Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-01 Info Packet � r rrr®��� City Council Information Packet CITY OF 10"IA CITY February 1 , 2024 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1. Council Tentative Meeting Schedule February 6 Work Session IP2. Work Session Agenda IP3. Memo from City Manager: Utility Rate Background Information IP4. Pending City Council Work Session Topics Miscellaneous IPS. Memo from Budget Management Analyst: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending December 31, 2023 IP6. Civil Service Examination: Recreation Program Supervisor - Special Events & Communications Draft Minutes IP7. Historic Preservation Commission: January 11 IP8. Human Rights Commission: January 23 February 1, 2024 City of Iowa City Item Number: IP1. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 1, 2024 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule Attachments: Council Tentative Meeting Schedule City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule nil Subject to change CITY OF IOWA CITY February 1,2024 Date Time Meeting Location Tuesday, February 6,2024 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street Thursday, February 15,2024 7:00 PM Joint Meeting with University of Iowa Old Capitol Senate Chambers Student Government(USG) 21 N.Clinton Street,2nd Floor 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 Special Formal Meeting City Hall,Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session 410 E.Washington Street 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 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 IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 1, 2024 Work Session Agenda Attachments: Work Session Agenda Subject to change as finalized by the City Clerk. For a final official copy, contact the City Clerk's Office 356-5041 If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this program/event, please contact Kellie Grace at 319-356-5041, kgrace@iowa- city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Iowa City City Council - Work Session + c Agenda Work Session February 6, 2024 - 4:00 PM CITY OF IOWA CITY Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street www.icgov.org City of Iowa City Land Acknowledgment can be found at: icgov.org/landacknowledgement Meeting Rules can be found at: icgov.org/meetingrules You can watch the meeting on cable channel 4 (118.2 QAM) in Iowa City, University Heights and Coralville, or you can watch it online at any of the following websites: • httr)s://citychannel4.com/live • https://www.youtube.com/usericitvchannel4/live • https:Hfacebook.com/CityoflowaCity 1. Presentation on City Hall Building Space Needs Study 2. Annual Historic Preservation Plan Presentation 3. Continued discussion on the FY 25 budget proposal 4. Clarification of Agenda Items 5. Information Packet Discussion [January 18, January 25, February 1] 6. University of Iowa Student Government (USG) Updates 7. Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees Item Number: IP3. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 1, 2024 Memo from City Manager: Utility Rate Background Information Attachments: Memo from City Manager: Utility Rate Background Information r -.41 CITY OF IOW/ CITY „gg, � MEMORANDUM Date: January 31, 2024 To: Mayor and City Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Utility Rate Background Information At the January 22, 2024 operating budget review work session,the City Council requested additional information on the proposed FY25 water rate increase. This memo provides additional information on all utility rate increase proposals to support your February 61h work session discussion.j FY25 Utility Rate Recommendations Iowa City's FY 23-28 Strategic Plan includes the following action item: Ensure Enterprise Funds are well supported through Incremental rate and fee increases and do not become reliant on large rate spike, property taxes or unplanned debt issuance. (Page 22) The FY25 budget proposal includes the following utility rate increase proposals: • Water: 3% • Wastewater: 5% • Recycling: $1/month • Refuse: None • Organics: None • Stormwater: None For comparative purposes, the average monthly consumption metric for an Iowa City utility account is 800 cubic feet of water. This equates to just under 6,000 gallons of water consumed. Attached to this memo are two utility bills that can provide a helpful visual. The first is based on a customer that has used the 800 cubic feet average. The second is from a household of five that uses less than the monthly average (516 cubic feet used). The residential water and wastewater utility rates have two components — the service fee and the volumetric fee. The service fee is the base amount paid by all users even if no water is consumed during the month and covers the first 100 cubic feet of usage. The FY24 service fee is $8.52 and $8.31 for water and wastewater respectively. The FY24 volumetric fee is $3.97 per 100 cubic feet of use for both water and wastewater. For clarity and comparison 100 cubic feet is 748 gallons, therefore the average utility account pays $0.0061 per gallon of drinking water delivered to their home. A gallon of drinking water purchased from a store in a plastic jug costs $1.00 or more. During the opening budget presentation on January 22nd staff noted that the proposed increases would add an estimated $3.93 to the monthly bill for the average household. This calculation is based January 31, 2024 Page 2 on the consumption of 800 cubic feet of water consumed per month. The following table details the calculation of the increased costs per month. Proposed Current Increased Water $ 36.31 $ 37.40 Sewer 36.80 38.64 Refuse 14.00 14.00 Recycling 7.50 8.50 Organics 3.50 3.50 Stormwater 5.50 5.50 Excise Tax 2.18 2.24 Total $ 105.79 $109.78 Increase $ 3.99 *Note the$.06 difference from the budget presentation figure is the increase to the Excise Tax calculation Iowa City maintains a Utility Discount Program for qualifying customers. This program provides a discount of 60 percent of the service fee for water and sewer charges, 60 percent of the monthly storm water charge, and 75 percent of the refuse, recycling and organics charges each month. For a customer enrolled in this program, here is what the proposed increase would look like assuming the same 800 cubic feet of water consumed per month. Discount Proposed Current Increased Water $ 31.20 $ 32.13 Sewer 31.81 33.40 Refuse 3.50 3.50 Recycling 1.88 2.13 Oganics 0.88 0.88 Stormwater 2.20 2.20 Excise Tax 1.87 1.93 Total $ 73.34 $ 76.17 Increase $ 2.83 The increases that are proposed are needed to support current operations and projected capital needs. The 3% water rate increase will generate an estimate $320k for the Water Fund. This will enable the Water Fund to continue status quo operations and maintain progress toward funding the Capital Improvement Program projects without the issuance of debt. The 5% wastewater rate increase will generate an estimate $630k for the Wastewater Fund. This increase not only supports current operations and transfers to the Capital Fund, but it also helps establish annual income January 31, 2024 Page 3 sufficient to support projected borrowing for the Digester Complex Rehabilitation and Digester Gas Capture projects. Finally, the recycling rate increase of$1/month is estimated to generate $190k for the Refuse Fund. This increase is needed to offset the rapidly increasing costs of third party recycled materials processing. Utility Rate Comparisons Comparing utility rates between communities can be complex as varying levels of service, different customer bases (i.e. heavy industrial bases), different source waters, and large debt issuances can create differences that are not apparent when simply looking at rates. Cities may have different rate structures or even rely on third-party utility companies to provide the service to their customers. With these differences in mind, each year in the final budget book staff includes a utility rate comparison. This can be found on page 688 of the approved FY24 budget and is also included below. UtHlity Rates (Residential Monthly Biting-July 1, 2022) CRY waler sewer Waal& $tern 7Mal Rank uaven 556-93 $57-72 $18.13 $3.06 $135.84 1 Des Monss $41.61 $54.79 572..90 $15.87 $135.17 2 North -0 $59.30 .19.80 00 133.48 3 Dubuque $33.09 $47.20 $20.85 $9.00 $110.22 4 Ames` $37.15 537.04 $30.00 5520 3109.39 5 Wed Des Moines $11.57 541.77 $13.10 56.90 $103.34 6 town CW $34.93 $3&.01f $28.00 55.001 $99.01 7 Cedar Ra 535.03 $3253 $22.53 5726 $97.35 8 SKNK Cft 20 $41.30 $1555 51?5 �7E.30 9 CoraMlle 518M $40.15 $21.75 $3.00 $83.88 10 CdundBluffs 1.73 $31.90 $20.00 $0.00 $0363 11 waterloo $20.84 S31.95 $20.75 55.00 370.54 12 'Ames and Nadh trbedy trash ca ftcb n provided 5'y private cvnlracf ars " Average rate is$105.57R9ifarance of$6.50 At the January 22 work session, Council expressed particular interest in the proposed 3%water rate increase. To provide you broader perspective on how Iowa City's water rate compares statewide, the following table is an excerpt from a statewide rate study that the City of Ames, Iowa conducts annually. The table shows rates at various levels of consumption. In each consumption category, Iowa City ranks well below the median. January 31, 2024 Page 4 2028 WATER RATE 8URM 861fe61n0 wa8 Pknto 0.1y bwe M.,1p"MIelbn 10AW) f94.Ne4 yy6w LYyd"A b OCF MCF Citta 1O.M Cr 516ae CE 10"CF BMrgmn 2180 5lwrcvr 60.01 411. 7987 C>nmM 153.52 LIIe1;M 3.971 a 1836 Pd6 1897 C mal "M plkWovae 7520 1 088.79 WwYAe 7A21 n;ilw BAMS 1Q.6u5 ion Ca4a'®e 47.52 weube ]2.TT Fi9g1}11FM 0.58.2! 3.146 1M 6.313 Oy:ai.4aa 1580 15.00 5OMee4 7102 Ard 627.8F Pbev4fW 1134 Plea9e M 8.227 CedM & 1560 eJee 45.39 .bOnMm 6929 CB+a 6w.02 CWe 3.076 QNa 8.156 s Lo. 15.28 41.80 Nm 6283 3ah;Mm 59770 JMwvba 8.941 bMebn 5.053 Ooo1 14.14 10.15 Ank"Y 50.41 NvreA 616.26 Nav94 2.552 NYret SM weufee 1647 Fw Mem1y1 1957 FM Maclean Son emre 64-24 OMro 2.716 666ne 6.439 Gae Ekdb, 1323 DI 3785 ck 5761 U6Mtleia -1w= LSz 2.388 Wbndah 4.785 nreea /3.15 35.85 PeM s6.w 1.6eroie 111 88 WGeaue 2341 In4a;v'e 1.8H Urelrro 1208 C8m 32.81 Onueman 5334 WOeIUn M9Mea i88M wef40eeMu;v1 2.3]1 weM Oee Y4.hIM 0&57 eamv 12w WbaMulo 32.67 5116 M.m 46580 AIWI 23M 0.Hoo.a 4613 Mwlan 11A5 emA• .3x85 AROw18 MM 8. M13 2.1711 4 ak866r;e 11.18 Or YBeWe Sa59 9F4R Oe1I84in48 8'A.85. 111 v .13!.31 OWm�e 3A01 PeOe F.rt6W�im loan Rome 31,yg .x." WS, 0e3 Mwnea 47691 Pa t873 OIWrI'.Wa 3A14 3aMebn 10.68 W,a. 31M Oea],y..aa a789 O6YIfM5 412.M Fon 6ta.. F.]91 Blom Latin SA21 6hNNel9wn 10.22 CVAry 6 31.56 EOW9 45M POW 3MM 6.,11 Lok. 1,116 Fan Mlk6 3310 1� tow Cos Mw;va 31,13 ?I.rvlLde 4250 387.75 O4s Mann 1.704 arMe 32U Poeueanl fM MM 9w;m LA. 2882 bre C4v 42.5] SbOn LM;e ]50.M CuSucue 1812 W Jilt nN;eaY 837 78.5] CedarR Ids 4223 4 u 3M.27 Piees $.on Ne4n.n 7AK �IWd! 5.27 bpeo 21]9 Oub, 1 4138 16W0 31312 N. 5,141 pa6 M6YNg ISM 1.C#y 819 McMM. 2102 knM 3656 CedV 265..1 M*.wbao 1.428 MMeneemwn 2.841 Oea M9e1M ew oubu 14.62 IMMeaWxat 3622 DWNVW 29321 i6we 1417 bna 2821 fl9rwri 600 Xe k 2458 CpnrJIBYAIo 37M Newmn 292.71 Caber 1, Cvdarib 2.770 UMnmle 4.M ♦w 236e BeNWt 34.54 Mygl®pµn 29246 Cgi9tl 5Wlle 1162 NadJik 2,075 wwt M 4A7 h4++A0 229.1 NAfto 34.41 C Acl 6784 154.15 Ne;el'A 1,072 fdntl Bedla 2,01] Conclusion Staff is confident that our current rates are very competitive with our peer communities. In recent years, our Water Division operations have been hindered by inflationary pressures on critical supplies, such as chemicals, and have experienced significant increases in capital construction costs. To maintain current service levels and to complete projected capital needs, periodic rate increases will be needed. Consistent with our Strategic Plan, staff believes these increases are best considered on an annual basis in smaller increments. Forgoing these increases will only hinder current operations, create costly deferred maintenance scenarios, increase risk of chronic system failures, and set the community up for larger rate increases that will be more difficult to absorb into our customers' own budgets. Staff will be happy to respond to questions at your February 6)h work session. UTILITY BILL BILLOATE I ZONE I ACCOUNTy-CIDN PAY ONLINE: 01117!2024 1 C SERVICE ADDRESS I G+L SERIM9FROM SFRVICETO Z CYb+C r�TI�♦ t 11/2023 01/0812024 PASTDUE AMOUNT CURRENT BILL AMOUNT J $0.00 $105.79 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 DATE CURRENT BILL DUE TOTAL BALANCE DUE 02!01!2024 $106.79 CONSUMPTION INFORMATION Page 1 of 1 Meter Number Present Reading Previous Reading Cubic Feet Used Read Code 213700 212900 800 ACTUAL READ USAGE INFORMATION SUMMARY OF CURRENT CHARGES Cubic Feet Gallons Present Usage: 800 5,984 WATER 36.31 Average Monthly Usage: 925 6,919 SEWER 36.80 Usage One Year Ago: 700 5,236 REFUSE 14.00 RECYCLING 7.50 ORGANICS(YARD WASTE&COMPOST) 3.50 STORMWATER RESIDENTIAL 5.50 WATER EXCISE TAX 2.18 TOTAL CURRENT CHARGES 105.79 CURRENT DUE AFTER 02/0872024(includes 10%late fee) $116.15 BATTERIES CAN CAUSE LANDFILL FIRES. DON'T PUT THEM IN THE TRASH. PROPERLY DISPOSE OF ALL BATTERIES, INCLUDING ALKALINE, LITHIUM, AND RECHARGEABLE,AT BATTERY DROP-OFF SITES. VIEW IOWA CITY LOCATIONS AT ICGOV.ORGfHHM. BILLING DATE I ZONE ACCOUNT -CID Y PAST DUE AMOUNT CURRENT BALANCE CURRENT BALANCE TOTAL BALANCE DUE AMOUNT PAID DUE DATE DUE 01117!2024 C $0.00 0210172024 $105.79 $106.79 CHECK HERE FOR: Tota!Balance Due will be$116.15 it not paid by 02/08/2024. C] AtlftW ccR dion and cnmplela inverse yde_ MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO:CITY OF IOWA CITY REMIT TO: CITY OF IOWA CITY-UTILITIES PAYMENT PROCESSING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 3246 CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52406-3246 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 00006042024800863586400000105791 UTILITY BILL BIU DATE I ZONE I ACCOUNT 8-CID! PAY ONLINE: 01/0312024 1 A In SERVICE ADDW. SERVICE FROM SERVICETO 1 r_vSe'�1 o n r 11127/2023 12/27/2023 0'{ PAST DUE AMOUNT CURRENT BILL AMOUNT - $0.00 $83.28 IOWA CITY, IA 52245-4104 DATE CURRENTBILL DUE TOTAL BALANCE DUE 01/1812024 *SUREPAY Total Amount due of$8128 will be deducted from your account on 01118!2024. CONSUMPTION INFORMATION Page 1 of 1 Meter Number Present Reading Previous Reading Cubic Feet Used Read Code 81264 80748 516 ACTUAL READ USAGE INFORMATION SUMMARY OF CURRENT CHARGES Cubic Feet Gallons Present Usage: 516 3,860 WATER 25.04 Average Monthly Usage: 648 4,848 SEWER 25.24 Usage One Year Ago: 571 4,271 REFUSE 14.00 RECYCLING 7.50 ORGANICS (YARD WASTE&COMPOST) 3.50 STORMWATER RESIDENTIAL 5.50 WATER EXCISE TAX 1.50 UTILITY DONATION 1.00 TOTAL CURRENT CHARGES 83.28 YOUR PAYMENT WILL COME OUT OF YOUR ACCOUNT ON THE DUE DATE. BATTERIES CAN CAUSE LANDFILL FIRES. DON'T PUT THEM IN THE TRASH. PROPERLY DISPOSE OF ALL BATTERIES, INCLUDING ALKALINE, LITHIUM, AND RECHARGEABLE,AT BATTERY DROP-OFF SITES. VIEW IOWA CITY LOCATIONS AT ICGOV.ORG/HHM. BILLING DATE ZONE ACCOUNT 6-CID 3 PAST DUE AMOUNT CURRENT BALANCE CURRENT BALANCE TOTAL BALANCE DUE AMOUNT PAID DUE DATE DUE 01/03/2024 1 A � $0.00 01/18/2024 $83.28 1 *SUREPAY HECK HERE FOR: Total Amount due of$83.28 CFOR: C Address oorand will be deducted from your account on 0111812024. mmplefe reverse side, IOWA CITY, IA 52245-4104 00006042024800845543800000083287 Item Number: IP4. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 1, 2024 Pending City Council Work Session Topics Attachments: Pending City Council Work Session Topics • ,ye000 CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS January 31, 2024 February 20, 2024 • City Conference Board meeting • Update presentation from Greater Iowa City,Inc. March 19,2024 • City Conference Board meeting FY23-24 Strategle Plan Action Item Tonics Reouirine Couneff Discussion: • Explore legal steps to discourage or prevent bad faith and predatory property investors • Advance prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan.Work with partners to undertake significant-scale affordable housing efforts • Develop a vision statement for a singular regional transit system with metro Johnson County entities and obtain initial commitments to study a regional system from each entity's elected officials • Evaluate with the State of Iowa reverting Dodge and Governor to 2-way streets Other Topics: • Quarterly American Rescue Plan Act(ABPA-SLRF)update • Consider a strategic plan decision-making framework • Develop strategies to address equity gaps noted in the Parks Master Plan and plan for the equitable distribution of destination parks within an easy and safe distance of all residents. • Discussion on the impact of land use decisions on long-term City financial health • Discussion on City Charter • Update on alternative crisis response services • Discussion of board and commission appointment process • UNESCO City of Literature update Nate:Some items on the Pending List may require stafresearch and information gathering prior to scheduling. Item Number: IP5. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 1, 2024 Memo from Budget Management Analyst: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending December 31 , 2023 Attachments: Memo from Budget Management Analyst: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending December 31, 2023 r �_. .p CITY OF IOWA CITY , ,�` MEMORANDUM Date: February 1,2024 To: City Manager, City Council From: Angie Ogden, Budget Management Analyst Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending December 31, 2023 Introduction Attached to this memorandum are the City's quarterly financial reports as of December 31, 2023. The quarterly financial reports include combined summaries of all fund balances, revenues, and expenditures for fiscal year 2024 through the end of the second quarter, which is 50% 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 50% of budget since we have completed one-half of the fiscal year; however, due to accruals back to the previous year and quarter, many of these percentages are below 50%. Funds with budget anomalies on page 4 worth noting: • CDBG fund has actual revenues at 18.0%and HOME 3.3%due to timing of grant receipts. • Other Shared Revenue at 1182.1% due to higher interest allocations. • Transit fund has actual revenues at 20.4% due to the timing of receipt for the federal operating grant. • Risk Management fund has actual revenues at 104.2% due to the entries made for loss reserve payments to intra-city charges. • Governmental Projects fund has revenues of 4.9% and Enterprise Projects fund has revenues of 1.5% due to timing of funding for CIP projects through grants and bond sales. On page 5, an example of revenue that is below the 50% mark due to accruals include Utility Franchise Taxes at 26.4% under Other City Taxes. This revenue source is received quarterly and had the first receipt during the fiscal year accrued back to last fiscal year. The report appears as if this revenue is behind budget projections; however, this revenue source is in line with last year. Other revenues on page 5 that are either above or belowthe 50% mark due to the timing of grants, 28E agreements or contributions receipts include Federal Intergovernmental Revenue at 25.1%, State 28E Agreements at 81.4%, Operating Grants at 122.9%, Other State Grants at 17.3% and Local 28E Agreements at 62.3%. Additionally, other revenues above or below 50% of budget include: • Interest Revenues at 290.0% due to higher interest allocations than expected. • Building & Development at 94.3% due to Developer Fee for Rohret Road improvements. • Code Enforcement revenues at 22.1% due to a decline in patrol and animal services enforcement. • Transit Fees at 7.0% due to fare free riding. 1 The combined total actual revenues for all budgetary funds through December are $101,738,861 or 40.6% of budget. Overall, the City's revenues are not substantially different than projected, and the anomalies and budget variances can be explained. Expenditure Analysis This expenditure analysis pertains to the expenditure reports, Expenditures by Fund and Expenditures by Fund by Department on pages 7-9. The analysis of the City's expenditures for fiscal year 2023 through December is similar to the analysis for the City's revenues. We generally expect the actual expenditure levels to be around 50% of budget at this time of year. Some of the funds have expenditure activity through the second quarter that differs significantly from the 50% mark. The following funds have a significant expenditure variance above or below 50%: • Other Shared Revenue fund is at 2.1% due to the timing of projects. • Tax Increment Financing funds are at 2.2% due to the timing of rebate payments. • Debt Service Fund expenditures are at 8.2%, because the general obligation bond principal payments are not due until June 1. • Water fund is at 63.9% due to bond principal and interest payments paid in July. • Housing Authority fund is at 61.6% due to an increase in landlord rents. • Governmental Projects expenditures are at 14.7% and Enterprise Projects expenditures are at 12.0% because many of the capital projects are scheduled for construction this spring. • Equipment fund is at 32.7% due to the timing of equipment purchases and replacements. Overall, the combined total actual expenditures for all budgetary funds through December are $103,506,322 or 31.2% of budget. Overall, the City's expenditures through the second 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 December 31. There are a few funds presented (on page 3) with a negative fund balance, CDBG fund at -$35,360 and HOME at -$24,148. These negative fund balances should reverse following the receipt of grant proceeds. The other 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 December 31, 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 $ 32,528,634 $ 7,280,950 $ 37,287,966 $ 3,326,778 $ 58,833,464 $ 25,727,855 $ 33,105,609 Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant 395 242,492 - 278,247 - (35,360) - (35,360) 2110 HOME 44 119,500 - 143,692 - (24,148) - (24,148) 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 6,170,699 4,664,377 406,690 3,711,484 1,564,787 5,965,494 - 5,965,494 2300 Other Shared Revenue 14,321,198 362,356 - 300,038 1,635,455 12,748,060 - 12,748,060 2350 Metro Planning Org of J.C. 537,565 328,893 217,052 395,309 - 688,200 - 688,200 2400 Employee Benefits 4,287,578 7,905,217 1,274 1,088,565 6,929,001 4,176,502 - 4,176,502 2450 Emergency Levy Fund 1,157,208 458,298 - 245,955 175,000 1,194,552 - 1,194,552 2500 Affordable Housing Fund 7,399,710 173,907 500,000 1,038,336 - 7,035,281 - 7,035,281 2510 Peninsula Apartments 345,486 123,076 - 74,120 - 394,442 - 394,442 26" Tax Increment Financing 186,089 2,234,881 - 47,853 - 2,373,116 - 2,373,116 2820 SSMID-Downtown District - 334,520 - 260,700 - 73,821 - 73,821 Debt Service Fund 5" Debt Service 7,252,520 6,021,337 - 1,082,010 - 12,191,847 - 12,191,847 Enterprise Funds 710*Parking 2,074,298 2,807,614 546,022 2,016,745 1,014,297 2,396,890 713,702 1,683,188 715'Mass Transit 12,462,468 1,341,341 2,251,029 4,227,197 37,500 11,790,140 11,226,411 563,729 720*Wastewater 21,174,871 6,288,835 1,806,668 4,110,621 2,318,398 22,841,355 4,323,762 18,517,593 730*Water 15,824,989 6,070,712 2,157,963 6,529,814 1,570,292 15,953,559 7,654,971 8,298,587 7400 Refuse Collection 1,938,934 2,253,555 50,385 2,221,536 - 2,021,338 - 2,021,338 750*Landfill 24,087,723 4,318,564 837,250 2,983,822 512,317 25,747,399 22,088,218 3,659,180 7600 Airport 295,565 233,236 52,316 241,293 - 339,824 196,385 143,439 7700 Storm Water 1,284,753 857,691 555,235 303,767 670,000 1,723,912 862,961 860,951 79" Housing Authority 6,173,092 6,805,167 30,102 7,204,185 23,246 5,780,930 - 5,780,930 Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 32,475,993 1,092,103 2,066,795 9,939,584 - 25,695,308 - 25,695,308 Enterprise Projects 18,289,364 442,311 963,852 7,026,731 - 12,668,795 - 12,668,795 Total Budgetary Funds $237,379,166 $ 88,008,617 $19,723,582 $ 92,759,572 $19,777,072 $232,574,721 $ 72,794,265 $159,780,456 Non-Budgetary Funds Internal Service Funds 810*Equipment $ 21,052,457 $ 4,351,843 $ 25,471 $ 2,908,403 $ - $ 22,521,367 $ 19,124,624 $ 3,396,744 8200 Risk Management 4,257,230 1,158,367 4,168 608,480 - 4,811,286 - 4,811,286 830'Information Technology 4,258,905 1,075,673 72,692 1,461,679 50,000 3,895,592 1,924,899 1,970,692 8400 Central Services 877,316 109,179 1,158 78,732 - 908,921 - 908,921 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 16,400,412 6,802,146 - 5,494,834 - 17,707,724 8,730,093 8,977,631 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 529,317 233,036 - 194,622 - 567,731 - 567,731 Total Non-Budgetary Funds $ 47,375,637 $ 13,730,244 $ 103,489 $ 10,746,749 $ 50,000 $ 50,412,621 $ 29,779,616 $ 20,633,005 Total All Funds $284,754,803 $ 101,738,861 $19,827,072 $ 103,506,322 $19,827,072 $282,987,342 $102,573,881 $180,413,461 3 City of Iowa City Revenues by Fund Fiscal Year 2024 through December 31, 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 $ 32,528,634 $ (28,292,122) 53.5% Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant 1,175,809 909,524 1,347,095 242,492 (1,104,603) 18.0% 2110 HOME 1,074,710 1,480,386 3,613,443 119,500 (3,493,943) 3.3% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 10,511,555 10,078,709 10,078,709 4,664,377 (5,414,332) 46.3% 2300 Other Shared Revenue 608,543 30,654 30,654 362,356 331,702 1182.1 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Cc 371,171 415,352 545,352 328,893 (216,459) 60.3 2400 Employee Benefits 14,856,963 14,814,799 14,814,799 7,905,217 (6,909,582) 53.4% 2450 Emergency Levy Fund 868,282 868,626 868,626 458,298 (410,328) 52.8 2500 Affordable Housing Fund 2,204,266 - - 173,907 173,907 0.0% 2510 Iowa City Property Management 264,453 266,988 266,988 123,076 (143,912) 46.1 26" Tax Increment Financing 4,154,649 4,083,031 4,083,031 2,234,881 (1,848,150) 54.7% 2820 SSMID-Downtown District 552,028 634,124 634,124 334,520 (299,604) 52.8% Debt Service Fund 5- Debt Service 11,511,672 11,173,415 11,173,415 6,021,337 (5,152,078) 53.9% Enterprise Funds 710*Parking 5,444,648 5,611,532 5,629,848 2,807,614 (2,822,234) 49.9% 715'Mass Transit 7,291,060 6,562,268 6,562,268 1,341,341 (5,220,927) 20.4% 720'Wastewater 12,897,699 12,548,301 12,548,301 6,288,835 (6,259,466) 50.1 730*Water 11,730,665 11,668,360 11,668,360 6,070,712 (5,597,648) 52.0% 7400 Refuse Collection 4,635,713 4,968,435 4,968,435 2,253,555 (2,714,880) 45.4% 750*Landfill 8,069,944 7,292,093 7,292,093 4,318,564 (2,973,529) 59.2% 7600 Airport 410,662 406,797 406,797 233,236 (173,561) 57.3% 7700 Storm Water 1,765,023 1,903,038 1,903,038 857,691 (1,045,348) 45.1 79" Housing Authority 11,923,721 12,274,066 12,274,066 6,805,167 (5,468,899) 55.4% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 16,926,266 15,940,000 22,516,194 1,092,103 (21,424,091) 4.9% Enterprise Projects 1,227,866 28,420,000 29,636,471 442,311 (29,194,160) 1.5% Total Budgetary Revenues $191,653,572 $212,724,254 $ 223,682,863 $ 88,008,617 $(135,674,246) 39.3 Non-Budgetary Fund Revenues Internal Service Funds 810*Equipment $ 8,228,072 $ 8,742,979 $ 8,742,979 $ 4,351,843 $ (4,391,136) 49.8% 8200 Risk Management 1,395,250 1,111,193 1,111,193 1,158,367.37 47,174 104.2% 830'Information Technology 3,076,963 2,947,642 2,947,642 1,075,672.82 (1,871,969) 36.5% 8400 Central Services 262,194 232,764 232,764 109,179.10 (123,585) 46.9 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 12,624,342 13,386,552 13,386,552 6,802,145.95 (6,584,406) 50.8% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 446,962 430,941 430,941 233,036.06 (197,905) 54.1 Total Non-Budgetary Revenues $ 26,033,784 $ 26,852,071 $ 26,852,071 $ 13,730,244 $ (13,121,827) 51.1 Total Revenues-AllFunds $217,687,356 $239,576,325 $ 250,534,934 $ 101,738,861 $(148,796,073) 40.6% 4 City of Iowa City Revenues by Type Fiscal Year 2024 through December 31, 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 $ 34,888,721 $ (31,424,022) 52.6% Other City Taxes: TIF Revenues 4,086,247 4,083,031 4,083,031 2,204,402 (1,878,629) 54.0% Gas/Electric Excise Taxes 783,781 680,064 680,064 374,401 (305,663) 55.1 Mobile Home Taxes 52,975 56,797 56,797 32,024 (24,773) 56.4% Hotel/Motel Taxes 1,885,263 1,708,100 1,708,100 683,087 (1,025,013) 40.0% Utility Franchise Tax 1,116,963 1,151,500 1,151,500 304,377 (847,123) 26.4% Subtotal 7,925,229 7,679,492 7,679,492 3,598,292 (4,081,200) 46.9% Licenses, Permits,&Fees: General Use Permits 104,127 102,610 102,610 11,732 (90,878) 11.4% Food&Liquor Licenses 118,650 181,740 181,740 73,467 (108,273) 40.4 Professional License 2,155 2,755 2,755 1,340 (1,415) 48.6% Franchise Fees 508,934 540,200 540,200 131,744 (408,456) 24.4% Construction Permits&Insp Fees 2,060,778 1,676,600 1,676,600 1,176,114 (500,486) 70.1 Misc Lic&Permits 59,731 70,216 70,216 27,376 (42,841) 39.0 Subtotal 2,854,375 2,574,121 2,574,121 1,421,773 (1,152,348) 55.2% Intergovernmental: Fed Intergovernmental Revenue 22,351,695 18,880,564 27,774,035 6,962,521 (20,811,514) 25.1 Property Tax Credits 1,243,694 1,602,806 1,602,806 371,073 (1,231,733) 23.2 Road Use Tax 10,346,324 9,900,316 9,900,316 4,570,769 (5,329,547) 46.2 State 28E Agreements 2,200,799 2,632,892 2,957,892 2,408,480 (549,412) 81.4% Operating Grants 71,122 55,875 55,875 68,697 12,822 122.9% Disaster Assistance 15,297 - - 0 0 0.0% Other State Grants 1,184,587 1,442,554 2,587,376 446,999 (2,140,377) 17.3% Local 28E Agreements 1,259,516 1,410,659 1,410,659 878,371 (532,288) 62.3% Subtotal 38,673,034 35,925,666 46,288,959 15,706,910 (30,582,049) 33.9% Charges For Fees And Services: Building&Development 2,631,328 532,214 532,214 501,625 (30,589) 94.3 Police Services 101,476 80,000 80,000 71,535 (8,465) 89.4% Animal Care Services 12,826 19,403 19,403 5,491 (13,912) 28.3% Fire Services 9,060 9,300 9,300 26,225 16,925 282.0% Transit Fees 1,054,035 927,000 927,000 64,504 (862,496) 7.0% Culture&Recreation 637,499 594,123 594,123 308,141 (285,982) 51.9% Misc Charges For Services 116,981 59,976 59,976 21,959 (38,017) 36.6 Water Charges 10,477,522 10,555,850 10,555,850 5,231,549 (5,324,301) 49.6% Wastewater Charges 12,332,334 12,359,703 12,359,703 5,801,616 (6,558,087) 46.9% Refuse Charges 5,211,519 5,606,210 5,606,210 2,487,012 (3,119,198) 44.4% Landfill Charges 6,594,015 6,148,000 6,148,000 3,510,407 (2,637,593) 57.1 Storm Water Charges 1,729,888 1,880,000 1,880,000 830,571 (1,049,429) 44.2% Parking Charges 5,595,020 5,825,255 5,825,255 2,983,872 (2,841,383) 51.2% Subtotal 46,503,504 44,597,034 44,597,034 21,844,506 (22,752,528) 49.0% Miscellaneous: Code Enforcement 159,632 280,731 280,731 62,030 (218,701) 22.1 Parking Fines 524,471 676,634 676,634 254,744 (421,890) 37.6% Library Fines&Fees 1,576 1,000 1,000 499 (501) 49.9 Contributions&Donations 586,167 532,735 551,051 243,007 (308,044) 44.1 Printed Materials 18,676 20,340 20,340 9,799 (10,541) 48.2% Animal Adoption 60,491 57,840 57,840 37,665 (20,175) 65.1 Misc Merchandise 23,871 22,302 22,302 8,357 (13,945) 37.5% Intra-City Charges 6,086,864 6,383,611 6,383,611 3,135,410 (3,248,201) 49.1 Other Misc Revenue 1,616,048 936,093 1,066,093 539,303 (526,790) 50.6 Special Assessments 2,003 1,381 1,381 338 (1,043) 24.5% Subtotal $ 9,079,800 $ 8,912,667 $ 9,060,983 $ 4,291,152 $ (4,769,831) 47.4% 5 City of Iowa City Revenues by Type Fiscal Year 2024 through December 31, 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 $ 4,823,515 $ 3,160,188 290.0% Rents 1,548,884 1,509,022 1,509,022 718,555 (790,467) 47.6% Royalties&Commissions 99,854 126,915 126,915 58,443 (68,472) 46.0 Subtotal 7,597,534 3,299,264 3,299,264 5,600,513 2,301,249 169.8% Other Financial Sources: Debt Sales 9,941,862 42,535,000 42,535,000 - (42,535,000) 0.0% Sale Of Assets 1,931,799 445,400 892,400 420,931 (471,469) 47.2% Loans 461,420 442,867 442,867 235,819 (207,048) 53.2% Subtotal 12,335,081 43,423,267 43,870,267 656,750 (43,213,517) 1.5% Total Budgetary Revenues $191,653,572 $ 212,724,254 $223,682,863 $ 88,008,617 (135,674,246) 39.3% Non-Budgetary Fund Revenues Internal Service Funds $ 26,033,784 $ 26,852,071 $ 26,852,071 $ 13,730,244 $ (13,121,827) 51.1 Total Non-Budgetary Revenues $ 26,033,784 $ 26,852,071 $ 26,852,071 $ 13,730,244 $ (13,121,827) 51.1 Total Revenues-AllFunds $217,687,356 $ 239,576,325 $250,534,934 $101,738,861 $(148,796,073) 40.6% 6 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund Fiscal Year 2024 through December 31, 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 $ 37,287,966 $ 37,914,222 49.6% Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant 1,075,683 778,376 1,215,947 278,247 937,700 22.9 2110 HOME 1,187,632 1,348,625 3,481,682 143,692 3,337,990 4.1 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 6,976,684 7,792,239 7,982,005 3,711,484 4,270,521 46.5% 2300 Other Shared Revenue 2,653,065 30,654 14,375,967 300,038 14,075,929 2.1 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co. 769,755 830,005 1,085,005 395,309 689,696 36.4 2400 Employee Benefits 1,209,467 1,338,854 1,338,854 1,088,565 250,289 81.3 2450 Emergency Levy Fund 566,870 468,850 468,850 245,955 222,895 52.5 2500 Affordable Housing Fund 1,086,455 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,038,336 (38,336) 103.8% 2510 Iowa City Property Management 151,997 247,229 247,229 74,120 173,109 30.0% 26" Tax Increment Financing 3,013,704 2,192,030 2,192,030 47,853 2,144,177 2.2% 2820 SSMID-Downtown District 552,028 634,124 634,124 260,700 373,424 41.1 Debt Service Fund 5" Debt Service 13,165,630 13,210,690 13,210,690 1,082,010 12,128,680 8.2% Enterprise Funds 710*Parking 4,050,511 4,359,209 4,385,709 2,016,745 2,368,964 46.0% 715'Mass Transit 8,876,777 10,333,648 10,340,148 4,227,197 6,112,951 40.9% 720*Wastewater 10,849,521 8,183,257 8,224,237 4,110,621 4,113,616 50.0% 730*Water 9,454,497 10,085,483 10,221,728 6,529,814 3,691,914 63.9% 7400 Refuse Collection 4,077,516 4,627,383 4,902,383 2,221,536 2,680,847 45.3% 750*Landfill 5,631,227 6,108,611 6,108,611 2,983,822 3,124,789 48.8% 7600 Airport 450,629 406,307 406,307 241,293 165,014 59.4% 7700 Storm Water 613,262 738,481 738,481 303,767 434,714 41.1 79" Housing Authority 11,921,444 11,686,205 11,686,205 7,204,185 4,482,020 61.6% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 22,949,801 31,178,470 67,411,738 9,939,584 57,472,154 14.7% Enterprise Projects 11,186,857 34,458,750 58,526,829 7,026,731 51,500,098 12.0% Total Budgetary Expenditures $185,665,018 $ 220,108,611 $305,386,947 $ 92,759,572 $212,627,375 30.4% Non-Budgetary Funds Expenditures Internal Service Funds 810*Equipment $ 6,325,457 $ 6,554,320 $ 8,888,125 $ 2,908,403 $ 5,979,722 32.7% 8200 Risk Management 1,196,091 1,771,250 1,771,250 608,480 1,162,770 34.4% 830'Information Technology 2,785,766 3,275,051 3,275,051 1,461,679 1,813,372 44.6% 8400 Central Services 199,503 212,479 212,479 78,732 133,747 37.1 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 10,659,783 12,271,023 12,271,023 5,494,834 6,776,189 44.8% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 386,892 382,521 382,521 194,622 187,899 50.9 Total Non-Budgetary Expenditures $ 21,553,492 $ 24,466,644 $ 26,800,449 $ 10,746,749 $ 16,053,700 40.1 Total Expenditures-AllFunds $207,218,510 $ 244,575,255 $332,187,396 $ 103,506,322 $228,681,074 31.2% 7 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund by Department Fiscal Year 2024 through December 31, 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 $ 90,072 $ 88,539 50.4% City Clerk 558,189 624,775 $ 624,775 303,237 321,538 48.5% City Attorney 896,859 914,555 $ 914,555 461,777 452,778 50.5% City Manager 4,623,699 5,148,457 $ 10,921,528 7,037,286 3,884,242 64.4% Finance 4,168,894 5,090,596 $ 5,354,624 2,858,665 2,495,959 53.4% Police 15,682,533 17,346,723 $ 17,852,621 7,872,765 9,979,856 44.1 Fire 9,506,985 10,313,473 $ 10,326,070 4,857,536 5,468,534 47.0% Parks&Recreation 10,338,539 10,567,119 $ 10,642,829 4,847,769 5,795,060 45.5% Library 7,226,829 7,877,340 $ 7,877,340 3,689,509 4,187,831 46.8% Senior Center 1,053,569 1,154,420 $ 1,166,420 471,151 695,269 40.4% Neighborhood&Development Services 5,162,196 4,830,294 $ 5,296,181 2,875,641 2,420,540 54.3% Public Works 3,092,286 3,339,887 $ 3,349,887 1,589,985 1,759,902 47.5% Transportation&Resource Management 708,629 684,881 $ 696,747 332,574 364,173 47.7% Total General Fund 63,194,004 68,071,131 75,202,188 37,287,966 37,914,222 49.6% Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant Neighborhood&Development Services 1,075,683 778,376 1,215,947 278,247 937,700 22.9% 2110 HOME Neighborhood&Development Services 1,187,632 1,348,625 3,481,682 143,692 3,337,990 4.1 2200 Road Use Tax Fund Public Works 6,976,684 7,792,239 7,982,005 3,711,484 4,270,521 46.5% 2300 Other Shared Revenue Neighborhood&Development Services 2,653,065 30,654 14,375,967 300,038 14,075,929 2.1 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Cc Neighborhood&Development Services 769,755 830,005 1,085,005 395,309 689,696 36.4% 2400 Employee Benefits Finance 1,209,467 1,338,854 1,338,854 1,088,565 250,289 81.3% 2450 Emergency Levy Fund City Manager 566,870 468,850 468,850 245,955 222,895 52.5% 2500 Affordable Housing Fund Neighborhood&Development Services 1,086,455 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,038,336 (38,336) 103.8% 2510 Iowa City Property Management Neighborhood&Development Services 151,997 247,229 247,229 74,120 173,109 30.0% 26" Tax Increment Financing Finance 3,013,704 2,192,030 2,192,030 47,853 2,144,177 2.2% 2820 SSMID-Downtown District Finance 552,028 634,124 634,124 260,700 373,424 41.1 Total Special Revenue Funds 19,243,340 16,660,986 34,021,693 7,584,301 26,437,392 22.3% Debt Service Fund 5... Debt Service Finance 13,165,630 13,210,690 13,210,690 1,082,010 12,128,680 8.2% Total Debt Service Fund 13,165,630 13,210,690 13,210,690 1,082,010 12,128,680 8.2% 8 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund by Department Fiscal Year 2024 through December 31, 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 $ 2,016,745 $ 2,368,964 46.0% 715'Mass Transit Transportation&Resource Management 8,876,777 10,333,648 10,340,148 4,227,197 6,112,951 40.9% 720'Wastewater Public Works 10,849,521 8,183,257 8,224,237 4,110,621 4,113,616 50.0% 730'Water Public Works 9,454,497 10,085,483 10,221,728 6,529,814 3,691,914 63.9% 7400 Refuse Collection Transportation&Resource Management 4,077,516 4,627,383 4,902,383 2,221,536 2,680,847 45.3% 750'Landfill Transportation&Resource Management 5,631,227 6,108,611 6,108,611 2,983,822 3,124,789 48.8% 7600 Airport Airport Operations 450,629 406,307 406,307 241,293 165,014 59.4% 7700 Storm Water Public Works 613,262 738,481 738,481 303,767 434,714 41.1 79" Housing Authority Neighborhood&Development Services 11,921,444 11,686,205 11,686,205 7,204,185 4,482,020 61.6% Total Enterprise Funds 55,925,386 56,528,584 57,013,809 29,838,981 27,174,828 52.3% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 22,949,801 31,178,470 67,411,738 9,939,584 57,472,154 14.7% Enterprise Projects 11,186,857 34,458,750 58,526,829 7,026,731 51,500,098 12.0% Total Capital Project Funds 34,136,658 65,637,220 125,938,567 16,966,315 108,972,252 13.5% Total Budgetary Expenditures $185,665,018 $220,108,611 $305,386,947 $ 92,759,572 $212,627,375 30.4% Non-Budgetary Funds Expenditures Internal Service Funds 810'Equipment Public Works $ 6,325,457 $ 6,554,320 $ 8,888,125 $ 2,908,403 $ 5,979,722 32.7% 8200 Risk Management Finance 1,196,091 1,771,250 1,771,250 608,480 1,162,770 34.4% 830'Information Technology Finance 2,785,766 3,275,051 3,275,051 1,461,679 1,813,372 44.6% 8400 Central Services Finance 199,503 212,479 212,479 78,732 133,747 37.1 8500 Health Insurance Reserves Finance 10,659,783 12,271,023 12,271,023 5,494,834 6,776,189 44.8% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves Finance 386,892 382,521 382,521 194,622 187,899 50.9% Total Internal Service Funds 21,553,492 24,466,644 26,800,449 10,746,749 16,053,700 40.1 Total Non-Budgetary Expenditures $ 21,553,492 $ 24,466,644 $ 26,800,449 $ 10,746,749 $ 16,053,700 40.1 Total Expenditures-All Funds $207,218,510 $244,575,255 $332,187,396 $103,506,322 $228,681,074 31.2% 9 Item Number: IP6. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 1, 2024 Civil Service Examination: Recreation Program Supervisor - Special Events & Communications Attachments: Civil Service Examination: Recreation Program Supervisor - Special Events & Communications ► r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org January 25, 2024 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Recreation Program Supervisor — Special Events & Communications Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Recreation Program Supervisor— Special Events & Communications. William Lane Iowa City Civil Service Commission �� 'Rick Wyss, Chair Item Number: IP7. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 1, 2024 Historic Preservation Commission: January 11 Attachments: Historic Preservation Commission: January 11 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 1 1 , 2024 — 5:30 PM — FORMAL MEETING EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Andrew Lewis, Jordan Sellergren , Deanna Thomann, Nicole Villanueva, Frank Wagner, Christina Welu-Reynolds MEMBERS ABSENT: Noah Stork, Carl Brown STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: 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: HPC23-0084: 430 Brown Street— Brown Street Historic District (mini-split installation): Bristow began the staff report noting this property is in the Brown Street Historic District located on the corner of Van Buren and Brown Street. It's a colonial revival type house with a full front porch, she noted it probably always had a side entry stair off the porch. In fact, for this project she found something about when the change was made for the entry, it used to be a door to the porch on the front of the house and they changed it to the side of the house, probably when it became a bed and breakfast. This project is to remove the six wall air conditioning units that exist on the house and put individual mini split condensing units on grade around the house to replace those. There's also an existing air conditioning condensing unit for the main part of the house that will remain. Bristow showed where they will be placing the three units on the one side, and then screening them. They looked at matching the porch skirting or something like that for the screening instead of making it look like a fence. There is also the existing large square condensing unit to be screened. She also noted where the piping and splits will be and that she encouraged them to screen all of them. Bristow stated regarding guidelines, the City doesn't specifically have some for mini-split installation and therefore look at the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, which is about not harming the historic character of the house. Staff also look at how they review radon systems because they have similar piping and for radon the goal is to have at least the piping on the non-street facing elevation and located on the rear of the property if possible, and then painting any piping to match the structure. She also noted there was recently a house on Burlington Street, the gray gabled bungalow at the top of the hill, that was going to install a mini split as well and the location was right next to a projecting bay on the side and so while that was on the side, it was still pretty visible and also located next to the large air conditioning condensing unit and therefore it was required to have them screen both of them. Therefore, because of the locations and the screening, staff does recommend approval of this project. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2024 Page 2 of 11 Welu-Reynolds asked if the piping is going to be painted the same color as the siding. Bristow confirmed the recommendation would be to paint it the same color as the siding. Sellergren asked to see what the piping looks like. Bristow stated it is enclosed in a 2" by 3" channel and painted to match the wall. The units are located on the on the wall, a little higher on the wall inside the room, and so the piping will go down the wall. The ones she has seen look a little bit like an electric baseboard heater only mounted on the wall. The piping will come out and go straight down to a condensing unit. Villanueva asked what types of repairs will be made to fill the space where the former units were. Bristow noted it will leave a hole in the wall so they will have to repair the interior wall and on the outside they'll add sheathing and the sheathing depth thickness will have to match what's there. Also instead of just putting in a square of siding, they will be required to stagger the joints which could potentially involve removing a little bit more siding to do so. Motion: Wagner moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 430 Brown Street. Welu-Reynolds seconds. Bristow noted this case is less problematic than the one they discussed at the last meeting where the piping was on the front and went through details and arches. This one is on the side and had the house not been on the corner, this could have potentially not come to the Commission and could have been reviewed as an intermediate review between staff and chair. A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 7-0. DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION ANNUAL WORK PLAN: Bristow stated it is required by the State Historic Preservation Office that the Commission submits an annual report every year and creates a work plan of things to accomplish. Last year's work plan, which was included in the agenda packet was centered on the areas of the strategic plan that had been approved by Council. Since then Council approved a new strategic plan with a graphic that is more of a strategy map and talks about the values that they're interested in and how their strategy will impact the community. Bristow shared some of the goals Council had and some of the resources Council will need to execute their strategy. The Commission Work Plan is how the Commission will set their priorities and some might be short term goals and others long term goals. The last versions were written very specifically by the previous chair and had a section on climate action, advocating that embodied energy is an important thing to consider when talking about the demolition of buildings and not wasting the energy that already exists, and creating a whole bunch of new energy to make new materials. Sellergren asked if that has been included in the City's Climate Action Plan. Bristow is unsure so maybe working closely with Climate Action Committee somehow, or maybe having a member attend their meetings might be something that the Commission wants to consider as part of the work plan. The previous plan had short-term goals to contribute to the discussion on demolition. Several of the waste management folks have these similar goals so staff is trying to figure out how they actually move forward so it is an ongoing discussion. Bristow stated there are some communities where if a property is older than 1920, it must be deconstructed, but then that also means that they have a whole system set up where they have contractors who deconstruct things, they have places where the material can be warehoused, they have a way to sell it and distribute it to the community. There are three HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2024 Page 3 of 11 communities specifically, Portland, a neighborhood in St. Louis, and a city in North Carolina, that all have pilot projects on that so if they wanted to look into more what they've done and made a make a proposal they could. They've also talked about how demolition permits have just a seven-day waiting period and a really small fee of$50, so from a staff point of view they haven't really found a way specifically to move forward in that area. Sellergren noted one thing that works well is social media awareness and spreading of information. Historic Preservation does not have an Instagram page, only Facebook. Bristow stated she did set it up and was running it but just doesn't have time. Sellergren noted they could just itemize some points just so people have really clear information and maybe include resources with each graphic or something so homeowners know what the numbers are when they're dealing with demolition and what the value is of keeping materials in place or removing them. Bristow acknowledged part of this discussion is deciding what the priorities are but then also they have to decide who actually does what, and where are they going to get the information, do they hire somebody to do it and how do they get the money for that. So they can come up with goals, but then they need to figure out how to work towards them which may involve either volunteering amongst the Commission or staff time. Sellergren stated she would be happy to make graphics but wouldn't want to be the person necessarily gathering the information because that's not her forte. She also doesn't think it would be a bad idea to start an Instagram account. Bristow stated they would have to work with communications, she started the Facebook page before communications really got involved in the City's Facebook pages but now they are added as an administrator and they won't let a Commissioner be the person who posts because it all has to go through communications. Beck noted there are really alarming statistics about what percentage of people get their news from social media so having an Instagram site would be a push to reach younger homeowners. Bristow stated another one of the long-term goals is developing a disaster preparedness guide for preservation. She mentioned this because one of the questions that came up to staff is can they relax all the rules and the answer is no, that's not actually what they would do they don't change the rules. It is just if a disaster happened, they make it easier to get it fixed faster by being prepared. Some of that involves the Commission being on the ground going up to people who just had something happen and helping usher them through the process and getting information out. She noted Iowa City won awards for their tornado response and that's part of what they did, they had more meetings more often, delegated some things to subcommittees, and that's the kind of stuff that they would do for disaster preparedness. The State Historic Preservation Office put out a before and after disasters guide as guidance for how to work with FEMA and the National Park Service and federal agencies, because they also have reviews that they have to go through and this guide is to help get through those things more quickly. Also, for the tornado the City applied for grants to help homeowners and so part of the disaster preparedness would be who to ask for grants from and when and how, they would set up all of those steps. That might just be something where a subcommittee is formed and comes together and brainstorms what is needed and then work it into some kind of a document or brochure for the Commission and staff to have. Bristow noted there was also a section in the strategic plan about social justice and staff had ongoing work to identify opportunities to highlight Iowa City's history as a leader in these issues. They haven't really moved forward with any of these things as of right now, there haven't been any opportunities necessarily on how to proceed with that unless they just start researching the history. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2024 Page 4 of 11 Sellergren stated one possibility in identifying landmarks that they could pursue is the Shorts building. Possibly, if they could potentially get in touch with the owner as it's an important building with regard to black history in Iowa City from the early 1900s or maybe even late 1800s, as Short's Shoeshine, a business owned by HP Short. Perhaps they could look into landmarking that space. Bristow stated regarding the short-term goals, there is Oak Park which once was a Mexican barrio where they lived in boxcars and then small homes. There could be a situation where they put an informative plaque similar to the Pest House at Hickory Hill. She believes right now this is something that they've moved forward as much as they can, the Parks and Rec director knows that the Commission wants to be involved in this park and ideas that have been thrown around is making sure that it's named to reflect its history instead of Oak Grove Park, which is a really just a random general name. And then also to put some kind of signage or identifying information there. Beck asked what opportunity there is to explore if there's any trace of the structures that were there or any material evidence of the people who live there. Bristow noted they rarely get into anything that's archaeological because they are usually so National Register listed properties oriented and usually the properties that they review don't end up having an archaeological component that has been investigated at all. Beck assumes there might be regulations requiring some sort of archaeological survey before doing anything more with the site. When she was in UI field school they did the Pest House excavation and mapping, so it may be interesting to people if that could also be done here to flesh out the record and the information. Bristow stated the next goal was partnership and engagement and one of the biggest things they do is the annual preservation awards. That's an ongoing thing that hopefully they can continue to revamp and keep going. Next, following the National Register designation of the Downtown District, there was an interest in a local district and the general consensus was that there would need to be guidelines for a commercial district created before they made the district. Bristow doesn't feel that that's absolutely necessary because they have a way of working through things that don't have guidelines specific to them by using the Secretary of Interior Standards. The problem with that is property owners say it's not clear how to interpret those, so there is work to be done along those lines. This came about because there was a thought that there needed to be incentives for property owners to become involved in a local district so the Iowa City Downtown District and the former Chair got together and provided some ideas for incentives to Council but Council didn't act on it or respond so Bristow is unsure what the next step for a downtown district would be. Sellergren asked if as the new Chair would the next step be her to pick up the conversation with Council or Iowa City Downtown District. Bristow agreed there is a new Council now so perhaps it's worth looking into if the Commission decides the Downtown District is a priority, then maybe figure out next steps. Bristow believes one of the biggest priorities that the Commission should have is making sure that everybody understands that there are only a very small handful of properties downtown that are protected from demolition at any point with a seven day waiting period- seven days from now in effect. For example, the Jefferson Hotel has been owned by the University a long time but it's not protected so the owner could put in a demolition permit and then take it down seven days from now. That's the case also for the Englert Theater. The Englert Theater is listed on the National Register but the owner has never been interested in locally Iandmarking their property. Sellergren asked if the proposal was to offer opt-in incentives and the property owners aren't interested. Bristow explained Council wasn't interested in creating the incentives so they don't know if the owners would be interested in opting-in. The Downtown District who does work with the owners regularly felt HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2024 Page 5 of 11 that they were incentives that the owners would potentially be interested in. Bristow stated another question is do they want to locally designate the same boundary as the National Register boundary, most of Iowa City districts are the same, the Northside District is on the National Register as the Gilbert/Linn Street Historic District, but it has a different boundary than the local Northside District. Bristow believes that was done for political reasons so all of those are things that would have to be discussed for a Downtown District. Sellergren asked if there's low hanging fruit like looking where they have existing guidelines and to take what is available and just rewrite them as Iowa City guidelines. Would that help property owners feel like they have specifics guidelines to follow. Bristow stated in the Iowa City guidelines they list the Secretary of Interior Standards, the National Park Service does have a longer document that goes in more detail, it still leaves a whole lot open to interpretation because they have to provide information for so many different scenarios. Other communities, for instance the City of Milwaukee, has a hugely active preservation program and they are very strict with a separate book that's fully illustrated for residential and commercial. The best-case scenario is Iowa City would hire an outside consultant that would work with the Commission and staff to create guidelines, but they would always be based on other community's guidelines, as well as the existing Iowa City guidelines, as there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. Therefore, the first step would probably be looking at other community's guidelines and getting an idea of what might best fit with Iowa City to some degree. At some point they would have to hire a consultant, staff could do it, but they don't have time. Additionally, since Iowa City is a certified local government any new guidelines would also have to go through review from the State Historic Preservation Office and they would comment on things that they thought Iowa City shouldn't do or should do, so it'd be a lengthy process. Sellergren asked if it is in the budget to hire consultant or is that something that the Commission would have to request money from Council. Bristow replied they would have to make that request from Council. Bristow stated another short-term goal was to follow up with a unanimous request from this Commission and the Parks and Recs Commission to move forward on the Montgomery Butler House and coming up with an idea of how it could be reused. She noted this was another thing where Council just decided not to respond but there's been a little bit of communication amongst staff that maybe the fact that no one could come up with a use is the hold-up. Also, the fact that the study is so old and the budgetary numbers are outdated. Maybe they should they have a subcommittee of the Commission come up with potential uses, maybe meet with community members. Bristow acknowledged the building is going to fall down sooner than later and be gone due to its current condition. Bristow stated there are a lot of potential priorities and the Commission has to decide which ones are most important. For housing and neighborhoods, they have the historic preservation fund and got an extra $2,000 from Council this year which is nice. Regarding being a partner for neighborhoods interested in historic preservation, a long-term goal was to work to get the form-based code for areas that are adjacent to or surrounded by historic districts. Bristow explained a form-based code means that new construction is based on the form of the building, not the use. Right now the building code is based on uses which is common for planning. The reason for discussion in the past about form-based code was to make sure that new buildings adjacent to historic districts fit in with the other buildings in the area instead of not. There are some spots of form-based code now within the community, but staff is unlikely to want to make other individual little areas or to adopt a city-wide form-based code, which would change how Planning and Zoning works. Again, that was a big goal based on things that came out of past projects. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2024 Page 6 of 11 Regarding short term goals, there was the Summit Street monument, the City did pay for a study that reported how to fix it, move it and make a replica and they've asked for money to do that from City Council so if the budget comes through then they can move forward. She noted the biggest problem currently is where does it get moved to. The Old Capitol Museum was approached and they don't want it. It does need to go somewhere inside to stabilize it but it's fairly tall, four or five feet tall, and has probably at least a couple feet in the ground. Perhaps there's a spot in the library as that's a public space where things are displayed and there's some open space to some degree. There is no update on the Sanxay-Gilmore House because the University own it and are not going to move it, there was an update to the College Green Historic District because of moving the house. They have discussed they do want to update the preservation handbook, guidelines and maps and all of that. There's been some thought of hiring a consultant for that too, but that again takes money from Council. The City did pay for the survey from 2040 Waterfront Drive and that property was eligible for the National Register. They could also look into local Iandmarking, she has not yet sent the study to the owner as they got the study back, talked about it briefly and then COVID happened. For long-term goals there is the goal of evaluating the City's mid-century housing stock. They have also increased digital online presence. The goals in the Preservation Plan: goal one is identifying historic resources and that ties in also to the telling of the full history as well. Second, continuing the policy of protection of resources, through legislation and regulatory measures, which could be updating the plan or the handbook or coming up with commercial guidelines, any of those kinds of things. Third, establishing economic incentives, they do have the historic preservation fund, but the opt-in incentives goal didn't go anywhere with Council. Fourth, providing technical assistance necessary, that falls on Bristow, she used to do drawings for people but doesn't anymore. Fifth, heightened public awareness into preservation, letting people know about the downtown. Maintaining partnerships with the local government, the state government, federal agencies, etc. Bristow stated this one is kind of difficult as she doesn't have any contact with the National Park Service, and doesn't have that much contact or getting involved with the State government through this job. But there are options for the Commision. For instance, there are three state nomination review committee meetings that happen through the State Historic Preservation Office every year. There are set dates on a Friday morning that are open to the public where anyone can attend, there's also a zoom component. The meetings take place in the preservation office in Des Moines on Belle Avenue. There is also the preservation summit they can attend. Locally they could attend Park Commission meetings and everybody can attend council meetings. Seventh is to establish and implement Historic Preservation objectives for the University and surrounding neighborhoods. Bristow acknowledged some of this is related to districts that involve fraternities and sororities along Dubuque Street. Eight, heritage tourism and teaming with Friends of Historic Preservation to do a home tour, if they want to do it. Also maybe having someone from the Commission who attends their board meetings just as an observational member or creating tour brochures or something, they used to have some walking tour brochures. Finally, making maybe a subcommittee that reviews whether or not there's certain areas, neighborhoods that they need to look at to landmark and regular review and evaluation of initiatives by the community, looking at how preservation is going in the community. Bristow stated these were the goals that the preservation plan assigned a really long time ago, in 2007, but are still the ones that guide the Commission. Sellergren stated on a practical level is the purpose of a subcommittee is to bypass the issue of a quorum. Bristow acknowledged a subcommittee does two things, one there's multiple people so it's not all just one person's job. Also with a subcommittee they don't have to deal with a quorum, meeting minutes, all of that formal stuff, that subcommittee can then report to the full Commission. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2024 Page 7 of 11 Lewis asked if the next step is to document the work plan. Bristow confirmed yes, the way the annual report works is it is due to the State Historic Preservation Office on February 29. Since this Commission meets the second Thursday of the month that means that they will have to approve it the report at the February meeting and part of what they submit is the Commission's work plan. Bristow will send out an email at some point asking if anyone has anything in these areas that they want her to add to the annual report. She will compile everyone's responses, present it to them next month, and they will vote on it. If they are unsure how to proceed that is when she would suggest they form a subcommittee to make the work plan and come up with ideas. Beck noted her immediate reaction to the work plan is there's lots of great stuff on it that needs more work. She doesn't immediately think they have to scrap these goals and find new ones, there is still more to do on the things that are listed, admittedly, some have external reasons why they can't move forward at the moment. Sellergren feels like the work plan is a little overwhelming personally, like for 2024 they could pull one item from each of the City Council's strategic goal map, for example for social justice, racial equity and human rights, maybe they work on getting a sign up or an archeological study of Oak Grove, so that when people visit the park they have some context. Beck can think of a couple of clear action items related to that. One would be the historical research, there's some already done, but one would it be just simply, for example, approaching the Office of the State Archaeologist to see what kinds of geophysics they could use to see if there any evidence of anything underneath, ask if there are ways to non-invasively look at the property to assess that. She acknowledged that will probably take some money but they could approach them and ask for a budget. Sellergren stated she likes the idea of expanding into neighborhoods like the Kirkwood/Lucas Farms neighborhood for one and then another is the mid-century neighborhood that's over on Morningside. Bristow stated there's two, there's Morningside near City High, and then there a little area over by Foster Road and Dubuque Street, it's just one little cul-de-sac of like five houses but it's all mid-century and that was already reviewed as eligible for the National Register as part of Dubuque Street when they raised it. Sellergren stated if she were to select a focus for 2024 it would be to identify the things that are most in danger, to consider the most precious and the most vulnerable. That would be like the buildings downtown and who could they identify who might be willing to landmark their own property. She knows there are a few properties where the owner has expressed interest in Iandmarking so that's one thing they could move forward with. She feels like some of these items are so all over the place and they could maybe be pushed aside so that they could save things that could be torn down at any second and will completely change the vibe of the City. Thomann agrees with looking to see what they can landmark locally, especially if there is interest out there. Also the downtown is going to continue to be developed and she is a little concerned that there is going to be this tone of tear down and develop so they should be looking now to see what can they save. Sellergren stated maybe and she could meet with the downtown district and see about identifying what those properties are. Bristow noted they made their first landmarks in 1996 where they took everything that was listed on the National Register individually and tried to landmark them but two of them didn't happen so they got 36 landmarks. She still has that list from 1996 and in 2015 this Commission formed a subcommittee and HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2024 Page 8 of 11 they went through and looked at all of the important properties that they knew about that aren't in a district and Pagliai's was on that but was overlooked because it wasn't seen as being threatened. So in 2015 the Commission subcommittee did come up with a list but then things happen with Council and it all got stalled. Bristow is interested in knowing are there things from the 2023 work plan that they should outright remove, then basically keep everything else as their list. They can separate out the ones that must wait due to more research and investigation needed or resources to support future work. She doesn't feel they need to necessarily relate it to the City Council goals. They heard from Councilor Thomas that he appreciated the fact that it was related to the goals but jumping through the hoops to make it relate to their goals is a little more political than they need to be. Sellergren feels they do not need to create work just to create works, just a list of properties and some marching orders would be great. Thomann agrees but feels they are getting from Council that they aren't making a presence and Council doesn't really know what this Commission does. They want this Commission to engage with the public and maybe that will come about if they get this property list together and look at property's worth saving. Sellergren also feels providing resources to the public by way of social media graphics would fall under that, getting the Commission to establish a presence in people's subconscious and City Council would see that. Bristow stated it appears goals are to do some initial investigation research in Oak Grove Park, maybe having a subcommittee looking at landmarking potential things and then third is engaging with the public and Council. Sellergren noted it could fall into the climate action goals, explaining to people why preservation is so important, of course the history of the town is really important, but also on a practical level this is an environmental issue. They all could be working a little bit harder to preserve, whether in a historic district or not. Lewis stated engaging with the public and Council really allowing them flexibility to shift focus, or at least get information to people, and if they decide later that they want to talk about resource management they can put that on there. If they want to talk about landmarking things, they can put it on there. It allows them to do a lot without having to say one of their goals is to make sure that people know that resources are out there, they can just on their own engage and tell people the resources that they have. Sellergren stated she is a little confused as there seems to be an etiquette with politics that she doesn't understand like when they have their eye on landmarking a property and maybe the owner isn't immediately willing to landmark it, that's not really something they could discuss openly or throw up on social media. The reason that Pagliai's building became a public issue is because it was up for sale and so there was outcry that preceded this Commission's involvement. Bristow noted Friends of Historic Preservation paid to have a historian write up the site inventory form needed for 302 to 316 East Bloomington (Slezak Holub Hall/Pagliai's building) so they are ready to move forward with the landmark procedure and plan to do that for the February meeting. It is completely within their purview to get the word out to talk to the community members and get people to show up to Planning and Zoning and City Council meetings. If the owner decides to protest, that means HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2024 Page 9 of 11 that six out of the seven Council members must vote yes to move forward and politically they don't tend to like to go against a single property owner. The only way that they will do that is if the community lets them know it's important enough, so they need enough community members willing to tell both Planning and Zoning but especially Council that it's necessary. Depending on how that all goes, they can use that to judge how much work will be required for downtown. In 2001, they made inroads to try to do a local district downtown and it suddenly died. Thomann likes the idea of thinking about other properties where there isn't such a pressure situation, like the low hanging fruit and get to landowners before they decide that they want to sell it or before development starts happening around them. Bristow stated she's heard enough to begin working with Sellergren to come up with a work plan that they can present at the next meeting. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect-Chair and Staff review HPC23-0081: 1603 Jackson Avenue — Dearborn Street Conservation District (window and stucco repair and deteriorated siding and trim replacement): Bristow stated this is a little Moffitt house. The garage that faced forward was incorporated into the house at some point in time. With this project they're doing a lot of work, stucco repair, window repair, and they are receiving help with Historic Preservation Funds. HPC23-0085: 1118 East Court Street— Longfellow Historic District (piping and venting installation): Bristow noted with all of the works without permit issues they've been having recently, they're streamlining the process between the building permits and historic review a little bit to try to see if that will help. Therefore, they'll see many more random piping things that come up because it requires a permit and they're making a hole in the wall. Hopefully they can issue certificates of no material effect for those. This one this is a new gas line. Minor Review - Staff review HPC23-0082: 405 South Summit Street — Summit Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement): This is a roof shingle replacement on this house. Intermediate Review -Chair and Staff review HPC23-0077: 930 East College Street— College Hill Conservation District (5ft metal fence): Bristow stated this house is between an old sorority that's now apartments and a modern apartment building on the other side. They wanted to put up a metal fence on the front and the one side. At first it was an eight-foot fence but Iowa City Code does not allow that. Code says six foot or less in the rear yard and four feet or less in the front yard. Bristow stated there's the potential for a minor modification, but the minor modification can only give 25% more, so in the front yard that would be a maximum of five feet. She worked with the applicants to mockup what five feet would look like and then they came up with a design that will have a low retaining wall which doesn't count, apparently, because that makes HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2024 Page 10 of 11 the grade. HPC23-0080: 1211 Muscatine Avenue — College Hill Conservation District (deteriorated dormer window replacement): This bungalow on Muscatine has an addition by a previous owner that happened before the district was created. Now the new owner wanted to remove the window, because that was a bathroom, but a dormer exists for a window so they could not do that. They did approve replacement of it and approved a fiberglass window because of the moisture. The modern window and wall were rotted out. HPC23-0051: 1211 Burlington Street— College Hill Conservation District (garage revisions including additional window, new floor and foundation, new overhead door and mini-split system): This house is part of the Grant Wood Art Colony and has one of the only garages amongst all of those houses. They are making the garage into an art studio. They went through a review process and raised the garage to put a new foundation under it. Unfortunately, that does mean that the lovely doors will be replaced so they did work through what they're going to replace them with. Additionally, they are adding some windows and it'll have a bathroom so there's some venting and things that need to go in there. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 14, 2023: MOTION: Wagner moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's December 14, 2023, meeting. Villanueva seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7- 0. COMMISSION INFORMATION: Bristow shared regarding the landmarking next month Sellergren and she did visit the property (302 to 316 East Bloomington). Since Friend's of Historic Preservation had the site inventory form created, it was the first real documentation of this property. It needs to go and be on file at the State and the State now has a new process that it has to be submitted as a preliminary evaluation for National Register eligibility. Friends has done that. Bristow stated as part of the process they need some interior photography so they visited the property today and it is the most intact structure than she's been in in a long time. Next step is getting the application for the rezoning, which is in process right now, and then it will be open and available to the public. Wagner talked about the mid-century modern home at 420 Park Road. It's a 1949 building that was owned by the family that owned Mott's Drugs in Iowa City and it has been occupied by them until January 5. The new homeowner is a guy from Canada and they're redoing the bathrooms because they are worn but the rest of the house is intact. He noted many of the homes in Manville Heights should be landmarks, so many Iowa City legends like James Van Allen lived in those homes. Bristow reminded everyone they changed the date of the March meeting and it will be the third Thursday. Again the February 8 meeting will be reviewing the landmarking and a few other things, likely there will be a number of the public here for that meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Beck moved to adjourn the meeting. Lewis seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:57pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2024 TERM 2/9 3/22 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/13 8/10 9/14 10/12 11/9 12/14 1/11 NAME EXP. BECK, 6/30/24 X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X X MARGARET BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X O/E X X BROWN, 6/30/26 O/E X X O/E X X O/E X X O/E X O/E CARL LEWIS, 6/30/26 X X X X X X X ANDREW SELLERGREN, 6/30/25 X O/E X X O/E X X X X X X X JORDAN STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E THOMANN, 6/30/26 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 O/E X X X NICOLE WAGNER, 6/30/26 X X X X X O/E X X X X X X FRANK WELU- 6/30/25 X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused --- = Not a member Item Number: IP8. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 1, 2024 Human Rights Commission: January 23 Attachments: Human Rights Commission: January 23 Draft Minutes Human Rights Commission January 23, 2024 Emma J. Harvat Hall Commissioners present:Jahnavi Pandya, Doug Kollasch, Kelsey Paul Shantz,Viana Qaduora, Roger Lusala, Mark Pries. Commissioners on Zoom:Sylvia Jons. Commissioners absent:Ahmed Ismail. Staff present:Stefanie Bowers, Sergeant Kevin Bailey. Recommendation to City Council: No. Meeting called to order:5:31 PM. Native American Land Acknowledgement: Lusala read the Land Acknowledgement. Introduction of new commissioner Dr. Liz and farewell to outgoing commissioner Maliabo: Commissioners introduced themselves to the newest commission member and bid a wistful farewell to former commissioner Maliabo. Election of chair and vice chair for 2024: Pries nominated Kollasch,Jons seconded the motion.Jons nominated Paul Shantz, and the motion was seconded by Pries. Paul Shantz declined the nomination but would entertain a nomination for vice chair. Lusala nominated Paul Shantz for vice chair, Pries seconded the motion. The motion for Kollasch as chair passed 8-0.The motion for Paul Shantz as vice chair passed 8-0. Approval of November 28, 2023, meeting minutes: Pries moved, and Lusala seconded.The motion passed 8-0. Public comment of items not on the agenda: Brandon Ross spoke. Ross spoke briefly on capitalism and imperialism. Ross does not think the U.S. should not be in Syria or Ukraine.As to Israel and Palestine,the U.S. is arming Israel for what he believes to be the elimination of an entire people.The U.S. has violated its own laws and international laws. Ross appeals to the HRC to act locally,think globally, act globally, be loud, be active, and be heard. Correspondence: Upcoming events of the office,the Iowa City Foreign Relations Council, and the upcoming Lunar New Year celebration. Updates on Outreach and Engagement by the Police Department: Sergeant Bailey spoke on the recent events of the department. Most of these have been canceled or rescheduled due to the snow and the frigid temperatures.The department has had mandatory training and has recently added an evening/night mental health liaison.A new youth shelter in Iowa City has opened. Bailey and the outreach folks have 1 been working hard on getting engaged with youth in the winter.They are also seeing more financial exploitation of the elderly and, so intentional outreach is being completed to organizations that cater to older adults. Support of the Transgender Protestors:Commissioners Jons, Paul Shantz, and Kollasch drafted a statement in response to the arrest of transgender activists back in November.Amel Ali,at its November meetings asked the commission and submitted a letter asking for its solidarity in these targeted arrests and charges.The commission read through the prepared draft and approved it. Staff will do a news release. Pries moved, and Lusala seconded. Motion passed 8-0. Funding request from November 2023 Jewell Amos:After its last meeting date,the commission asked staff to seek more details of this request for$250.The request is for a t-shirt contest at Grant Wood Elementary for its graduating 5`h and 6`h graders.The additional details are that there are approximately 100 students who will be participating. Each student will get a shirt with the winning design and all of their classmate's names. Racial Equity and Social Justice Grant: For grant cycle FY23,the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County notified the commission that it has delayed the initial start of its project to January of this year.The project was delayed due to competing priorities. The commission received the submissions for FY23 and will arrange a time to meet in the last week in February or the first week of March to make its recommendation to the city council for grant allocations. Commissioner Ismail is not participating due to a conflict of interest with the Center for Worker Justice and the Immigrant Welcome Network for Johnson County. Commissioner Mendez-Shannon disclosed that in early Jan.2024,she joined the Greater Iowa City(GIC)Council,and that the City Attorney's Office has determined there is no legal conflict in her reviewing and rating the grant submission by GIC. And that she believes she can be fair and impartial in judging the merits of the GIC application. Commission Committees:Commission members will review the current three committees and their purpose and then discuss who will serve on which committee.The three current committees are breaking bread, reciprocal relationships, and building bridges. Announcements of commissioners: Paul Shantz would like the HRC to connect with the TRC to learn more about their upcoming Healing Circles. Qadoura spoke on a recent winter hike Mariam's Girls participated in with United Action for Youth. Pandaya recently joined a mental health provider that helps people for no charge on Zoom and offers multiple languages. Mendez-Shannon mentioned her support to the ICCSD for ensuring that youth this summer will still be fed meals even though funding will no longer be provided to support such programs in Iowa. Announcements of staff: None. Adjourned:7:01 PM. The meeting can be viewed at https:Hcitychannel4.com/video.html?series=Local%20Government. 2 N N rl b N rl rl N N O rl N r N M N Vi Vi y O N H Gl W YF r 0,0 N F N E N ry � QI Cy �