HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-30 Info Packet � r
rrr®��� City Council Information Packet
CITY OF 10"IA CITY November 30, 2023
Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
IP1. Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Miscellaneous
IP2. Memo from Budget Management Analyst: Quarterly Financial Summary for
Period Ending September 30, 2023
Draft Minutes
IP3. Climate Action Commission: November 13
IP4. Historic Preservation Commission: November 9
November 30, 2023 City of Iowa City
Item Number: IP1.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 30, 2023
Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Attachments: Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
nil Subject to change
CITY OF IOWA CITY November 30,2023
Date Time Meeting Location
Tuesday, December 12,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,January 2,2024 8:o0AM Special Formal City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
Organizational Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,January 2,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,January 16,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Saturday,January 20,2024 8:00 AM Budget Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E.Washington Street
Monday,January 22,2024 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting City Hall,Council Chambers
Hosted by the City of Coralville 1512 7th Street
Wednesday,January 24,2024 2:00 PM Budget Work Session(CIP) City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday, February 6,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday, February 20,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday, March 19,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,April 2,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,April 16,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday, May 7,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday, May 21,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,June 4,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,June 18,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,July 16,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,August 6,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,August 20,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,September 3,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,September 17,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,October 1,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,October 15,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Monday, November 4,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday, November 19,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday, December 10,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Item Number: IP2.
CITY OF OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 30, 2023
Memo from Budget Management Analyst: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending
September 30, 2023
Attachments: Memo from Budget Management Analyst Quarterly Financial Summary for
Period Ending September 30, 2023
r
�_. .p CITY OF IOWA CITY
, ,�` MEMORANDUM
Date: November 28,2023
To: City Manager, City Council
From: Angie Ogden, Budget Management Analyst
Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending September 30, 2023
Introduction
Attached to this memorandum are the City's quarterly financial reports as of September 30, 2023.
The quarterly financial report includes combined summaries of all fund balances, revenues, and
expenditures for fiscal year 2023 through the end of the first quarter, which is 25% of the way
through the fiscal year. Below are some of the highlights from this quarter's financial activity.
Revenue Analysis
This revenue analysis pertains to the revenue reports, Revenues by Fund and Revenues by Type,
on pages 4-6. In these two reports, the actual revenues would ideally be near 25% of budget
since we have completed one-fourth of the fiscal year; however, due to accruals back to the
previous year, many of these percentages are below 25%.
For the property tax supported funds, such as the General fund, Debt Service fund,the Employee
Benefits fund, and the Emergency Levy Fund, their actual revenues are at 10.1%, 6.7%, 5.7%
and 5.8%, respectively. These funds have received a lower percentage of their revenue, because
the City's property tax receipts are due twice during the year, October and April, and the City will
receive the majority of its property tax revenue at that time. This is not the same for the City's
enterprise funds.
The City's enterprise funds are primarily supported by service charges which cause their actual
revenues to be closer to the 25% mark. For instance, on page 4, the Water fund is at 24.3%, the
Wastewater fund is at 21.9%, and the Refuse Collection is at 19.6%. The Water and Wastewater
funds' revenues are under the 25% benchmark due to the accrual of revenues back to last fiscal
year.
Other funds with budget anomalies worth noting:the CDBG and HOME funds has actual revenues
at 4.4% and 0.9%, respectively, due to the timing of receipt of federal monies. The Transit fund
has actual revenues at 11.2% due the timing of federal grant receipts. Additionally, the
Governmental Projects fund (page 4) has revenues at 1.9% due to the timing of grant receipts
related to projects as well as the timing of the Bond Issuance that does not take place until the
spring. The Enterprise Projects fund (page 4) has revenues at 0.8% due to the timing of the Bond
Issuance that does not take place until the spring.
The combined total actual revenues for all budgetary funds through September are $25,700,781
or 11.5% of budget. Overall, the City's revenues are not substantially different than projected,
and the anomalies and budget variances can be explained.
1
Expenditure Analysis
This expenditure analysis pertains to the reports, Expenditures by Fund and Expenditures by
Fund by Department on pages 7-9. The analysis of the City's expenditures for fiscal year 2024
through September is similar to the analysis for the City's revenues. We generally expect the
actual expenditure levels to be around 25% of budget at this time of year.
Some of the funds have expenditure activity through the first quarter significantly above or below
the 25% mark. The following funds have a significant expenditure variance from 25%:
• Affordable Housing fund is at 94.2% due to payments made to the Housing Trust Fund of
Johnson County.
• Water fund is at 41.6% due to bond principal and interest payments paid in July.
• Housing Authority is at 32.2% due to higher than expected insurance rates as well as
building improvements.
• Airport is at 31.5% due to higher than expected insurance rates as well as ground keeping
increases.
• Governmental Projects expenditures are at 5.0% and Enterprise Projects expenditures
are at 4.6% because many of the capital projects are scheduled for construction next
Spring.
Overall, the combined total actual expenditures for all budgetary funds through September are
$45,468,647 or 14.9% of budget. Overall, the City's expenditures through the first quarter have a
few major anomalies; however, these can be explained and are not unusual.
Conclusion
Generally, there are no major concerns to report with the City's fund balances at September 30.
Two funds are presented (on page 3) with a negative fund balance, the CDBG fund at -$128,942
and the HOME fund at -$25,006. These negative fund balances should reverse following the
receipt of grant proceeds. Fund balances appear healthy. Additional information is available from
the Finance Department upon request.
2
City of Iowa City
Fund Summary
Fiscal Year 2024 through Septemeber 30, 2023
Beginning Ending Restricted, Unassigned
Fund Year-to-Date Transfers Year-to-Date Transfers Fund Committed, Fund
Balance Revenues In Expenditures Out Balance Assigned Balance
Budgetary Funds
General Fund
10" General Fund $ 59,638,625 $ 6,113,518 $ 3,353,962 $ 20,331,734 $ 1,897,980 $ 46,876,391 $ 25,643,673 $ 21,232,718
Special Revenue Funds
2100 Community Dev Block Grant 395 58,776 - 188,112 - (128,942) - (128,942)
2110 HOME 44 32,566 - 57,616 - (25,006) - (25,006)
2200 Road Use Tax Fund 6,170,699 2,008,308 166,296 1,635,739 782,394 5,927,170 - 5,927,170
2300 Other Shared Revenue 14,321,198 170,248 - 68,906 - 14,422,540 - 14,422,540
2350 Metro Planning Org of J.C. 537,565 95,776 103,663 178,774 - 558,229 - 558,229
2400 Employee Benefits 4,287,578 845,383 - 271,106 3,464,501 1,397,354 - 1,397,354
2450 Emergency Levy Fund 1,157,208 50,559 - 60,922 87,500 1,059,346 - 1,059,346
2500 Affordable Housing Fund 7,399,710 86,568 250,000 941,783 - 6,794,496 - 6,794,496
2510 Peninsula Apartments 345,486 62,673 - 17,907 - 390,251 - 390,251
26'-` Tax Increment Financing 186,089 165,056 - - - 351,145 - 351,145
2820 SSMID-Downtown District - 18,884 - - - 18,884 - 18,884
Debt Service Fund
5" Debt Service 7,252,520 748,633 - 3,225 - 7,997,928 - 7,997,928
Enterprise Funds
710*Parking 2,074,298 1,408,822 250,000 969,949 469,649 2,293,523 588,702 1,704,821
715'Mass Transit 12,462,468 733,769 1,028,244 1,752,390 18,750 12,453,341 11,226,411 1,226,930
720*Wastewater 21,174,871 2,746,339 875,537 2,040,488 1,255,898 21,500,361 3,636,262 17,864,099
730*Water 15,824,989 2,832,289 791,634 4,250,985 779,123 14,418,805 6,859,625 7,559,180
7400 Refuse Collection 1,938,934 973,431 1,572 1,050,010 - 1,863,927 - 1,863,927
750*Landfill 24,087,723 2,161,665 416,512 1,493,224 273,872 24,898,804 21,652,249 3,246,556
7600 Airport 295,565 91,291 25,000 127,984 - 283,871 171,385 112,487
7700 Storm Water 1,284,753 373,594 275,296 157,958 335,000 1,440,685 647,961 792,724
79" Housing Authority 6,173,092 3,249,625 - 3,760,571 13,698 5,648,449 - 5,648,449
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects 32,475,993 437,661 1,268,045 3,403,296 - 30,778,403 - 30,778,403
Enterprise Projects 18,289,364 235,347 572,602 2,705,967 - 16,391,345 - 16,391,345
Total Budgetary Funds $237,379,166 $ 25,700,781 $ 9,378,363 $ 45,468,647 $ 9,378,363 $217,611,300 $ 70,426,267 $147,185,033
Non-Budgetary Funds
Internal Service Funds
810*Equipment $ 21,052,457 $ 2,072,747 $ - $ 1,404,305 $ - $ 21,720,899 $ 18,483,609 $ 3,237,290
8200 Risk Management 4,257,230 1,084,720 - 424,713 - 4,917,237 - 4,917,237
830'Information Technology 4,258,905 532,084 25,000 525,795 25,000 4,265,194 1,841,304 2,423,890
8400 Central Services 877,316 56,288 - 38,212 - 895,392 - 895,392
8500 Health Insurance Reserves 16,400,412 3,400,958 - 2,394,749 - 17,406,622 8,730,093 8,676,529
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 529,317 116,479 - 97,336 - 548,459 - 548,459
Total Non-Budgetary Funds $ 47,375,637 $ 7,263,275 $ 25,000 $ 4,885,110 $ 25,000 $ 49,753,803 $ 29,055,006 $ 20,698,797
Total All Funds $284,754,803 $ 32,964,056 $ 9,403,363 $ 50,353,757 $ 9,403,363 $267,365,103 $ 99,481,273 $167,883,830
3
City of Iowa City
Revenues by Fund
Fiscal Year 2024 through Septemeber 30, 2023
2023 2024 2024
Actual Budget 2024 Revised Actual Variance Percent
Budgetary Fund Revenues
General Fund
10" General Fund $ 61,176,203 $ 60,373,756 $ 60,820,756 $ 6,113,518 $ (54,707,238) 10.1
Special Revenue Funds
2100 Community Dev Block Grant 1,175,809 909,524 1,347,095 58,776 (1,288,319) 4.4
2110 HOME 1,074,710 1,480,386 3,613,443 32,566 (3,580,877) 0.9%
2200 Road Use Tax Fund 10,511,555 10,078,709 10,078,709 2,008,308 (8,070,401) 19.9
2300 Other Shared Revenue 608,543 30,654 30,654 170,248 139,594 555.4%
2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Cc 371,171 415,352 545,352 95,776 (449,576) 17.6
2400 Employee Benefits 14,856,963 14,814,799 14,814,799 845,383 (13,969,416) 5.7
2450 Emergency Levy Fund 868,282 868,626 868,626 50,559 (818,067) 5.8
2500 Affordable Housing Fund 2,204,266 - - 86,568 86,568 0.0%
2510 Iowa City Property Management 264,453 266,988 266,988 62,673 (204,315) 23.5
26" Tax Increment Financing 4,154,649 4,083,031 4,083,031 165,056 (3,917,975) 4.0%
2820SSMID-Downtown District 552,028 634,124 634,124 18,884 (615,240) 3.0%
Debt Service Fund
5" Debt Service 11,511,672 11,173,415 11,173,415 748,633 (10,424,782) 6.7%
Enterprise Funds
710*Parking 5,444,648 5,611,532 5,629,848 1,408,822 (4,221,026) 25.0%
715'Mass Transit 7,291,060 6,562,268 6,562,268 733,769 (5,828,499) 11.2%
720*Wastewater 12,897,699 12,548,301 12,548,301 2,746,339 (9,801,962) 21.9%
730*Water 11,730,665 11,668,360 11,668,360 2,832,289 (8,836,071) 24.3%
7400 Refuse Collection 4,635,713 4,968,435 4,968,435 973,431 (3,995,004) 19.6%
750*Landfill 8,069,944 7,292,093 7,292,093 2,161,665 (5,130,428) 29.6%
7600 Airport 410,662 406,797 406,797 91,291 (315,506) 22.4%
7700 Storm Water 1,765,023 1,903,038 1,903,038 373,594 (1,529,444) 19.6%
79" Housing Authority 11,923,721 12,274,066 12,274,066 3,249,625 (9,024,441) 26.5%
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects 16,926,266 15,940,000 22,516,194 437,661 (22,078,533) 1.9%
Enterprise Projects 1,227,866 28,420,000 29,636,471 235,347 (29,401,124) 0.8%
Total Budgetary Revenues $191,653,572 $212,724,254 $ 223,682,863 $ 25,700,781 $(197,982,082) 11.5
Non-Budgetary Fund Revenues
Internal Service Funds
810*Equipment $ 8,228,072 $ 8,742,979 $ 8,742,979 $ 2,072,747 $ (6,670,232) 23.7%
8200 Risk Management 1,395,250 1,111,193 1,111,193 1,084,720.09 (26,473) 97.6%
830'Information Technology 3,076,963 2,947,642 2,947,642 532,083.88 (2,415,558) 18.1
8400 Central Services 262,194 232,764 232,764 56,287.58 (176,476) 24.2%
8500 Health Insurance Reserves 12,624,342 13,386,552 13,386,552 3,400,958.24 (9,985,594) 25.4%
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 446,962 430,941 430,941 116,478.73 (314,462) 27.0
Total Non-Budgetary Revenues $ 26,033,784 $ 26,852,071 $ 26,852,071 $ 7,263,275 $ (19,588,796) 27.0%
Total Revenues-All Funds $217,687,356 $239,576,325 $ 250,534,934 $ 32,964,056 $(217,570,878) 13.2
4
City of Iowa City
Revenues by Type
Fiscal Year 2024 through Septemeber 30, 2023
2023 2024 2024
Actual Budget 2024 Revised Actual Variance Percent
Budgetary Fund Revenues
Property Taxes $ 66,685,014 $ 66,312,743 $ 66,312,743 $ 3,975,353 $ (62,337,390) 6.0%
Other City Taxes:
TIF Revenues 4,086,247 4,083,031 4,083,031 159,138 (3,923,893) 3.9%
Gas/Electric Excise Taxes 783,781 680,064 680,064 - (680,064) 0.0%
Mobile Home Taxes 52,975 56,797 56,797 8,320 (48,477) 14.6%
Hotel/Motel Taxes 1,885,263 1,708,100 1,708,100 - (1,708,100) 0.0%
Utility Franchise Tax 1,116,963 1,151,500 1,151,500 2,190 (1,149,310) 0.2%
Subtotal 7,925,229 7,679,492 7,679,492 169,648 (7,509,844) 2.2%
Licenses, Permits,&Fees:
General Use Permits 104,127 102,610 102,610 1,874 (100,736) 1.8%
Food&Liquor Licenses 118,650 181,740 181,740 36,576 (145,164) 20.1
Professional License 2,155 2,755 2,755 565 (2,190) 20.5%
Franchise Fees 508,934 540,200 540,200 1,488 (538,712) 0.3%
Construction Permits&Insp Fees 2,060,778 1,676,600 1,676,600 592,384 (1,084,216) 35.3
Misc Lic&Permits 59,731 70,216 70,216 14,779 (55,437) 21.0
Subtotal 2,854,375 2,574,121 2,574,121 647,667 (1,926,454) 25.2%
Intergovernmental:
Fed Intergovernmental Revenue 22,351,695 18,880,564 27,774,035 3,172,141 (24,601,894) 11.4%
Property Tax Credits 1,243,694 1,602,806 1,602,806 - (1,602,806) 0.0
Road Use Tax 10,346,324 9,900,316 9,900,316 2,001,137 (7,899,179) 20.2%
State 28E Agreements 2,200,799 2,632,892 2,957,892 - (2,957,892) 0.0%
Operating Grants 71,122 55,875 55,875 22,664 (33,211) 40.6%
Disaster Assistance 15,297 - - 0 0 0.0%
Other State Grants 1,184,587 1,442,554 2,587,376 226,414 (2,360,962) 8.8%
Local 28E Agreements 1,259,516 1,410,659 1,410,659 567,999 (842,660) 40.3%
Subtotal 38,673,034 35,925,666 46,288,959 5,990,355 (40,298,604) 12.9%
Charges For Fees And Services:
Building&Development 2,631,328 532,214 532,214 137,658 (394,556) 25.9
Police Services 101,476 80,000 80,000 22,869 (57,131) 28.6%
Animal Care Services 12,826 19,403 19,403 3,408 (15,995) 17.6%
Fire Services 9,060 9,300 9,300 22,385 13,085 240.7%
Transit Fees 1,054,035 927,000 927,000 64,504 (862,496) 7.0%
Culture&Recreation 637,499 594,123 594,123 179,670 (414,453) 30.2%
Misc Charges For Services 116,981 59,976 59,976 9,437 (50,539) 15.7
Water Charges 10,477,522 10,555,850 10,555,850 2,447,067 (8,108,783) 23.2%
Wastewater Charges 12,332,334 12,359,703 12,359,703 2,506,276 (9,853,427) 20.3%
Refuse Charges 5,211,519 5,606,210 5,606,210 1,093,249 (4,512,961) 19.5%
Landfill Charges 6,594,015 6,148,000 6,148,000 1,778,611 (4,369,389) 28.9%
Storm Water Charges 1,729,888 1,880,000 1,880,000 360,945 (1,519,055) 19.2%
Parking Charges 5,595,020 5,825,255 5,825,255 1,559,378 (4,265,877) 26.8%
Subtotal 46,503,504 44,597,034 44,597,034 10,185,457 (34,411,577) 22.8%
Miscellaneous:
Code Enforcement 159,632 280,731 280,731 22,721 (258,010) 8.1
Parking Fines 524,471 676,634 676,634 57,377 (619,257) 8.5%
Library Fines&Fees 1,576 1,000 1,000 258 (742) 25.8
Contributions&Donations 586,167 532,735 551,051 64,710 (486,341) 11.7%
Printed Materials 18,676 20,340 20,340 4,498 (15,842) 22.1
Animal Adoption 60,491 57,840 57,840 21,310 (36,530) 36.8%
Misc Merchandise 23,871 22,302 22,302 2,037 (20,265) 9.1
Intra-City Charges 6,086,864 6,383,611 6,383,611 1,528,531 (4,855,080) 23.9%
Other Misc Revenue 1,616,048 936,093 1,066,093 215,577 (850,516) 20.2
Special Assessments 2,003 1,381 1,381 57 (1,325) 4.1
Subtotal $ 9,079,800 $ 8,912,667 $ 9,060,983 $ 1,917,075 $ (7,143,908) 21.2%
5
City of Iowa City
Revenues by Type
Fiscal Year 2024 through Septemeber 30, 2023
2023 2024 2024
Actual Budget 2024 Revised Actual Variance Percent
Use Of Money And Property:
Interest Revenues $ 5,948,797 $ 1,663,327 $ 1,663,327 $ 2,296,697 $ 633,370 138.1
Rents 1,548,884 1,509,022 1,509,022 355,684 (1,153,338) 23.6%
Royalties&Commissions 99,854 126,915 126,915 16,524 (110,391) 13.0%
Subtotal 7,597,534 3,299,264 3,299,264 2,668,904 (630,360) 80.9%
Other Financial Sources:
Debt Sales 9,941,862 42,535,000 42,535,000 1,489 (42,533,511) 0.0%
Sale Of Assets 1,931,799 445,400 892,400 37,046 (855,354) 4.2%
Loans 461,420 442,867 442,867 107,793 (335,074) 24.3%
Subtotal 12,335,081 43,423,267 43,870,267 146,328 (43,723,939) 0.3%
Total Budgetary Revenues $191,653,572 $ 212,724,254 $223,682,863 $ 25,700,788 (197,982,075) 11.5%
Non-Budgetary Fund Revenues
Internal Service Funds $ 26,033,784 $ 26,852,071 $ 26,852,071 $ 7,263,275 $ (19,588,796) 27.0
Total Non-Budgetary Revenues $ 26,033,784 $ 26,852,071 $ 26,852,071 $ 7,263,275 $ (19,588,796) 27.0%
Total Revenues-AllFunds $217,687,356 $ 239,576,325 $250,534,934 $ 32,964,063 $(217,570,871) 13.2%
6
City of Iowa City
Expenditures by Fund
Fiscal Year 2024 through Septemeber 30, 2023
2023 2024 2024 2024
Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent
Budgetary Fund Expenditures
General Fund
10" General Fund $ 63,194,004 $ 68,071,131 $ 75,202,188 $ 20,331,734 $ 54,870,454 27.0%
Special Revenue Funds
2100 Community Dev Block Grant 1,075,683 778,376 1,215,947 188,112 1,027,835 15.5%
2110 HOME 1,187,632 1,348,625 3,481,682 57,616 3,424,066 1.7%
2200 Road Use Tax Fund 6,976,684 7,792,239 7,982,005 1,635,739 6,346,266 20.5%
2300 Other Shared Revenue 2,653,065 30,654 14,375,967 68,906 14,307,061 0.5%
2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co. 769,755 830,005 1,085,005 178,774 906,231 16.5
2400 Employee Benefits 1,209,467 1,338,854 1,338,854 271,106 1,067,748 20.2%
2450 Emergency Levy Fund 566,870 468,850 468,850 60,922 407,929 13.0
2500 Affordable Housing Fund 1,086,455 1,000,000 1,000,000 941,783 58,217 94.2%
2510 Iowa City Property Management 151,997 247,229 247,229 17,907 229,322 7.2%
26" Tax Increment Financing 3,013,704 2,192,030 2,192,030 - 2,192,030 0.0%
2820 SSMID-Downtown District 552,028 634,124 634,124 - 634,124 0.0%
Debt Service Fund
5" Debt Service 13,165,630 13,210,690 13,210,690 3,225 13,207,465 0.0%
Enterprise Funds
710'Parking 4,050,511 4,359,209 4,385,709 969,949 3,415,760 22.1
715'Mass Transit 8,876,777 10,333,648 10,340,148 1,752,390 8,587,758 16.9%
720*Wastewater 10,849,521 8,183,257 8,224,237 2,040,488 6,183,749 24.8%
730*Water 9,454,497 10,085,483 10,221,728 4,250,985 5,970,743 41.6%
7400 Refuse Collection 4,077,516 4,627,383 4,902,383 1,050,010 3,852,373 21.4%
750*Landfill 5,631,227 6,108,611 6,108,611 1,493,224 4,615,387 24.4%
7600 Airport 450,629 406,307 406,307 127,984 278,323 31.5%
7700 Storm Water 613,262 738,481 738,481 157,958 580,523 21.4%
79" Housing Authority 11,921,444 11,686,205 11,686,205 3,760,571 7,925,634 32.2%
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects 22,949,801 31,178,470 67,411,738 3,403,296 64,008,442 5.0%
Enterprise Projects 11,186,857 34,458,750 58,526,829 2,705,967 55,820,862 4.6%
Total Budgetary Expenditures $185,665,018 $ 220,108,611 $305,386,947 $ 45,468,647 $259,918,300 14.9%
Non-Budgetary Funds Expenditures
Internal Service Funds
810*Equipment $ 6,325,457 $ 6,554,320 $ 8,888,125 $ 1,404,305 $ 7,483,820 15.8%
8200 Risk Management 1,196,091 1,771,250 1,771,250 424,713 1,346,537 24.0%
830'Information Technology 2,785,766 3,275,051 3,275,051 525,795 2,749,256 16.1
8400 Central Services 199,503 212,479 212,479 38,212 174,267 18.0
8500 Health Insurance Reserves 10,659,783 12,271,023 12,271,023 2,394,749 9,876,274 19.5%
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 386,892 382,521 382,521 97,336 285,185 25.4
Total Non-Budgetary Expenditures $ 21,553,492 $ 24,466,644 $ 26,800,449 $ 4,885,110 $ 21,915,339 18.2%
Total Expenditures-AllFunds $207,218,510 $ 244,575,255 $332,187,396 $ 50,353,757 $281,833,639 15.2%
7
City of Iowa City
Expenditures by Fund by Department
Fiscal Year 2024 through Septemeber 30, 2023
2023 2024 2024 2024
Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent
Budgetary Funds Expenditures
General Fund
10" General Fund
City Council $ 174,794 $ 178,611 $ 178,611 $ 49,630 $ 128,981 27.8%
City Clerk 558,189 624,775 $ 624,775 122,499 502,276 19.6%
City Attorney 896,859 914,555 $ 914,555 201,797 712,758 22.1%
City Manager 4,623,699 5,148,457 $ 10,921,528 5,763,543 5,157,985 52.8%
Finance 4,168,894 5,090,596 $ 5,354,624 1,918,295 3,436,329 35.8%
Police 15,682,533 17,346,723 $ 17,852,621 3,453,828 14,398,793 19.3%
Fire 9,506,985 10,313,473 $ 10,326,070 2,250,837 8,075,233 21.8%
Parks& Recreation 10,338,539 10,567,119 $ 10,642,829 2,385,510 8,257,319 22.4%
Library 7,226,829 7,877,340 $ 7,877,340 1,707,551 6,169,789 21.7%
Senior Center 1,053,569 1,154,420 $ 1,166,420 191,724 974,696 16.4%
Neighborhood&Development Services 5,162,196 4,830,294 $ 5,296,181 1,430,887 3,865,294 27.0%
Public Works 3,092,286 3,339,887 $ 3,349,887 700,394 2,649,493 20.9%
Transportation&Resource Management 708,629 684,881 $ 696,747 155,240 541,507 22.3
Total General Fund 63,194,004 68,071,131 75,202,188 20,331,734 54,870,454 27.0%
Special Revenue Funds
2100 Community Dev Block Grant
Neighborhood&Development Services 1,075,683 778,376 1,215,947 188,112 1,027,835 15.5
2110 HOME
Neighborhood&Development Services 1,187,632 1,348,625 3,481,682 57,616 3,424,066 1.7
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
Public Works 6,976,684 7,792,239 7,982,005 1,635,739 6,346,266 20.5%
2300 Other Shared Revenue
Neighborhood&Development Services 2,653,065 30,654 14,375,967 68,906 14,307,061 0.5
2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Cc
Neighborhood&Development Services 769,755 830,005 1,085,005 178,774 906,231 16.5
2400 Employee Benefits
Finance 1,209,467 1,338,854 1,338,854 271,106 1,067,748 20.2%
2450 Emergency Levy Fund
City Manager 566,870 468,850 468,850 60,922 407,929 13.0%
2500 Affordable Housing Fund
Neighborhood&Development Services 1,086,455 1,000,000 1,000,000 941,783 58,217 94.2
2510 Iowa City Property Management
Neighborhood&Development Services 151,997 247,229 247,229 17,907 229,322 7.2
26'-` Tax Increment Financing
Finance 3,013,704 2,192,030 2,192,030 - 2,192,030 0.0%
2820 SSMID-Downtown District
Finance 552,028 634,124 634,124 634,124 0.0%
Total Special Revenue Funds 19,243,340 16,660,986 34,021,693 3,420,866 30,600,827 10.1
Debt Service Fund
5*- Debt Service
Finance 13,165,630 13,210,690 13,210,690 3,225 13,207,465 0.0%
Total Debt Service Fund 13,165,630 13,210,690 13,210,690 3,225 13,207,465 0.0
8
City of Iowa City
Expenditures by Fund by Department
Fiscal Year 2024 through Septemeber 30, 2023
2023 2024 2024 2024
Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent
Enterprise Funds
710'Parking
Transportation&Resource Management $ 4,050,511 $ 4,359,209 $ 4,385,709 $ 969,949 $ 3,415,760 22.1
715'Mass Transit
Transportation&Resource Management 8,876,777 10,333,648 10,340,148 1,752,390 8,587,758 16.9
720'Wastewater
Public Works 10,849,521 8,183,257 8,224,237 2,040,488 6,183,749 24.8%
730'Water
Public Works 9,454,497 10,085,483 10,221,728 4,250,985 5,970,743 41.6%
7400 Refuse Collection
Transportation&Resource Management 4,077,516 4,627,383 4,902,383 1,050,010 3,852,373 21.4
750'Landfill
Transportation&Resource Management 5,631,227 6,108,611 6,108,611 1,493,224 4,615,387 24.4
7600 Airport
Airport Operations 450,629 406,307 406,307 127,984 278,323 31.5%
7700 Storm Water
Public Works 613,262 738,481 738,481 157,958 580,523 21.4%
79— Housing Authority
Neighborhood&Development Services 11,921,444 11,686,205 11,686,205 3,760,571 7,925,634 32.2
Total Enterprise Funds 55,925,386 56,528,584 57,013,809 15,603,559 41,410,250 27.4
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects 22,949,801 31,178,470 67,411,738 3,403,296 64,008,442 5.0%
Enterprise Projects 11,186,857 34,458,750 58,526,829 2,705,967 55,820,862 4.6%
Total Capital Project Funds 34,136,658 65,637,220 125,938,567 6,109,263 119,829,304 4.9%
Total Budgetary Expenditures $185,665,018 $220,108,611 $305,386,947 $ 45,468,647 $259,918,300 14.9%
Non-Budgetary Funds Expenditures
Internal Service Funds
810'Equipment
Public Works $ 6,325,457 $ 6,554,320 $ 8,888,125 $ 1,404,305 $ 7,483,820 15.8%
8200 Risk Management
Finance 1,196,091 1,771,250 1,771,250 424,713 1,346,537 24.0%
830'Information Technology
Finance 2,785,766 3,275,051 3,275,051 525,795 2,749,256 16.1
8400 Central Services
Finance 199,503 212,479 212,479 38,212 174,267 18.0%
8500 Health Insurance Reserves
Finance 10,659,783 12,271,023 12,271,023 2,394,749 9,876,274 19.5%
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves
Finance 386,892 382,521 382,521 97,336 285,185 25.4%
Total Internal Service Funds 21,553,492 24,466,644 26,800,449 4,885,110 21,915,339 18.2
Total Non-Budgetary Expenditures $ 21,553,492 $ 24,466,644 $ 26,800,449 $ 4,885,110 $ 21,915,339 18.2%
Total Expenditures-All Funds $207,218,510 $244,575,255 $332,187,396 $ 50,353,757 $281,833,639 15.2%
9
Item Number: IP3.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 30, 2023
Climate Action Commission: November 13
Attachments: Climate Action Commission: November 13
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
IOWA CITY CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 13, 2023 -3:30 PM— FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVART HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michal Eynon-Lynch, John Fraser, Jamie Gade, Ben Grimm, Matt
Krieger, Wim Murray, Michelle Sillman, Brinda Shetty, Angie Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gabriel Sturdevant, Matt Walter
STAFF PRESENT: Daniel Bissell, Geoff Fruin, Jen Jordan, Ron Knoche, Diane Platte
OTHERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Fitzsimmons
CALL TO ORDER:
Eynon-Lynch called the meeting to order. New commissioner Angie Smith introduced herself.
APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 2 2023 MINUTES:
Shetty moved to approve the minutes from October 2, 2023. Grimm seconded the motion, a
vote was taken, and the motion passed 8-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Action Items from last meeting (Staff):
• Continue visioning for commercial, industrial, and residential areas.
Upcoming Events:
• Presentation of SolSmart plaque to City Council Nov. 21
Meeting Schedule for 2024:
• First Monday of the month, except for Jan. 8, Sept. 9, and Nov. 5 (Tuesday). Shetty
asked for clarification about the December meeting date. Bissell offered to follow up.
UNFINISHED/ONGOING BUSINESS:
Enhanced Energy Standards Building Incentive (CRAP Action Item BI-6):
• Bissell invited commissioners to ask questions or offer comments on the memo included
in the agenda packet. Eynon-Lynch asked about the timeframe for seeing one third of
new residential construction receiving a HERS rating. Bissell responded the goal was
one year.
[Krieger joined the meeting at 3:36]
Climate Action Commission
April 3 2023
Page 2 of 6
Resource Management operations and planning activities (Jordan):
Jordan offered an overview of Reduction, Reuse, Recycling, and Composting.
o Waste reduction education and outreach efforts utilize a range of strategies. Love
Food Fight Waste is a collaboration with Table to Table.
o Reuse efforts include partnering with Restore and the Salvage Barn. At the
landfill, bicycles are dropped off and picked up informally. Donation drop-off
summer event continues to be a success. Consignment and Resale directory on
the website has received over 16,000 hits. Brick reuse program has salvaged 50
pallets of bricks so far.
o Recycling efforts each year include 100 mattresses, 160 tons of shingles, 130
tons of electronics, and more.
o Compost facility will be expanded due to a $4M grant from the EPA. Curbside
food waste collection began in Iowa City in 2017 following a pilot project.
o Compost grant will help fund a compost turner, a resurfacing of the 5-acre
compost area, the addition of 2 acres, and the expansion of access for drop-off
program. Curbside pickup currently serves half of Iowa City's households.
o The compost facility is currently limited to 15,000 tons per year. The grant will
allow for expansion.
o The additional tons composted will reduce GHG emissions: 573 MTCO2e saved
annually by 2028. EPA's WARM model was used for the calculation.
o Jordan shared a graph of per capita waste generation from 2008 to 2023. The
details of the waste characterization study findings can be found on the resource
management website.
o Commissioners congratulated staff on the EPA grant.
o Grimm asked for data that compares waste from industrial/commercial sectors
vs. residential. Jordan and Wilch explained the breakdown from the DNR that is
on the resource management website. Jordan noted 2017 was a pivotal year.
o Krieger asked how the per capita number compares to other communities.
Jordan and Knoche noted that Iowa City is maybe a couple hundred pounds
under the average for per capita waste generation.
o Fraser asked for suggestions about plastic bags. Jordan noted the only solution,
which is unpopular, is "stop using them /stop buying stuff." Fraser asked for"the
one thing to focus on" and Jordan pointed to the food system.
o Sillman asked about the quality of the purchasable compost as compared to
Cedar Rapids and Quad Cities. Jordan answered that Quad Cities compost
facility does not accept food waste, which keeps a lot of plastic out. Screen size
would help filter contaminants.
o Krieger asked about wood chips. Jordan answered that more wood chips will be
able to go into compost as more nitrogen-rich food waste comes in.
o Krieger asked about outreach to commercial entities such as third-party haulers
for food waste. Jordan noted that there is a need for more haulers. Grimm noted
that ICCSD is hauling compost themselves. Cost for depositing organic material
at the landfill is $24/ton, half the price of garbage.
o Fraser asked "what keeps you up at night." Jordan answered that landfilling is a
waste of resources.
o Grimm asked about the hands-on work involved with the compost and how long
the process takes. Jordan explained the "compost cooking" process which
includes testing for contaminants and noted that the additional equipment might
reduce the compost production timeframe in half.
2
Climate Action Commission
April 3 2023
Page 3 of 6
o Krieger asked about end source for recyclables. Wilch answered that it depends
on the material. Electronics, oil, glass go to partners that work directly with Iowa
City. For example, glass goes to Kansas City. Curbside recyclables that need to
be sorted go to Waste Commission of Scott County. That sorter sells to different
companies and mills, which may change on a month-to-month basis. City of Iowa
City has very strong confidence that everything on the "accepted items lisf' is
being recycled.
o Eynon-Lynch asked how much of residential waste is packaging. Wilch reported
that plastic is currently 14% of landfilled material by weight. Eynon-Lynch asked
about outreach and education around package-free food shopping, i.e. bulk
buying. Jordan noted the challenge is larger than can be addressed on the level
of local government intervention and that federal regulation about packaging and
product stewardship would be most beneficial, but there is potential too for
encouraging consumer behavior around bulk food purchasing.
Visioning indicators of success in built environment (residential, commercial, industrial)
• Bissell provided an overview of the visioning exercise: "if we are successful in
implementing all 66 GAAP measures, what does the community look like in 2050?
Imagine first a neighborhood in another part of the city first, then a commercial district,
then an industrial district."
• Bissell led commissioners to respond to a set of prompts. "In a neighborhood across
town, then a commercial district, then an industrial district..."
o What kinds of buildings do you see (in 2050)?
o What modes of transportation do you see?
o In what ways do the buildings you're envisioning help reduce emissions?
o In what ways are the buildings adapted to a hotter, wetter environment?
o In what ways do transportation modes mitigate emissions?
o In what ways are the vehicles or street networks adapted for a hotter, wetter
environment?
a In what way does multi-family housing play into this vision? Does multi-family
housing exist evenly across the neighborhood? Does it exist in pockets?
• Bissell invited commissioners to look over their notes and share what were the three
most significant details.
• Sillman envisioned multi-family residential or commercial buildings having a designated
number of EV charging parking spots, like we have for accessible parking spots.
• Eynon-Lynch envisioned a greater mix of housing options and smaller square footage of
living space per person and highly efficient, and housing situated near alternate
transportation modes.
• Krieger added that higher density would be key to achieving those goals and noted that
2050 is as distant in time from now as the late 1990s were from the present and that
technology has changed significantly in the time. He talked about reducing energy
demand so that less renewable energies are needed, with the major challenge being
retrofitting existing buildings. Ideally, by 2050 there have been enough pilots and
demonstration projects that behaviors are changed and residents are making the
changes themselves. Key to this is continuously and steadily demonstrate leadership in
this area.
• Shetty envisioned 15-minute neighborhoods connected by electric buses and a network
of bike paths. Gade seconded the idea of creating neighborhoods in which everything
you need is within a 15-minute walk, especially for affordable housing communities.
3
Climate Action Commission
April 3 2023
Page 4 of 6
• Krieger expressed the need to be working with neighboring communities to make these
efforts part of a regional approach.
• Murray envisioned quality prefabricated structures, which create a lot less waste.
Decentralized compost facilities might allow more people to access finished compost in
their neighborhoods.
• Fraser imagined being able to walk everywhere, including to industrial areas for work,
and maximum mixed-use -- residential, commercial, industrial—areas with no economic
stratification between neighborhoods but rather similar amenities and quality design in
every area.
• Eynon-Lynch and Grimm envisioned micro-farms incorporated in the city that included
greenhouses for year-round production. Krieger added the idea of vertical farms.
• Sillman imagined more underground parking, so that less space would be given over to
surface parking.
• Smith noted a recent visit to Carmel Indiana, which has 220 miles of bike paths that
have been built over a 20-year period.
• Krieger noted the need to drive consumer demand for 15-minute neighborhoods
• Gade noted affordability is a driver.
[Grimm exited the meeting at 4:43]
• Krieger imagined circular economy in construction to promote affordability.
• Eynon-Lynch requested a shift in the conversation to commercial and industrial visions.
• Krieger suggested uses incentives and outreach to drive the local economy more toward
businesses that have integrated sustainability approaches.
• Eynon-Lynch imagined more locally-owned businesses, locally-produced energy,
circular economy for a resilient community.
• Shetty imagined green spaces incorporated with industrial and commercial areas.
Eynon-Lynch suggested industry should be smaller and nontoxic to be integrated into
neighborhoods, following the vision Fraser had outlined.
• Smith seconded the need for green spaces and noted that our Iowa River offers
untapped potential, and suggested expanded walkable, bikeable areas downtown that
would reduce the need for parking.
• Krieger shared that New Orleans utilizes a method of stormwater management which
also offers green space.
• Sillman wondered if hydropower in Iowa City could be ramped up.
• Bissell asked commissioners to think about downtown and Highway 6. Gade observed
that it feels unsafe to bike or walk along Highway 6 because of the number of cars.
• Fraser asked about areas dominated by mobile homes and asked how commercial
enterprises could be incentivized to build quality multifamily housing in those areas.
Krieger noted that there are benefits to affordable, prefabricated homes with high density
and suggested it might be better to consider how those homes could be improved and
how to facilitate the desire for change that might come from within the neighborhood.
• Sillman described Coralville's bike path as an appealing place to ride, wondering if
Highway 6 could achieve something similar. Smith noted the positive direction taken by
the South District Neighborhood in recent years.
• Eynon-Lynch envisioned less concrete, more permeable surfaces, and commercial
districts that have greater density with fewer parking lots.
• Fraser noted the importance of centering equity.
• Eynon-Lynch positioned the discussion in the larger context of working on a regional
climate plan.
4
Climate Action Commission
April 3 2023
Page 5 of 6
NEW BUSINESS:
none
RECAP:
• Confirmation of next meeting time and location:
c Monday December 4, 3:30-5 p.m., Emma J. Harvat Hall
• Actionable items for commission and staff: continue visioning indicators of success.
ADJOURNMENT:
Krieger moved to adjourn, Gade seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion
passed 8-0. Meeting adjourned at 5:01.
5
Climate Action Commission
April 3 2023
Page 6 of 6
CLIMATE ACTION
COMM ISSI ONATTENDANCE
RECORD
2023
s —+ N W A G1 Cn -4 00 Co —�
CCn
G1 i'3 �„ O O O N O N
N O 4 O O N N W
NAME TERM EXP N N N N N N N O N O O N
W W W W W W N W N N O
W W W N
W
Michel Eynon- 12/31/2024 X X X X X X NM X X X X X
Lynch
Elizabeth 12/31/2025 X X X X X NM 0/E X
Fitzsimmons
John Fraser 12/31/2024 X X X X X O/E NM X O/E O/E X X
Jamie Gade 12/31/2025 X X X X O/E NM X X X O/E X
Ben Grimm 10/31/2023 X X X X X X NM X O/E X X X
Clarity Guerra 12/31/2022 X «
Kasey 12/31/22 X "
Hutchinson
Matt Krieger 12/31/2023 X X X X X X NM X O/E X O/E X
Wim Murray MidAmerican X X X X
Rep
Michelle Sillman 12/31/20025 X X X O/E O/E NM X X X X X
Brinda Shetty UI Rep X X O/E X X X NM X 0/E X X X
Angie Smith 12/31/2025 X
Gabe Sturdevant 12/31/2024 X X X X X X NM X X X X O/E
Matt Walter 12/31/2023 X X X X 0/E X NM X X X X O/E
KEY:X= Present
0 =Absent
0/E =Absent/Excused
NM= No
Meeting
* No longer on Commission
6
Item Number: IP4.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 30, 2023
Historic Preservation Commission: November 9
Attachments: Historic Preservation Commission: November 9
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 9, 2023 - 5:30PM
EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Noah Stork, Deanna Thomann, Andrew Lewis, Christina Welu-Reynolds,
Jordan Sellergren, Margaret Beck, Frank Wagner, Nicole Villanueva
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carl Brown
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow
OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Hochstedler, Stephanie Bennett
CALL TO ORDER:
Sellergren called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
HPC23-0056: 610 North Johnson Street - Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (porch
reconstruction):
Bristow stated the applicants have requested this item be deferred to the December meeting.
MOTION: Wagner moves to defer this item until the December meeting. Beck second the
motion and a vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Brown absent).
HPC23-0059: 331 South Summit Street- Summit Street Historic District (porch reconstruction):
Bristow noted this item is a key property and is currently covered with an aluminum siding. The owner
does have an interest in someday uncovering it, but not now. This current project involves two areas of
the house, both the front and the rear porch. On the rear porch, which used to be an open porch but
now has been partially enclosed with storm windows and a storm door, they have built a deck that was
approved. Now they want to switch the door from facing south to facing west and then switch the
windows to the south side so that the door will enter directly onto the deck. The door will have a
transom window above, and Bristow stated it will actually translate fairly well to switching to the other
side, there just might be some trim adjustments. Additionally, the stairs and railing would be demolished
because they'll just enter onto the deck which has its own set of stairs.
On the front porch, Bristow stated that it is believed it was partially enclosed more than 50 years ago, it
just has screens, and now they are going to open it back up again. In preparation for doing so they
removed some of the aluminum siding on the inside and Bristow was hoping to see some more
evidence of column footprints or other things on the wall of the house. Bristow showed images of the
house and pointed out the decorative bargeboard and decorative dormers with lots of little divided light
windows. They think this house is a free classic Queen Anne or a stick style because of the extra trim,
so it would also have classical columns and some kind of spindled balustrade. This project would likely
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
Page 2 of 10
remove a little bit of deteriorated porch floor and will be replaced with vertical grain Douglas fir that will
be mitered and installed in the same way. The porch columns would be either wood or fiberglass, likely
an eight-inch column which would work well with the brick pier because the brick piers are 12 inches so
that leaves two inches on each side for a larger column base. The spindled balustrade will have to
follow the guidelines both for the diameter of the spindles themselves, and the spacing so that it doesn't
look too thin.
Bristow said the porch guidelines states that if they are going to be replacing badly deteriorated
elements it is treated the same as if they are missing and either match what is historic on the building or
find a building or historic photograph that would match. Bristow stated they looked at 609 South Summit
as a similar style of home. Regarding the guidelines about the windows for the back part of the porch,
basically they should not detract from the overall fenestration pattern and that's why they're just flipping
what's already there. Bristow stated the recommended motion on this project is to approve it with the
following conditions, the columns are approved by staff and the new balustrade follows the guidelines
for the spacing and sizing.
MOTION: Welu-Reynolds moves approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
331 South Summit Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: that new
columns are approved by staff and that new balustrades follow the guidelines. Villanueva
seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Brown absent).
HPC23-0065: 1031 East College Street- East College Street Historic District(addition to kitchen and
alterations to earlier rear addition):
Bristow began the staff report stating this house is a four square with an addition from 1985 on the
back. She explained there are three areas of work for this project. The first area is on the rear of the
1985 addition. They've already gotten approval to build the deck on the back of the house and now they
are replacing the windows there with a French door for the current project. On the side of the addition
there is a door and a stoop and steps that they will remove because they will have the new rear door.
The applicant stated they could replace that door with a window like the other windows on that addition
and that is something staff would recommend. The third area is where they did a small kitchen bump
out which was completed prior to application and review.
Bristow explained the house was purchased by the current owners on May 13, 2021, and they applied
for a building permit on April 13, 2022, the building permit was marked up pointing out that they needed
to acquire historic review for any exterior modifications. Bristow met with the owner on May 5, 2022 and
they did not mention that they had applied for a building permit already. At that meeting they went over
all of the potential areas of work on the house and discussed the approval process. Bristow also
pointed out this kitchen area would be difficult to add actual space to the house because of the location
of the other addition. The contractor requested a meeting on site and Bristow met the contractor and
owners and on site in July 2023. The contractor told Bristow he would rather ask for forgiveness than
permission. During that meeting they discussed fixing the front steps and adding a rear deck, two things
they have applied for and have been approved. Bristow also noted that they completed a kitchen
addition without approval and the owner told her they replaced the roof without approval too.
They then applied for historic review on August 30, 2023, but more information was needed so they
ended up reapplying two additional applications on October 9 and 10, 2023. Bristow separated the
work into staff approvable and Commission approvable items in the two new applications. Regarding
the work, Bristow showed the rear of the house noting the tree on the photo no longer exists, it came
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
Page 3 of 10
down after the derecho or one of those other storms. She pointed out where the deck is going to sit
right behind the house, and the pair of fixed windows and lower awning windows that will be replaced
with the French door. Staff recommends that it's either just a pair of full light doors or maybe four but no
more divided light pattern than that because the house itself does not have a divided light pattern in its
windows.
Bristow noted the second area is the removal of the step and stoop. She pointed out on a photo a small
awning type window here noting there are two other awning type windows on the opposite side of the
house as well. To avoid an open space of wall without a window since it is a bedroom, they recommend
replacing that door with a similar type of awning window.
The third area of work is the kitchen addition. Basically there was a notch out of the 1985 addition at
this area. In the back wall of the historic portion of the house they had a sliding door and a deck in that
notched area that went out to the west wall of the historic house and all of that was done before the
district was created, so that deck did not have to go through any approval nor did the addition from
1985 have to go through any approval. Bristow next showed the drawing that was submitted for the
building permit pointing out the note that states any alterations to exterior of home requires historical
approval. The Building Inspector did not know that they were adding space to the house, he thought it
was a reorganization of the interior space because these were the only drawings submitted. He also
had some other notes like safety glazing, smoke detectors, carbon dioxide detectors, exhaust hood for
the range, bathroom exhaust, etc.
Regarding the guidelines there are a couple of guidelines that this addition does not follow and had
staff seen this they would have recommended that they fill in the notch in the 1985 addition by claiming
this extra space, extending the west wall of the 1985 addition north to the south wall of the historic
house, and that way they could keep all of the overhangs and retain the building form which would
follow the guidelines. Bristow didn't have any photos of what they did so she sketched a mockup of it
and basically what they did is continued the west wall of the historic portion of the house south to
enclose that notch and then closed that off so they have a bump out that's basically an extension of the
historic house wall and is extended further than the roof overhang on the addition. Then in order to
cover that portion, they continued the roof sloped down and ended it flush with the wall.
Bristow shared what the staff recommendation would have been just to fill off that space, retaining the
SW corner of the historic house and keep the roof overhang on the 1985 addition as well. There are
several guidelines, the section 4.7 mass and roofline recommend preserving the original roof pitches
and spans and preserving the original walls and vertical corners that define the massing of a historic
building. However, by extending that wall further south, that guideline specifically is not being followed.
There are other guidelines within the expansion of the building footprint and distinguishing between the
historic structure and the new addition. In this case, had they sought and followed a staff
recommendation they would have been filling in a notch in a 1985 addition so that would not have been
a concern as there is already a distinction between the historic building and the 1985 addition.
Bristow said that matching key horizontal lines on the existing buildings such as water table, eave
height, window, height, and wards, etc., would also be required. Another guideline is related to the
horizontal line of the roof edge, because now that they've extended further, they have a lower roof line
as well along the new addition, so the key horizontal lines are not followed since they've created a
bump out. The bump out did use a palette of materials similar to the historic structure and it is on the
rear (two guidelines it appears to follow). Being consistent with the massing and roofline of the historic
building, is not a guideline that's being met either since they did not construct the roof overhang and
soffits and eaves so that they match the roof overhang on either they historic house or the 1985
addition. They don't have a roof overhang at all on the addition. The recommended motion is to
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
Page 4 of 10
approve the project as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: window and door
product information is approved by staff, for example the French door would be wood or fiberglass and
a simulated divided light pattern and the new awning window would be either wood or metal clad wood.
Second, that the side door is replaced with a window as described in the staff report. And finally, that
the rear edition is revised to follow the guidelines.
Lewis asked about the bullet points and two of the four things have yet to happen and the third bullet
points are to correct the thing that has already been done. Bristow acknowledged that was correct.
Welu-Reynolds asked if in that correction the bump out with no eave overhang needs to be brought in
and have a normal roof that matches the addition of 1985. Bristow stated that would be one
interpretation of the guidelines which is why the staff recommended motion is just that it follows the
guidelines. Typically, in a situation like this staff prefers to come up with a solution that helps but she
doesn't know of a solution right now so by saying it needs to follow the guidelines it puts it on the
applicant to come up with a way to follow the guidelines.
Wagner asked why there were no elevation drawings submitted. Bristow believes it was because the
Building Inspector thought it was to be all interior work.
Kevin Hochstedler (Hochstedler Building and Development) are the contractors doing the work here
and they got to know the owners a couple of years ago when they were buying it in the process. He
knows they met and checked in with their realtor who checked all the historical guidelines and
everything. They all walked through the house to make sure they understood the historical guidelines
and regulations clearly before they went forward and purchased the house. When his company got
involved they were told a few things but the owners also gave their opinion of the guidelines and that
anything on the front had to be approved and not the sides unless they were totally visible from the
street. Hochstedler acknowledged a misunderstanding however they did also submit a drawing of the
original footprint showing the notch out with that so he is not sure if it just didn't get recorded.
Hochstedler stated they have been building for 40 years and have a long-term relationship with the city
of Iowa City so he apologizes for any misguiding or doing something they shouldn't have. They just
tried to build the best product they could for their clients for the money. Hochstedler noted these were
exuberant first-time homebuyers in an historical neighborhood where they always wanted to be so they
were ready to set the world on fire. The project involved gutting most of the house while they were living
there, a lot of stuff going on inside and out. He agrees that he would like to meet with staff on site and
sketch out some elevations and overhangs which would be appropriate for the house and the district.
Hochstedler stated the original decks and landing stair and railings were dilapidated and needed to be
updated very badly, they just weren't safe. This was definitely a learning curve for them as first-time
homeowners and in a historic district but at any rate they're here to do whatever they need to do to
make this appropriate for the neighborhood. What they plan to do is to make it look like foundation with
some Hardie plank cement board, which is made for weather and doesn't rot, and then they can stucco
a plaster over it. The existing foundation on the historic house is plastered over with a very heavy
grainy texture like stucco but its just an old block foundation.
Stephanie Bennett (Hochstedler Building and Development) shared some pictures of the property and
also apologized for not doing the proper steps but they definitely want to continue the integrity of the
house and the neighborhood. The first picture is how the addition looks now from one angle and then
the next picture is how the addition or bump out looks from another angle. She showed how they would
continue the stucco look along the foundation to make it look contiguous. The fourth photo showed how
they would continue around to the other side and by doing that also help make it look like it's just
continuing. Bennett acknowledged moving forward they can definitely work together on how they need
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
Page 5 of 10
to extend that roofline to meet the guidelines.
Bristow noted when they do a one-story addition on a two-story house they do set it in from the
sidewalls so that the roof does not jet out from the side of the house when one is looking at the house.
Adding a roof overhang on the addition will project further than the wall of the historic house.
Sellergren asked if to meet the guidelines the roofline would be extended approximately the same as
the soffit on the 1985 edition. Hochstedler said he would have to measure to see if there is not a
headroom issue, but they can do some things to make it look appropriate.
Bristow stated the staff interpretation of the guidelines is that they retain the corner and then the eave
line matches the soffit to have the same roof edge but with that bump out as it is, they cannot meet
several of those guidelines so the Commission either needs to have the applicant follow the guidelines,
evaluate whether or not what they're proposing right now follows the guidelines and if they don't think it
does, they should tell them or if they do think it does follow the guidelines then approve that.
Lewis noted that they are all seemingly saying is this already egregiously not following those guidelines
so the correction to revise it to make it fit the guidelines is to bump it back in which is the way it would
meet those guidelines.
Welu-Reynolds asked if they were to extend that roofline so that it would match would it be the the
original part of the house with the eave overhang would that follow the guidelines. Bristow stated the
historic house has at least a two-foot overhang and the 1985 addition has an 18-inch overhang, so they
don't match. Her concern is that if they put this eave overhang on the new addition and have that
window next to it, they're going to be covering a portion of the window or blocking it because the
window is higher than that adjacent roof on the new addition.
Stork stated this whole situation is obviously a mess but really appreciates the contractor's willingness
to work on trying to meet some of the historical guidelines, which again, are guidelines. It appears
there is plenty of room to kind of match some of the roof lines and it's going to look fine.
Beck doesn't see how this bump out can occupy the space it does and fit those guidelines, she would
love to hear more ideas because she just doesn't know how they're going to make that roof look right
because nothing lines up. She doesn't want to foreclose other possibilities but is afraid that adding a
foundation there doesn't change the fact that block of space can't be there. The roofline is messed up
and it's not inset in like it should be.
Sellergren agrees and stated she doesn't see any possible way to meet guidelines with what currently
exists no matter how it's revised.
Welu-Reynolds noted they have a responsibility though to make a recommendation and this can be
remedied the best that it can. She is concerned about the top board and having water going straight
down that thing, it's going to damage if they don't have an eave overhang, and it looks like that top
board already is split, so something has to be done with the roofline otherwise the damage done is just
going to continue.
Hochstedler stated he has been doing this for 40 years and there's many innovative ways to make
things look appropriate and fit. He believes they could drive the neighborhood and find a similar
circumstance with an appropriate way it looks and come back to with a proposal at a future meeting.
Bristow stated if there is a guideline that the Commission would like to make an exception for in order to
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
Page 6 of 10
approve the addition as is, they need to identify that guideline and state the reason for the exception as
well. She thinks that it needs to be generally approved in some way unless for some reason the
Commission just wanted to deny this and say go back and redesign it and come up with something.
Otherwise, if they approve it with some type of guidance, the applicant could bring something back to
her as staff and she can interpret the Commission's guidance and potentially approve without it coming
back to the Commission. If she doesn't think they meet that guidance, or it's just unclear, it would come
back to Commission.
Welu-Reynolds agrees that adding the stucco on the bottom makes it more cohesive so the stucco
thing needs to be done. She also agrees that there should probably be some roofline that comes out for
the integrity of the condition of the structure. She believes at this point they'll come up with something
that works.
Sellergren stated she always has to raise the issue of precedent, which is that when the guidelines in a
historic district are disregarded when a building project is begun, that sets precedent for this to happen
over and over and over again, and as a Commission it's their responsibility to make sure that doesn't
happen. That is an unfortunate reality and an organic part of what happens when they allow the
guidelines to be violated in a historic district, it creates havoc.
Welu-Reynolds asked in general how often that happens, that the guidelines were not really adhered to
and the Commission is in this situation. Bristow replied it's the overall issue of the work without a
permit and they've had quite a bit of that this year, more than normal this this year.
Welu-Reynolds is appreciative they're here and trying to remedy this because some people wouldn't
have been agreeable. She of course wishes they weren't in this situation to begin with but thinks they
probably should come up with something rather than kicking the can down the road.
Thomann asked even with alterations will this fit with historic guidelines. Welu-Reynolds replied no, not
unless they tear off the addition and push it back because staffs original recommendation would have
been to line up with the 1985 addition and maintain the roofline.
Stork trusts staff and his vision generally aligns with Bristow's and he trusts her working with the
contractor to achieve a solution.
Sellergren reiterated if they approve this, they will be doing this over and over again for other future
projects where the guidelines are disregarded. The project could be redone.
Bristow stated if work is done already that does not matter to their review because it was a violation of
the city code to do it without approval. They would review the project it as if it has never happened.
Hochstedler stated the homeowner has mentioned they may just throw their hands up and put it up for
sale and walk, then what happens?
Sellergren noted it's unfortunate that the guidelines were ignored and that the building project
proceeded without any adherence to them.
Sellergren asked if Hochstedler has worked in historic districts in the 40 years he's been active.
Hochstedler replied he has changed windows in houses and done minor porch work and stuff.
Sellergren doesn't see what exception there is to be made unfortunately. She doesn't think the roof can
be revised to meet any of the standards, or any other guideline.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
Page 7 of 10
Wagner agrees and in general this wouldn't have been approved and therefore there isn't any reason
they should accept it right now.
Sellergren stated they have a responsibility to protect the guidelines and this is a situation where if
that's not done it does open up floodgates to future violations. Historic Districts exist for a reason to
maintain the historic integrity of the neighborhood and piece by piece every moment it's violated, the
integrity is degraded.
Wagner suggested they recommend the motion just with the first two bullet points.
Stork noted the one thing they haven't considered is how visible this is from the front of the house or
the street. He understands that they don't want to be setting precedents, but they can make
exceptions.
Wagner stated the first two bullet points seem to be something that they would approve but that is the
third bullet point is the issue.
Sellergren noted this Commission has rejected proposals that have not met guidelines numerous times,
stated it seems unfair to let it slide and make other homeowners oblige.
Stork has a lot of empathy for new homeowners, especially in historic district being one himself. A lot of
these additions were made before the Historic Preservation Commission was in place and they're trying
to adjust to this house that's theirs. It's got historic and additions and yes everybody screwed up,
including the City.
Welu-Reynolds noted the Building Inspector clearly noted that any modifications were needed it must
be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Was he aware of what they were going to do.
Bristow replied he was not, he had thought it was to all be interior modifications,
Thomann asked about pushing it back in and removing everything that was built there. It's a very small
bump out, so would it take much to knock it back. Bennett explained the kitchen has already been done
though the interior with the cabinets installed and $2,000 to $3,000 worth of tile. Hochstedler added
99% of this project was inside the house, master bath remodel, kitchen remodel, other remodels to an
upstairs bathroom and all that was approved by the Building Inspector. Bristow was on site with the
homeowner and they talked about the fact that would be a problematic area because they won't be able
to add extra space without bumping out.
Villanueva asked a hypothetical question, if the Commission tells them they have to go and move it
back in and they sell the house do they have to disclose to the new buyers that they have to come and
automatically fix this. Bristow is not sure about real estate law, but they do have an open building
permit that wouldn't be closed out so if a potential buyer came and asked they could disclose that and
the past work.
Welu-Reynolds thinks the best option then is just to do this, to go with the motion and see what comes
back but as described, according to guidelines.
MOTION: Lewis moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1031 East
College Street, as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: window and door
product information is approved by staff, that the side door is replaced with a window as
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
Page 8 of 10
described in the staff report, and that the rear edition is revised to follow the guidelines.
Beck seconded the motion.
Thomann stated so in saying yes to this they're throwing it back to the homeowner to figure out how to
revise within the guidelines. Bristow stated yes, if it was something that followed the guidelines she
could approve that, but due to the complexity she would expect that there would probably be something
that she would have to bring back to the Commission.
A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 7-1 (Stork dissenting, Brown absent).
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Certificate of No Material Effect-Chair and Staff review
HPC23-0062: 1025 Woodlawn Avenue -Woodlawn Historic District(chimney repair and reconstruction):
Bristow noted this chimney is pretty deteriorated and therefore being repaired. Interestingly, below the
chimney on the porch wall there's a chimney extension so they think that there was a fire at one point in
time and so it was covered over and they're actually going to remove that and then just siding over it.
HPC23-0068: 304 South Summit Street- Summit Street Historic District (north wall reconstruction):
Bristow stated the foundation failed on the side of the house, so a certificate of no material effect was
approved to basically reconstruct the area of the wall.
Minor Review -Staff review
HPC23-0058: 331 South Summit Street- Summit Street Historic District (synthetic siding removal at
porch.):
Approval to remove the synthetic siding.
HPC23-0064: 1031 East College Street- East College Street Historic District (front step replacement
and construction of new rear deck):
Bristow stated this is a front step replacement and the construction of the rear deck were both approved
by staff.
HPC23-0067: 225 North Gilbert Street- Local Historic Landmark (deteriorated attic window
replacement):
The homeowners got a grant to replace the attic windows that were hardly hanging in there.
Intermediate Review -Chair and Staff review
HPC23-0066: 119 East College Street- Local Historic Landmark (commercial sign at second floor):
This is a sign for a second floor business so the sign is higher than the staff-only approval allows.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
Page 9 of 10
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 12, 2023:
MOTION: Wagner moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
October 12, 2023, meeting, as amended. Villanueva seconded the motion. The motion carried on
a vote of 8-0 (Brown absent).
COMMISSION INFORMATION:
Bristow gave an update on 302 East Bloomington Street. They did draft a letter to the owner and sent it
to him by mail and also sent a copy to his realtor. They have not heard back yet but it requests pretty
much any time or place to meet with them. Since they know the owner really appreciates and cherishes
his property they hope he will understand why they want to as well. At some point after they've met with
him, they will submit the application for rezoning on the Commission's behalf and then proceed with the
process.
Bristow noted the March meeting is during the University's Spring break week and would like to change
the meeting date to the week after if that works. She will work on rescheduling that.
ADJOURNMENT:
Thomann moved to adjourn the meeting. Wagner seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0
(Brown absent).
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD
2022-2023
TERM 11/10 1/12 2/9 3/22 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/13 8/10 9/14 10/12 11/9
NAME EXP.
BECK, 6/30/24 X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X
MARGARET
BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X O/E X X
BROWN, 6/30/23 X O/E O/E X X O/E X X O/E X X O/E
CARL
SELLERGREN, 6/30/22 X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X X
JORDAN
STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X
THOMANN, 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X X
DEANNA
VILLANUEVA, 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X
NICOLE
WAGNER, 6/30/23 O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X X
FRANK
WELU- 6/30/25 X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X
REYNOLDS,
CHRISTINA
LEWIS, X X X X X
ANDREW
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E= Absent/Excused
--- = Not a member