for the year
Service Cost .......................................................................... 633,456
Interest .................................................................................. 322,689
Difference Between Expected and Actual Experience ........... (482,695)
Changes in Assumptions ....................................................... (82,608)
Benefit Payments .................................................................. (641,253)
Net Changes ......................................................................................... (250,411)
Total OPEB Liability End of Year ........................................................... $8,627,420
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 15
FINANCIAL AND OPERATING REPORT
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JUNE 30, 2020
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 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 16
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 78,440 people and has over 28,794 customer water accounts. The average daily use for fiscal year 2020 was
approximately 5.33 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 one 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 280 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 3,706 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, 2019.
Water Service Charge Minimums(1)
(Includes up to the first 100 cubic feet (c.f.))
Meter Size Meter Size
(Inches) Charge (Inches) Charge
5/8" ..................... $ 7.79 2" ................... $ 26.91
3/4" ..................... 8.52 3" ................... 49.74
1" ....................... 10.04 4" ................... 86.75
1-1/2" .................... 20.01 6" ................... 174.56
Note: (1) Source: the City.
Monthly Usage in excess of 100 Cubic Feet (c.f.)(1)
101 c.f. - 3,000 c.f. .................. $3.64 per 100 c.f.
3,001 c.f. and over .................. $2.61 per 100 c.f.
Note: (1) Source: the City
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 17
Single Purpose Meter Charges(1)
First 100 c.f. ........................................ Minimum Monthly Charge
Usage in excess of 100 c.f. .................. $3.64 per 100 c.f.
Note: (1) Source: the City.
Changes in water rates over the last ten fiscal years:
Water Rate Changes(1)
Fiscal Rate
Year Change
2011 .................................................... 0%
2012 .................................................... 0%
2013 .................................................... 0%
2014 .................................................... 0%
2015 .................................................... 5%
2016 .................................................... 5%
2017 .................................................... 0%
2018 .................................................... 0%
2019 .................................................... 0%
2020 .................................................... 5%
Note: (1) Source: the City.
SALES HISTORY AND WATER SYSTEM CHARGES(1)
Fiscal Water Sales Water System
Year Cubic Feet Sold(2) Charges
2011 ................................... 236,838,370 .............................. $ 7,661,898
2012 ................................... 246,618,257 .............................. 7,953,738
2013 ................................... 254,616,773 .............................. 8,194,467
2014 ................................... 239,790,719 .............................. 7,778,364
2015 ................................... 240,423,612 .............................. 8,161,522
2016 ................................... 255,524,943 .............................. 8,758,683
2017 ................................... 267,511,531 .............................. 9,156,005
2018 ................................... 293,046,636 .............................. 9,953,510
2019 ................................... 289,055,329 .............................. 10,139,587
2020 ................................... 285,102,926 .............................. 10,705,168
Notes: (1) Source: the City.
(2) Beginning in March 2015 the amounts include unbilled usage.
WATER SYSTEM CUSTOMERS BY CLASSIFICATION(1)(2)
Classification FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020
Residential ............................. 25,452 25,971 26,432 26,681 27,080
Commercial ........................... 1,477 1,487 1,494 1,493 1,496
Industrial ................................ 15 15 16 15 15
Other(3) ................................. 190 199 199 202 203
Total Meters ......................... 27,134 27,672 28,141 28,391 28,794
Notes: (1) Source: the City.
(2) Represents the number of meters customers billed as of the end of the fiscal year includes dual purpose
and single purpose meters.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 18
LARGER WATER SYSTEM CUSTOMERS(1)
Fiscal Year 2020
Customer Name Charges Rank Percentage
Proctor & Gamble .................................................... $ 806,276 1 7.53%
Veterans Administration Medical Center .................. 99,344 2 0.93%
Mercy Hospital ......................................................... 71,356 3 0.67%
Campus Apartments ................................................ 69,839 4 0.65%
Dominium JIT Srv .................................................... 58,683 5 0.55%
Tailwind Iowa City LLC ............................................ 54,132 6 0.51%
Oaknoll Retirement Residence ................................. 40,812 7 0.38%
Seville Apartments ................................................... 40,512 8 0.38%
Emerald Court Apartments ....................................... 39,417 9 0.37%
Iowa City Community School District ........................ 36,411 10 0.34%
Total ...................................................................... $1,316,782 12.31%
Total Water System Customers $10,705,168
Note: (1) Source: the City.
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 19
SEWER SYSTEM
The City of Iowa City operates a municipal Sewer Utility System consisting of approximately 320+ 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, 3 in Administration, 5 in Operations, 6 in Collections, 10 in Maintenance and 2 in the Laboratory.
This division serves approximately 78,440 people and has approximately 27,000 customers. The system has 3 significant
industrial users, 2 non-categorical and 1 categorical. The average daily treatment plant flow for fiscal year 2020 was 8.7
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
under a consent decree for violation of our Zinc discharge limit. There was a capture rate miscalculation that was corrected
resulting in changes to industrial user permitted limits. Now corrected, we are in compliance with federal clean water
standards and will be requesting the order to be dismissed at the end of the 2nd quarter 2021.
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
The following Sewer System rates and charges were effective July 1, 2015:
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.f.) $3.99
The following table shows historical rate increases over the last ten fiscal years.
Sewer Rate Increases(1)
Fiscal Year Rate Change
2011 .................................................... 0%
2012 .................................................... 0%
2013 .................................................... 0%
2014 .................................................... 0%
2015 .................................................... 0%
2016 .................................................... 0%
2017 .................................................... 0%
2018 .................................................... 0%
2019 .................................................... 0%
2020 .................................................... 0%
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 20
SALES HISTORY AND SEWER SYSTEM CHARGES(1)
Fiscal Sewer Sales Sewer System
Year Cubic Feet Sold(2) Charges
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
2020 ..................................... 279,106,456 12,503,764
Notes: (1) Source: the City.
(2) Beginning in March 2015 the amount includes unbilled usage in totals.
NUMBER OF SEWER SYSTEM CUSTOMERS(1)
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
2020 .................................................. 26,596
Note: (1) Source: the City.
LARGER SEWER SYSTEM CUSTOMERS(1)
Fiscal Year 2020
Customer Name Charges Rank Percentage
University of Iowa .......................................................... $ 1,994,134 1 15.95%
Proctor & Gamble .......................................................... 1,144,899 2 9.16%
Iowa City Landfill ............................................................ 180,984 3 1.45%
Veterans Administration Medical Center ........................ 108,603 4 0.87%
Mercy Hospital ............................................................... 103,593 5 0.83%
Campus Apartments ...................................................... 77,053 6 0.62%
Dominium JIT Srv .......................................................... 65,401 7 0.52%
Tailwind Iowa City LLC .................................................. 52,883 8 0.42%
Oaknoll Retirement Residence ....................................... 52,264 9 0.42%
Emerald Court Apartments ............................................. 51,746 10 0.41%
Total ............................................................................ $ 3,831,560 30.65%
Total Sewer System Customers ..................................... $12,503,764
Note: (1) Source: the City.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 21
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 1,835
permit holders. The largest customer for the monthly permit parking is the University of Iowa with 615 permits. There
are currently over 1,000 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. T h e 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 211
Rates Hourly $1.00 per hour, with first hour free
Monthly $85.00 per month
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 22
Changes in Capitol Street Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years:
Hourly Monthly
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%
2020 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,
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
of Linn Street; and two exit lanes onto Dubuque Street.
Spaces 625
Monthly Permits 257
Rates Hourly $1.00 per hour, with first hour free
Monthly $85.00 per month
Changes in Dubuque Street Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years:
Hourly Monthly
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%
2020 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 136
Rates Hourly $0.75 per hour
Monthly $85.00 per month
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 23
Changes in Chauncey Swan Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years:
Hourly Monthly
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%
2020 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 317
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:
Hourly Monthly
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%
2020 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 397
Rates Hourly $0.75 per hour
Monthly $85.00 per month
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 24
Changes in Harrison Street Garage rates over the last ten fiscal years:
Hourly Monthly
2017* 100% 100%
2018 0% 0%
2019 0% 0%
2020 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 47
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 471
Rates Annual $90.00 per year
The remainder of this page was left blank intentionally.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 25
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 26
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.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 27
TOP TAXPAYERS LOCATED WITHIN URBAN RENEWAL AREA
FY2020/21
Taxable % of Tota
Taxpayer Name Classification Valuation(2) Taxable Valuation(1)
Rise at Riverfront Crossing Owner LLC Residential & Comm. Condo Rentals $ 30,679,064 5.47%
MidWestOne Bank Financial Institution 21,130,983 3.77%
Graduate Iowa City Owner, LLC Graduate Hotel 20,475,612 3.65%
Riverfront Crossing Hospitality Owners LLC Residential & Comm. Condo Rentals 17,779,671 3.17%
Iowa City Hotel Associates LLC Hilton Garden Inn Hotel 15,574,995 2.78%
OC Group LC Old Capital Mall 11,068,092 1.97%
The Chauncey LLC Residential & Comm. Condo 10,466,444 1.87%
Plaza Towers LLC Residential & Comm. Condo Rentals 9,554,600 1.70%
First National Bank Iowa City Financial Institution 9,079,101 1.62%
Moden, Marc B Residential & Comm. Condo Rentals 9,069,744 1.62%
Total $154,878,306 27.63%
(1) The Total Taxable Valuation in the Urban Renewal Are for 1/1/2019 for fiscal year 2020-21 is $560,619,034.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 28
TAX INCREMENT TAX RATES
(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.
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
FY2013-14 (1) FY2014-15 (1) FY2015-16 (1) FY2016-17 (1) FY2017-18 (1) FY2018-19 (1) FY2019-20 (1) FY2020-21 (1)
$ 38.63862 $ 38.52756 $ 38.81115 $ 38.74878 $ 38.60513 $ 39.08439 $ 38.60077 $ 38.54661
(4.02965) (4.12963) (3.92833) (3.82846) (3.57846) (3.22846) (2.97846) (2.57846)
(0.63500) (0.59831) (0.58612) (0.55017) (0.52868) (1.95540) (1.44867) (1.78785)
(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) (0.08272) (0.06273) (0.20513)
(0.20000) (0.20000) (0.27005) (0.21003) (0.25000) (0.25000) (0.25000) (0.25004)
(1.61074) (2.05908) (1.77673) (2.00829) (2.13947) (2.24196) (2.25950) (2.02538)
$ 30.36918 $ 29.78504 $ 30.49001 $ 30.41114 $ 30.33712 $ 29.65585 $ 29.93141 $ 30.02975
2.00000 2.00000 2.00000 1.79500 2.00000 2.00000 2.00000 2.00000
$ 32.36918 $ 31.78504 $ 32.49001 $ 32.20614 $ 32.33712 $ 31.65585 $ 31.93141 $ 32.02975
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 29
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED TAXABLE VALUATIONS WITHIN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA
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 46,995,382
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 560,619,034 45,232,062 515,386,972 7,326,246 17,007,863 539,721,081 67,350,411
1/1/2020 FY 2022 560,619,034 45,232,062 515,386,972 7,326,246 30,128,234 552,841,452 51,797,801
1/1/2021 FY 2023 560,619,034 45,232,062 515,386,972 7,326,246 30,128,234 552,841,452 50,717,871
1/1/2022 FY 2024 560,619,034 45,232,062 515,386,972 7,326,246 30,128,234 552,841,452 49,462,450
1/1/2023 FY 2025 462,259,306 3,208,514 459,050,792 7,326,246 30,128,234 496,505,272 48,368,535
1/1/2024 FY 2026 462,259,306 3,208,514 459,050,792 7,326,246 30,128,234 496,505,272 47,431,131
1/1/2025 FY 2027 462,259,306 3,208,514 459,050,792 7,326,246 30,128,234 496,505,272 42,315,537
1/1/2026 FY 2028 462,259,306 3,208,514 459,050,792 7,326,246 30,128,234 496,505,272 38,141,010
1/1/2027 FY 2029 462,259,306 3,208,514 459,050,792 7,326,246 30,128,234 496,505,272 37,878,937
1/1/2028 FY 2030 462,259,306 3,208,514 459,050,792 7,326,246 30,128,234 496,505,272 37,756,558
1/1/2029 FY 2031 462,259,306 3,208,514 459,050,792 7,326,246 30,128,234 496,505,272 37,606,873
1/1/2030 FY 2032 462,259,306 3,208,514 459,050,792 7,326,246 30,128,234 496,505,272 37,594,386
1/1/2031 FY 2033 462,259,306 3,208,514 459,050,792 7,326,246 30,128,234 496,505,272 30,546,375
1/1/2032 FY 2034 462,259,306 3,208,514 459,050,792 7,326,246 30,128,234 496,505,272 30,564,690
1/1/2033 FY 2035 462,259,306 3,208,514 459,050,792 7,326,246 30,128,234 496,505,272 30,558,030
1/1/2034 FY 2036 462,259,306 3,208,514 459,050,792 7,326,246 30,128,234 496,505,272 30,526,395
(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.
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial and Operating Disclosure
Page | 30
TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW AND ANTICIPATE DEBT COVERAGE
Taxable
Valuation Taxable Available Certified 2012D TIF 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 46,995,382 29.65585 8,821,993 1,393,688 276,767 1,670,455 205,185 384,150 244,454 833,789 836,666 2,255,794 14.97 1.00
1/1/2018 FY 2020 341,736,397 72,764,197 29.93141 10,228,652 2,177,935 190,679 2,368,614 207,485 384,150 1,983,228 2,574,863 (206,249) 2,049,545 17.29 1.00
1/1/2019 FY 2021 539,721,081 67,350,411 30.02975 16,207,689 2,022,516 180,000 2,202,516 204,545 384,150 1,818,366 2,407,061 (204,545) 1,845,000 27.53 1.00
1/1/2020 FY 2022 552,841,452 51,797,801 30.02975 16,601,691 1,555,475 0 1,555,475 206,325 1,349,150 0 1,555,475 0 1,845,000 10.67 1.00
1/1/2021 FY 2023 552,841,452 50,717,871 30.02975 16,601,691 1,523,045 0 1,523,045 207,845 1,315,200 0 1,523,045 0 1,845,000 10.90 1.00
1/1/2022 FY 2024 552,841,452 49,462,450 30.02975 16,601,691 1,485,345 0 1,485,345 203,945 1,281,400 0 1,485,345 0 1,845,000 11.18 1.00
1/1/2023 FY 2025 496,505,272 48,368,535 30.02975 14,909,929 1,452,495 0 1,452,495 204,745 1,247,750 0 1,452,495 0 1,845,000 10.27 1.00
1/1/2024 FY 2026 496,505,272 47,431,131 30.02975 14,909,929 1,424,345 0 1,424,345 205,095 1,219,250 0 1,424,345 0 1,845,000 10.47 1.00
1/1/2025 FY 2027 496,505,272 42,315,537 30.02975 14,909,929 1,270,725 0 1,270,725 204,975 1,065,750 0 1,270,725 0 1,845,000 11.73 1.00
1/1/2026 FY 2028 496,505,272 38,141,010 30.02975 14,909,929 1,145,365 0 1,145,365 204,365 941,000 0 1,145,365 0 1,845,000 13.02 1.00
1/1/2027 FY 2029 496,505,272 37,878,937 30.02975 14,909,929 1,137,495 0 1,137,495 203,245 934,250 0 1,137,495 0 1,845,000 13.11 1.00
1/1/2028 FY 2030 496,505,272 37,756,558 30.02975 14,909,929 1,133,820 0 1,133,820 206,770 927,050 0 1,133,820 0 1,845,000 13.15 1.00
1/1/2029 FY 2031 496,505,272 37,606,873 30.02975 14,909,929 1,129,325 0 1,129,325 204,925 924,400 0 1,129,325 0 1,845,000 13.20 1.00
1/1/2030 FY 2032 496,505,272 37,594,386 30.02975 14,909,929 1,128,950 0 1,128,950 207,800 921,150 0 1,128,950 0 1,845,000 13.21 1.00
1/1/2031 FY 2033 496,505,272 30,546,375 30.02975 14,909,929 917,300 0 917,300 0 917,300 0 917,300 0 1,845,000 16.25 1.00
1/1/2032 FY 2034 496,505,272 30,564,690 30.02975 14,909,929 917,850 0 917,850 0 917,850 0 917,850 0 1,845,000 16.24 1.00
1/1/2033 FY 2035 496,505,272 30,558,030 30.02975 14,909,929 917,650 0 917,650 0 917,650 0 917,650 0 1,845,000 16.25 1.00
1/1/2034 FY 2036 496,505,272 30,526,395 30.02975 14,909,929 916,700 0 916,700 0 916,700 0 916,700 0 1,845,000 16.26 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 be at the higher rate
due to its location in the SSMID.
(3) The available tax increment revenues do not reflect her SSMID rate.
(4) The balance includes TIF reserve fund of $207,845.
Item Number: 11.
J anuary 28, 2021
Civil Service Examin ation : Victim Services Coordin ator
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Civil S ervice E xamination: Victim S ervices Coordinator
Item Number: 12.
J anuary 28, 2021
Press Rel ease: Diversity, Lead ership & Effective Listen ing - A Social Ju stice
Imperative trainin g
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Press Release: Diversity, L eadership & E ffective L istening - A Social J ustice I mperative training
Item Number: 13.
J anuary 28, 2021
Plan n ing & Z on ing Commission : Jan u ary 21
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Planning & Z oning Commission: J anuary 21