Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-03 Info PacketCITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 3, 2014 IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule MISCELLANEOUS IP2 Copy of email from Bill Hoeft to Council: PILOT Agreement and related questions [Mayor Hayek response included] PILOT Agreement and related questions [Mayor Hayek response included] — Additional correspondence from Bill Hoeft [Distributed to Council as Late Handouts 4/4/14] IP3 Memo from Asst. City Manager: Secure Storage Services — Recap of Past City Council Discussions IN Memo from Finance Dir. and Budget Management Analyst: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending December 31, 2013 DRAFT MINUTES IP5 Board of Adjustment: March 12 IP6 Board of Appeals: March 24 IP7 Planning and Zoning Commission: March 20 ann • +� CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 3, 2014 IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule MISCELLANEOUS IP2 Copy of email VoT Bill Hoeft to Council: PILOT A reement and related questions [Mayor Hayek respon included] IP3 Memo from Asst. ity Manager: Secure Stora a Services — Recap of Past City Council Discussions IN Memo from Finance Dir. d Budget Managem nt Analyst: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending Decem r 31, 2013 INUTES IP5 Board of Adjustment: March 12 IP6 Board of Appeals: March 24 IP7 Planning and Zoning Commission: arch 20 04 -03 -14 rMw * City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1 +� Subject to change April 3, 2014 CITY OF IOWA CITY Date Time Meeting Location Monday, April 7, 2014 4:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, April 28, 2014 4:30 PM Joint Meeting /Work Session TBA / ICCSD Tuesday, May 6, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, June 17, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, July 15, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, August 19, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 2, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 16, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 7, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, November 4, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, November 18, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 2, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 16 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting PZ Marian Karr From: Matt Hayek Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 4:43 PM To: 'Bill Hoeft' Cc: Council Subject: RE: PILOT agreement and related questions Councilman Hoeft, The"new details"refer to the Gazette's comparison of Coralville's PILOT agreement to PILOT agreements in Iowa and around the country. The requested information goes beyond what is contained in the two-page Coralville PILOT agreement and is not something our staff could just pull from your website. Please feel free to share our communication with Mayor Lundell. Regards, Matt Hayek From: Bill Hoeft [mailto:bhoeft13 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 11:21 AM To: Matt Hayek Subject: RE: PILOT agreement and related questions Mayor, Thanks for getting back to me and for the perspective through your lenses. Thanks also for the explanation for the timing of your request. You mentioned "new details" in the Gazette story regarding the PILOT agreement. Is that new to the council because they hadn't seen the agreement? As far as I'm aware there haven't been any new details since the agreement has been in place. The lack of discussion at the time the agreement was created was in large part because much of it had to be in executive session as we were talking about the purchase of land. I understand that,when they can, our staffers assist each other with double checking policies for uniformity and consistency. Being neighbors,that makes perfect sense to me. In the interest of full disclosure, our staff didn't come to me complaining about this. A councilor had questions about Tom's request of information and how much time and effort would be expended by our staff. Kelly answered it and that is what triggered my email, as it certainly was shocking to hear how many people and how much time was/is being used. I must confess that I don't have a frame of reference for what the norm is for these kinds of inter-governmental requests, but on the surface it seems excessive when the agreements are readily available for your staff to peruse. i Once again,thanks for the response and I'll pass it along to Mayor Lundell if that's okay with you. Warmest regards, Bill Hoeft On Apr 3, 2014 10:39 AM, "Matt Hayek" <Matt-Hayek( iowa-city.org>wrote: Councilman Hoeft, I want to respond to your recent email to the Iowa City City Council regarding our staff's request for information related to Coralville's PILOT agreements with the University of Iowa. Without having discussed your email with my council, I can only offer my perspective. Following the Gazette report on March 16, members of the Iowa City City Council asked staff for more information on Coralville's PILOT and related agreements with the University, as well as PILOT agreements in other Iowa communities and around the country. Iowa City's PILOT agreement with the University has remained largely unchanged for decades. As we learned the details of the Coralville-University PILOT and related agreements, we noticed a remarkable difference in methodology. There is interest in determining whether Iowa City's arrangements should be examined and perhaps altered to reflect a different approach to valuation. Our intent is not to burden your staff and we appreciate the time dedicated to the request. The March 27 Gazette article indicated that your staff was receptive to answering questions. Our staffs routinely assist each other with research and information, and we regularly examine each other's policies and operations to ensure consistency. If the Coralville City Council feels the request is too cumbersome,please communicate that to me and I will pass it along. Your question regarding the timing of our interest is fair. When the agreement was approved there was very little public discussion and,to our knowledge, no media coverage. We became aware of the agreement well after it was approved, and the Gazette's reporting disclosed new details that resulted in the request for more information. Thanks for passing along the compliment from your family regarding our pedestrian mall. Regards, 2 Matt Hayek From: Bill Hoeft [mailto:bhoeftl3 @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 6:55 PM To: Matt Hayek; Kingsley Botchway; Rick Dobyns; Jim Throgmorton; Susan Mims; Terry Dickens; Michelle Payne Subject: PILOT agreement and related questions Dear Iowa City Mayor and Council, While I appreciate your interest in our PILOT agreement with the University of Iowa on the medical office building in the IRL, and certainly want to be neighborly; I am more than a bit concerned about the amount of time Tom's questions on the subject is costing our staff. At least four staff member have spent eight-hours and counting working on gathering this information taking them away from their affairs for the city. I'd guess Coralville residents wouldn't be too thrilled to hear this. It seems to me that most of these questions can be chased down by your staff We attach the agreements to the corresponding item on the council agendas and they can be found on the city's website. On a personal note and to satisfy my own curiosity, I'm just wondering what prompted you to want this information now instead of when the agreement was voted on? I'd like to pass along a compliment given by my family members, who hadn't been to Iowa City in a while. They marveled at the improvements to the Pedestrian Mall. "Cool" was the term bantered about. Thanks in advance for any and all consideration of this subject. Warmest regards, Bill Hoeft 3 04-03-14 IP2 Marian Karr From: Matt Hayek Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 10:40 AM To: 'Bill Hoeft' Cc: Council Subject: RE: PILOT agreement and related questions Councilman Hoeft, I want to respond to your recent email to , e Iowa City City Council regarding our staffs request fo information related to Coralville's PILOT agreements with the U iversity of Iowa. Without having discussed your em. with my council, I can only offer my perspective. Following the Gazette report on March 16, me bers of the Iowa City City Council asked .ff for more information on Coralville's PILOT and related agreements with e University,as well as PILOT agreem•nts in other Iowa communities and around the country. Iowa City's PILOT agreement with the University has rem.' ed largely unchanged for decades. As we learned the details of the Coralvi --University PILOT and related :reements,we noticed a remarkable difference in methodology.There is interest in det.rmining whether Iowa City' .rrangements should be examined and perhaps altered to reflect a different approach to v. uation. Our intent is not to burden your staff and we appreci. e the time dedic. -d to the request.The March 27 Gazette article indicated that your staff was receptive to answering q -stions. Our s . s routinely assist each other with research and information,and we regularly examine each other's pol ies and op= ations to ensure consistency. If the Coralville City Council feels the request is too cumbersome, please corn unicat= hat to me and I will pass it along. Your question regarding the timing of our interest is fair. = the agreement was approved there was very little public discussion and,to our knowledge, no media coverage. We '-came aware of the agreement well after it was approved, and the Gazette's reporting disclosed new details that res, to• in the request for more information. Thanks for passing along the compliment from your f. ily rega ding our pedestrian mall. Regards, Matt Hayek From: Bill Hoeft [mailto:bhoeftl3 @gmail.c• ] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 6:55 PM To: Matt Hayek; Kingsley Botchway; Ric Dobyns; Jim Throgmorton; Su-.n Mims; Terry Dickens; Michelle Payne Subject: PILOT agreement and relater questions Dear Iowa City Mayor and Couru'il, While I appreciate your inte,rest in our PILOT agreement with the Univer..ty of Iowa on the medical office building in the IRL, and certainly want to be neighborly; I am more than a it concerned about the amount of time Tom's questions on the subject is costing our staff. At least four staff m-mber have spent eight-hours and counting working on gathering this information taking them away from their a airs for the city. I'd guess Coralville residents wouldn't be too thrilled to hear this. It seems to me that most of these questions can be chased down by your staff. We attach the agreements to the corresponding item on the council agendas and they can be found on the city's website. 1 On a personal note and to satisfy my own curiosity, I'm just wondering what prompted you to want this information now instead of when the agreement was voted on? I'd like to pass along a compliment given by my family members, who hadn't be; to Iowa City in a while. They marveled at the improve ents to the Pedestrian Mall. "Cool" w.• the term bantered about. Thanks in advance for any and all con'ideration of this subject. Warmest regards, Bill Hoeft 2 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 28, 2014 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager Re: Secure Storage Services — Recap of Past City Council Discussions During the Public Comment portion of the March 25th City Council meeting, a member of the public stated that the City Council verbally committed to providing storage for homeless persons last year when the ordinance that restricted the storage of personal property in downtown was being discussed. After a review of the transcripts and minutes from these meetings it is clear to me that no such verbal commitment was made by the City Council. The following is a brief summary of the record. • August 20th, 2013 (first consideration of the ordinance) — There was no significant discussion or direction from the City Council on storage facilities • September 3`d, 2013 (second consideration) — An amendment to the ordinance was made stating "the prohibitions described above shall not go into effect until the City or some other authorized entity provides one or more alternative locations for the safe, secure, and accessible temporary storage of personal possessions ". The motion was defeated on a 215 vote. • September 17th, 2013 (final consideration) — After the ordinance was adopted on a 611 vote, the following motion was made by a member of the City Council; "I move that we instruct staff not to enforce the personal possessions provisions of the ordinance until a safe, secure and accessible temporary storage of personal possessions is provided ". The motion failed on a 116 vote. The Council discussed having staff consider the issue and return to the City Council either for a worksession or with a memo. • October 15th, 2013 (City Council worksession) — The Council inquired about the status of the issue with City staff. Staff responded that we will come back to the City Council with more information soon. • December 3`d, 2013 (City Council worksession) — The City Council concurred with a recommendation contained in a staff memo that suggested a Request for Information (RFI) process to determine. if private or non - profit organizations would be willing to partner with the City on this service. As reported in the March, 13th Information Packet, the city did not receive any formal responses to the RFI on secure storage services. An informal response was submitted to me from a representative of Trinity Episcopal Church. I have attached that correspondence to this memorandum. After not receiving any other responses, formal or informal, I made a recommendation not to pursue a public service, yet stay open and willing to partnering should opportunities arise in the future. The recommendation was made in part because Trinity Episcopal Church's letter indicated that they did not have the physical space on their property and that they are unable to staff such an operation. My intention going forward is to include Trinity Episcopal Church in any discussions should other partners that may be able to accommodate physical and /or operational aspects of the service step forward. If the City Council wishes to move forward at this time I would respectfully request ninety days to work with the Parks and Recreation, Transportation Services, Police, and Legal Departments to develop a business plan and related service policies (eligibility, verification requirements, term of service, damages to property, handling of unclaimed property, security, etc.). 04 -03 -14 IP3 Geoff Fruin From: Geoff Fruin Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:33 PM To: 'Amanda Owen Van Horne'; Judith Crossett; crissy @shelterhouseiowa.org; Ilyon @trinityic.org; Bob Sessions; Bob Lehman; Carol Dollman; David Schwindt Subject: RE: RFI for Storage Lockers Amanda, Thank you for your interest and careful consideration of the City's request. Our deadline for responses is Friday of this week. I'll wait to see if we receive any other responses before determining the next steps. Again, thanks for being engaged with the issue. Best, Geoff Fruin Assistant to the City Manager I City of Iowa City, Iowa P: 319.356.5013 Web j Facebook ITwitter From: Amanda Owen Van Horne [mailto:ajowen @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:30 AM To: Geoff Fruin; Judith Crossett; crissy @shelterhouseiowa.org; Ilyon @trinityic.org; Bob Sessions; Bob Lehman; Carol Dollman; David Schwindt Subject: RFI for Storage Lockers Dear Geoff, Attached please find Trinity's response to the RFI. We spent considerable time in internal conversations and I'm personally disappointed that the physical logistics are such barriers. Trinity's physical footprint consumes much of our lot leaving us with little flexibility in outdoor sites for lockers. Please do be back in touch if there's some other way we can further this project. We think it is really important and hope to be able to partner with the city in other ways in the future. Amanda Amanda J. Owen Van Horne ajowenDa gmail.com Dear Geoff, I'm writing on behalf of Trinity Episcopal Church in response to the Request for Information put out by the city for a secure storage proposal. Trinity feels strongly that the city and local partners should provide a secure storage facility near downtown given the current ordinances related to having personal property downtown. Our church leadership is intrigued by the possibility of partnering with the city or other churches to facilitate this service occurring. Following conversations with Officer Schwindt, we understand the need to be 20 -40 2x2x2 lockers that would be accessible 24 hrs a day. He recommended something large enough to hold a sleeping bag and backpack and suggested that individuals would need access before breakfast and after 9pm, the hour at which several downtown places that people stay close and no longer allow people to be present. These hours suggest that the best solution would be something publically accessible rather than staffed. However, there would be a need for staff and regular hours to provide a variety of services: determining who might be eligible to store items, managing keys and locker checkout, determining when lockers should be emptied and storing the items from emptied lockers that are not being disposed of. There would also be a way of managing pests and garbage and laundry needs. Trinity originally approached this request from the perspective that we are in a high traffic location near to the pedestrian mall and thus are in a unique position to consider this ministry. However, it Is unclear to us where these lockers might be placed. The slopes to Gilbert St and the historical nature of the church building itself make it difficult to attach lockers to the building or place them on church property but not attached to the church. We considered placing lockers on church property facing the alleyway but we are concerned that it is not observable enough and potentially dangerous given car traffic. We also discussed placing them inside Trinity in space that is not regularly used by our own members. Upon reflection we feel that we would be unable to secure the church itself and stay in compliance with fire code if we placed the lockers inside. The other concern about indoor placement is that we are unable to staff a facility like this on a 24 hr basis (or even on a 6a- 9a/7p -10p basis). In short, we have tried hard to imagine a place for these lockers to go, but are not clear on a location that would meet the needs of those we would wish to serve. We would be interested in continuing a conversation with the city on this topic and participating in conversations with other community partners through the CRC and local nonprofits but we are not clear on how we can serve at this time. Please do be in touch with us if some of the needs (e.g., a location) can be met in other ways and we can discuss trying to assist in other ways. Sincerely, Amanda Van Horne Sr. Warden Trinity Episcopal Church cc:Dave Schwindt Lauren Lyon, Rector Trinity Episcopal Church Bob Lehman & Bob Sessions, Buildings and Grounds Committee Judith Crossett, Deacon, Trinity Episcopal Church Trinity Episcopal Church Vestry Members r- CITY O F IOWA C I T Y 04 -03 -14 IP4 �►� ,�.� � MEMORANDUM Date: April 1, 2014 To: City Manager, City Council From: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director Deb Mansfield, Budget Management Analyst Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending December 31, 2013 Introduction This memorandum contains the quarterly financial analysis for the City's financial position as of December 31, 2013. December 31 is the mid -point or 50% mark of the fiscal year. This quarterly report includes combined summaries of all fund balances, revenues, and expenditures followed by individual summaries of the major funds within the City budget. Of significant note is the change in the City's budgetary accounting basis for fiscal year 2014; on July 1, 2013, in conjunction with the new financial computer system, the City began reporting its budgetary activities and fund balances on a modified accrual basis of accounting similar with the City's consolidated annual financial report. In prior years, the budget has been prepared on a cash basis. The one time conversion differences are presented as part of the ending fund balance for each major fund as "Change in Accounting Method ". In addition to the change in accounting methodology, the format of the quarterly financial report has changed. The quarterly financial report has been updated with a new presentation format for several reasons. The primary reason for the format change is to help develop greater consistency between the City's budget document and its financial reports. By using the same or similar format for reporting budgetary information, we expect it to be generally easier for the City Council and the general public to track financial and budgetary information as they become familiar with the format. The quarterly reports are also intended to focus on the City's major funds. The move to focusing on major funds has been preferred by the Government Finance Officers Association and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board in order to help highlight the City's major financial activities without getting readers bogged down in too much detail. For this report, we have modified the major funds slightly. We have included the Transit Fund and the Road Use Tax Fund as major funds and removed the CDBG Fund and the Other Shared Revenues Fund. The highlights of the City's quarterly financial reports are as follows: Combined Statements All Funds Summary (page 8): The ending fund balance for the quarter ending December 31, 2013, was $176,334,170 compared to beginning fund balance of $174,559,949 for all funds. Of that amount, $74,478,532 represents fund balance that has been restricted, committed, or assigned. These funds have been reserved for a particular purpose and are not available for general operations. Discussion of the individual fund balances for the major funds will occur in the analysis section of the individual fund summaries. Revenues by Type (page 9 -10): Year -to -date total revenues for all budgetary funds is $78,988,250 compared to revised budget of $191,013,580 and are 41.4% of the revised budget (found on the second page of this statement). Individual funding source highlights are as follows: 560,000,000 $55,000,000 $50,000,000 $45,000,000 $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30.000.000 $25,000,000 $20, W umou $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 5 All Funds Revenues by Type FY2014 Through the Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 s, s, v ys Oc O °��¢¢ ¢� <S �¢�ca\ J�r`,s 6 `Q5F Otir S av' .`a Lr ■ 2014 Reviscd ■ 2014 Year -to -Date Taxes Levied on Property Taxes: Year -to -date revenues are in line with the revised budget. TIF Revenues: Year -to -date revenues are in line with the revised budget. Other City Taxes: Year -to -date revenues are 28.1% of the revised budget. Revenues include gas and electric excise tax, hotel /motel tax, local option sales tax, mobile home tax, and utility franchise tax. Local option sales tax was budgeted at $2.4 million on a cash basis; however, actual receipts under the accrual method are only $465,530. This difference results from accruing receipts in July and August back to fiscal year 2013. It does not change the City's financial position, but it does change the budget -to- actual comparison. Similarly, hotel /motel taxes are only 28.6% of the revised budget due to the July 2013 receipt being accrued back to FY2013. Before closing the fiscal year, this will be offset, because the July 2014 receipt will be accrued into FY2014 revenues. Utility franchise tax is also at 29.5% of the revised budget for the same reason. Gas and electric franchise tax is at 50% of the revised budget, and is received primarily in November and May of each year. Licenses, Permits & Fees: Year -to -date revenues are 53.1% of the revised budget. The majority of the revenue is associated with cable franchise fees and construction permit and inspection fees, which are at 25.5% and 75.5 %, respectively. Cable franchise revenue received in the first quarter of FY2014 is accrued back to FY2013 based on the dates of cable service so 25.5% is an appropriate percentage for year -to -date. Revenue from construction permit and inspection fees will likely exceed budget for the year. Use of Money and Property: Year -to -date revenues are at 12.7% of the revised budget. Revenues include interest income, rents, royalties and commissions. The budget also includes parking revenues; however actual parking revenues are now being receipted within the category "Charges for Fees and Services ". The associated parking fees revenue budget of $4.8 million will be moved to "Charges for Fees and Services" with the next budget amendment. This re- categorization is a result of the re- organization of the City's account numbering system in conjunction with the new financial system. Year- to -date revenues are 41.2% of the revised budget after excluding the parking fee budgets in this category. Interest income of $293,948 is 30% of the revised budget of $991,785 and is much lower than previous years due to the poor interest rate environment. Intergovernmental Revenue: Year -to -date revenues are 31.2% of the revised budget. Revenues not yet received include federal revenues budgeted in capital improvement projects and the enterprise funds, Road Use Tax receipts, State disaster assistance in capital improvement projects, and other state grants in capital improvement projects and enterprise funds. Intergovernmental revenue is sporadic in timing, and there are no major anomalies to report. Charges for Fees and Services: Year -to -date revenues are 51.9% of the revised budget; however, it would be 45.3% if the parking revenues budget of $4.8 million currently in "Use of Money and Property" were considered. Actual parking revenues are receipted here and not in Use of Money and Property as discussed above. • Building and Development Fees are at 81.5% of the revised budget. FY2014 building and development fees are $41,500 higher than building and development fees as of the same quarter in FY2013 and are expected to finish over the budgeted amount. • Transit fees are at 39.6% of the revised budget and are 7.6% more than the fiscal year -to -date total from the same quarter in FY2013. Overall, FY2014 transit fees should finish close to the budgeted amount. • Culture & Recreation: • Recreation and Parks charges for services and fees are in line with the percentage received through the second quarter of FY2013. • Senior Center receipts in this category are at 64.5% of the revised budget, compared to 47% of budget at this time last year. • Water charges for services are 44.5% of the revised budget. However, $871,950 was accrued back to FY2013 based on dates of service. Revenues are 4.3% less than FY2013 exclusive of the accrual accounting adjustment. • Wastewater fees received are 40.2% of the revised budget, and about 6% less than this time last year, excluding accrual adjustments in July 2013. • Refuse charges for services are 41.0% of the revised budget. However, $215,375 was accrued back to FY2013 based on dates of service. Revenues are 1.7% more than FY2013 exclusive of the accrual accounting adjustment. • Storm water charges for services are 32.9% of the revised budget. The budget presumption was that a rate increase would go into effect for a full fiscal year. The rate increase went into effect on January 1, 2014. Revenues in July were adjusted by $102,489 that was accrued back to FY2013 based on dates of service. Revenues are 2.9% more than FY2013 exclusive of the accrual accounting adjustment. • Parking fee revenue is 64% of the revised budget and 44% higher than at the same point in FY2013. Hourly parking increased 18.6% compared to FY2013 same months and permit parking is at $1.1 million compared to $485,402 during that time last year. Permit parking revenue is higher this year due to timing of the annual permit parking payment from the University of Iowa. Miscellaneous: Year -to -date revenues are 39.7% of the revised budget. Parking fine revenue is $250,062 compared to $350,473 during the same period of FY2013. Contributions & Donations budget not yet received relates to capital improvement projects cost - sharing and Library activities. 3 • Other Financial Sources: Year -to -date revenues are 40.8% of the revised budget. Debt issuance budgeted for Wastewater of $7 million is not expected to be issued. In addition, general obligation debt will be issued towards the end of FY2014. • Non - Budgetary Fund Revenues: Year -to -date revenues are in line with the revised budget. Expenditures by State Program by Department (page 11): Year -to -date expenditures for all budgetary funds are at 37.9% of budget. By Iowa code, the City cannot exceed its budget authority adopted by City Council in any of the nine budgeted program areas. Internal Service funds are not budgeted and do not fall under this restriction. The chart below presents the actual expenditures for each program area versus its appropriated level. $50,000,000 $45,000,000 $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000.000 55,000,000 All Funds Expenditures by Program FY2014 Through the Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 _. '11 .. N — Qa QJ ayo� Pa of \& O¢ Q Lo s a i„¢ a�Q cam c �c 2014 Revised M 2014 Year -to -Date There are no major operating expenditure anomalies to report at this time. For capital expenditures, the Airport has acquired land to the north with the assistance of an FAA grant for $5,000,000. The FAA grant covered 90% of this cost, and the Airport sold land to cover the remaining balance. This expenditure and revenue will be included in the next FY2014 budget amendment. Major Funds General Fund (page 12): Revenues: General Fund year -to -date revenues are at 52.2% of budget. A few anomalies in the overall General fund revenues include: Other City Taxes will be less than budget due to the accounting changes for the local option sales tax, and Hotel Motel tax is also low at this time due to accrual back to FY2013. Intergovernmental revenue percentage of 76.2% is currently high due to the lump sum annual payment by the University of Iowa for fire protection. Other Financial Sources reflects sale of assets, bond proceeds, and loan repayments is at 71.0% of budget. This is high due to the activity of the UniverCity program which is expanding to include more homes this year due to additional available funding sources. Overall, revenues appear to be on pace to meet budget expectations. 0 Expenditures: General fund total expenditures are at 48.1% of budget and are within an acceptable percentage. By individual department, Planning & Community Development's expenditures are slightly high year -to -date. This is also due to the expanded UniverCity program. This variance will be addressed in the next FY2014 budget amendment. Road Use Tax Fund (page 13): Revenues: Road Use Tax receipts are at 46.4% due to accrual of the July revenue back to FY2013. Subsequently, July 2014 will be accrued as FY2014 revenue and should make up the difference. Expenditures: Road Use Tax Administration is at 0% of budget. This activity includes payment to the City's loss reserve and a portion of the annual audit expense. Neither of these expenses has occurred for FY2014 as of December 31. In addition, Traffic Engineering is at 4.7% of budget. This is a result of a refund from Mid - American for overpayment of street lights of $531,405. Without this transaction, the actual percentage of budget for Traffic Engineering would be 39.4 %, and for the entire fund expenditures would be at 41.3% of budget. Employee Benefits Fund (page 14): Revenue: Year -to -date revenues are at 53.3% of budget. Revenue from State 28E agreements are higher than the revised budgeted due to the receipt from the University of Iowa for their contributions attributed to Fire operations. Expenditures: Year -to -date expenditures are at 74.5% of budget. Overall expenditures are high due to General Government expenses. These expenses are at 99.5% of budget due to the annual loss reserve payment which has already occurred for this fund. Debt Service Fund (page 15): Revenues: Total year -to -date revenues are at 51.9% of budget. Of those revenues, loan repayments are at 356.5% of budget. Loan repayments are external receipts from individuals and businesses who have participated in some of the local community and economic development initiatives initially funded by general obligation bonds. This revenue is high primarily due to a loan repayment from Southgate Development that was not included in the budget. Expenditures: Year -to -date expenditures total 7.2% of budget. This percentage is low due to the timing of the City's general obligation bond principal payments which occur in June each year. Parking Fund (page 16): Revenues: Year -to -date parking revenues are at 57.4% of budget. As stated previously, parking revenues within "Use of Money and Property" are now receipted in the category "Charges for Fees and Services ". The sum of the revised budget for these revenues is $4,158,794, and the actual receipts are $2,606,090. The actual percentage versus budget for these revenues is 62.7 %. Parking fines are at a lower percentage of the revised budget compared to last year. Expenses: Parking year -to -date expenditures are at 54.0% of budget. Parking Debt Service expenditures are at 82.1% of budget. This is due to bond principal payments being paid at the beginning of the fiscal year. Transfers out to capital improvement projects are over budget by $157,221 due to additional funding necessary for the Parking Facility and Enforcement Automation project. This increase is included in the next budget amendment and was part of the updated 2014 capital improvement program. 5 Transit Fund (page 17): Revenues: Year -to -date transit revenues are at 34.3% of budget. One of the main reasons for the low percentage is the timing of the system's Federal funding; this funding is usually received towards the end of the fiscal year. For the revenue categories "Use of Money and Property" and "Charges for Fees and Services ", these actual -to- budget comparisons have the same presentation issues as the Parking Fund and are related to the parking charges that have been re- categorized. For the parking charges, the revised budget is $632,274 and the actual revenues are $449,089 or 71 % of budget. Parking charges in Transit are from the Court Street Transportation Center. Transit fees revenue totals $541,585 which is 39.7% of the revised budget but is still 7.6% higher than at the same point last year. Expenses: Year -to -date expenditures are at 49.4% and there are no major anomalies to report. Transfers out to capital improvement projects are at 100% of revised budget with the funding for the Court Street Automation project having been fully transferred. Wastewater Fund (page 18): Revenues: Year -to -date revenues are at 40.3% of budget. Wastewater charges are about 6% lower than FY2013 for the same time period, therefore, it is likely that FY2014 charges for fees and services will be less than the revised budget. The sale of sewer revenue bonds of $7,000,000 in FY2014 for the South Wastewater Treatment Plant project planned will not occur. Funding of the South Wastewater Plant expansion will be from unassigned fund balance and from additional grant funding rather than from the issuance of revenue bonds. Expenses: Year -to -date expenditures are at 64.1% of budget. Wastewater Debt Service is at 84.4% expended due to bond principal payments maturing at the beginning of the fiscal year. Water Fund (page 19): Revenues: Water revenues year -to -date are at 44.2% of budget. There are no major anomalies to report for water fund revenues. The percentage versus budget is below 50% due to the change in accounting method. Expenses: Water expenditures year -to -date are at 55.6% of budget. Water Administration has used a higher percentage of its budget due to the payments for insurance and internal services that are paid on an annual basis. Water Debt Service is also high at 84.1% due to the timing of its bond principal repayments similar to the Parking Fund and the Wastewater Fund. Refuse Collection Fund (page 20): Revenues: Year -to -date revenues are at 39.7% of budget. Refuse Charges are at a lower percentage of the revised budget due to accruals as discussed in the all funds revenue section. The fund's revenues are expected to end the year near budget. Expenses: Year -to -date expenditures are at 48.6% of budget. Refuse Administration is at a higher percentage of budget due to payment from this activity for insurance and internal services that are paid on an annual basis. Yard Waste Collection's expenditures are also high, because this activity is seasonal and its expenditures are not spread evenly throughout the fiscal year. Landfill Fund (page 21): Revenues: Landfill revenues for the year are at 48.3% of budget. Of note here is the Interest Revenues and Inter -fund Loans revenue, which are only at 4.1% and 17.5% of budget,. respectively. These revenues are low primarily due to the pre - payment of many of the inter -fund loans in previous years due to the landfill fire. A Expenses: Landfill expenditures for the year are at 44.1% of budget. Solid Waste Surcharge Reserve year -to -date is 62.9% of the revised budget due to annual payment to ECICOG has already been made. Transfers out to capital projects year -to -date include transfers to the FY09 Landfill Cell Reconstruction, Hebl Road Improvements, Eastside Recycling Center construction, and Video Camera Upgrade projects. These are shown over budget by $590,922. These transfers were part of the updated 2014 capital improvement program, and the budgets will be adjusted as part of the next FY2014 budget amendment. Housing Authority Fund (page 22): Revenues: Housing Authority revenues are at 42.6% of budget. Federal revenues are at 41.8% of the revised budget. Interest Revenues are at -2.8% due to accruals that were made back to FY2013. Sale of Assets has income of $70,000 that was for the sale of property but was not budgeted. Expenses: Housing Authority expenditures are at 47.8% of budget. The Voucher program year -to -date percentage is in -line with the revised budget. The Public Housing program budget, however, is at 102.9% of budget. This is primarily due to the expenditure of the 2013 and 2014 HUD capital grants. These two grants will be part of the next FY2014 budget amendment. Conclusion The December 31, 2013 quarterly report represents the Finance Department's first quarterly report following the implementation of the new Munis financial system and the switch from cash basis accounting to modified accrual basis of accounting for budget purposes. Although the accrual basis of reporting tends to present actual- versus - budget percentages that are lower relative to the percentage of the budget year completed, ultimately, it is a more accurate method of reporting since it is based upon the actual occurrence of the transactions and not just on the timing of the cash receipts or payments. Overall, the City's revenues and expenditures are trending somewhat as anticipated. The changes to the accounting system have created a few comparison anomalies, but there are no major trends to be concerned about at the macro level. Some of the larger items that were identified through the analysis will be integrated into the next budget amendment for fiscal year 2014. That budget amendment is expected to be presented to the City Council in April or May 2014. The timeliness of this quarterly report is a little later than we would normally expect to present the quarterly report to City Council. The implementation of the new financial system was a thorough and comprehensive re- construction of the City's computer and accounting structure. Many parts of the system will continue to be implemented and tested through 2014. It is our expectation that this system will ultimately increase our ability to report the City's financial operations faster and easier. In addition, we believe in an open and transparent system; any of the information presented in this report is available in greater detail if requested. 7 CITY OF IOWA CITY ALL FUNDS SUMMARY FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 C7 Beginning Ending Unassigned Fund Fund Restricted, Fund Balance Transfers Transfers Balance Committed, Balance Fund 7/1/2013 Revenues In Expenditures Out 12/31/2013 Assigned 12/31/2013 Budgetary Funds General Fund $ 44,499,871 $ 25,304,262 $ 4,531,122 $ 24,999,495 $ 1,643,658 $ 47,692,101 $ 29,517,270 $ 18,174,832 Special Revenue Funds CDBG & CDBG Rehab - 305,148 - 421,087 - (115,939) - (115,939) HOME Program (7,695) 134,298 - 134,887 1,158 (9,442) (9,442) Road Use Tax 2,841,586 3,063,769 202,739 1,811,677 431,623 3,864,793 3,864,793 Other Shared Revenue (79,875) 470,933 - 746,127 - (355,069) (355,069) Energy Efficiency and Conservation (23,395) - - - (23,395) (23,395) UniverCity Neighborhood Partnershil (2,645) - 2,098 (547) - - Metropolitan Planning Organization 130,144 157,960 171,649 331,426 - 128,327 128,327 Employee Benefits 1,791,164 5,205,638 - 436,137 4,586,866 1,973,799 - 1,973,799 Peninsula Apartments 71,949 30,755 - 21,371 - 81,333 4,474 76,859 TIF 2,129 221,363 113 1,630 221,975 - 221,975 SSMID 1,590 139,507 - 86,340 54,756 54,756 Debt Service 5,820,298 6,428,448 22,163 966,978 11,303,930 - 11,303,930 Perpetual Care - Cemetery 115,191 12 - - 115,203 115,203 - Business Funds Parking 6,428,561 2,710,959 421,565 2,144,109 1,477,396 5,939,581 1,262,275 4,677,306 Transit 3,859,793 1,381,931 1,434,645 3,374,767 297,662 3,003,941 6,962 2,996,979 Wastewater Treatment 24,137,050 5,235,938 2,368,319 6,523,102 5,184,679 20,033,526 8,456,837 11,576,689 Water 12,138,269 3,710,684 1,005,158 4,461,401 1,369,626 11,023,084 3,485,379 7,537,705 Refuse Collection 719,427 1,186,281 - 1,438,688 - 467,020 - 467,020 Landfill 24,616,339 2,666,151 293,096 2,112,410 1,340,922 24,122,255 22,223,302 1,898,952 Airport 298,497 163,925 36,171 174,078 (117,154) 441,670 108,831 332,839 Stormwater Management 773,102 394,928 - 259,610 - 908,419 - 908,419 Broadband Telecommunications 1,765,355 213,538 12,500 377,845 40,000 1,573,549 256,024 1,317,524 Housing Authority 6,115,885 3,458,244 1,158 3,789,551 51,745 5,733,991 2,761,486 2,972,505 Capital Improvement Projects 12,756,766 16,403,578 5,921,566 23,936,444 114,489 11,030,977 - 11,030,977 Sub -total Budgetary Funds $ 148,769,356 $ 78,988,250 $ 16,424,061 $ 78,548,611 $ 16,422,671 $ 149,210,385 $ 68,198,043 $ 81,012,342 Non - Budgetary Funds Internal Service Funds Equipment 8,480,191 2,942,552 - 2,253,523 - 9,169,220 6,051,128 3,118,091 Risk Management Loss Reserve 3,067,793 1,067,795 38,044 656,505 38,044 3,479,084 - 3,479,084 Information Technology 2,799,045 1,212,243 - 922,653 - 3,088,636 3,088,636 Central Services 761,381 107,550 99,074 769,858 769,858 Health Insurance Reserve 10,359,253 3,772,968 3,874,340 10,257,881 10,257,881 Dental Insurance Reserve 118,521 179,216 167,990 129,747 129,747 Agency Funds Project Green 204,408 37,380 - 12,427 229,360 229,360 - Sub -total Non - Budgetary Funds $ 25,790,593 $ 9,319,704 $ 38,044 $ 7,986,512 $ 38,044 $ 27,123,785 $ 6,280,489 $ 20,843,296 Total All Funds $ 174,559,949 $ 88,307,954 $ 16,462,105 $ 86,535,123 $ 16,460,715 $ 176,334,170 $ 74,478,532 $ 101,855,638 C7 City of Iowa City All Funds Revenues by Type FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 "2013 Actual 2014 Budget 2014 Revised 2014 Year -to -Date 2014 Variance Pct Of Revised Budgetary Fund Revenues Taxes Levied On Property Taxes $ 50,416,210 $ 50,307,189 $ 50,307,189 $ 25,900,151 $ (24,407,038) 51.5% Current Taxes 50,416,210 50,307,189 50,307,189 25,900,151 (24,407,038) 51.5% Delinquent Property Taxes 3,408 - - 15 $ 15 Delinquent Taxes 3,408 - - 15 15 TIF Revenues 376,192 453,937 453,937 221,363 $ (232,574) 48.8% TIF Revenues 376,192 453,937 453,937 221,363 (232,574) 48.8% Other City Taxes 11,216,538 5,007,347 5,007,347 1,409,128 $ (3,598,219) 28.1% Other City Taxes 11,216,538 5,007,347 5,007,347 1,409,128 (3,598,219) 28.1% Licenses, Permits, & Fees 2,610,554 2,193,586 2,193,586 1,164,041 $ (1,029$45) 53.1% General Use Permits 76,896 56,953 56,953 10,824 (46,129) 19.0% Food & Liq Licenses 109,068 98,363 98,363 50,733 (47,630) 51.6% Professional License 18,190 14,705 14,705 6,430 (8,275) 43.7% Franchise Fees 821,183 838,468 838,468 213,584 (624,884) 25.5% Misc Permits & Licenses 9,914 9,346 9,346 9,383 37 100.4% Const Per & Ins Fees 1,553,320 1,147,103 1,147,103 865,535 (281,568) 75.5% Misc Lic & Permits 21,983 28,648 28,648 7,551 (21,097) 26.4% Use Of Money And Property 7,480,003 6,953,361 6,953,361 881,152 $ (6,072,209) 12.7% Interest Revenues 1,038,213 991,785 991,785 293,948 (697,837) 29.6% Rents 1,095,260 1,082,248 1,082,248 545,930 (536,318) 50.4% Parking Meter Revenue 789,191 1,090,574 1,090,574 - (1,090,574) 0.0% Parking Lot Revenue 212,500 177,495 177,495 (49) (177,544) 0.0% Parking Ramp Revenue 4,136,730 3,486,614 3,486,614 - (3,486,614) 0.0% Misc Parking Revenue 132,547 58,385 58,385 - (58,385) 0.0% Royalties & Commissions 75,562 66,260 66,260 41,322 (24,938) 62.4% Intergovernmental 55,513,718 42,254,005 58,887,866 18,386,535 $ (40,501,331) 31.2% Fed Intergovnt Revenue 29,151,485 24,025,941 27,485,674 10,549,816 (16,935,858) 38.4% Property Tax Credits 57,528 24,888 24,888 40,830 15,942 164.1% Road Use Tax 6,508,053 6,548,683 6,548,683 3,035,642 (3,513,041) 46.4% State 28E Agreements 1,761,212 1,720,187 1,720,187 1,761,342 41,155 102.4% Operating Grants 76,694 61,033 61,033 90,067 29,034 147.6% Disaster Assistance 261,106 336,615 336,615 9,031 (327,584) 2.7% Other State Grants 16,699,487 8,577,956 21,346,430 2,393,558 (18,952,872) 11.2% Local 28E Agreements 998,153 958,702 1,364,356 506,250 (858,106) 37.1% Charges For Fees And Services 33,437,219 33,067,340 33,067,340 17,176,064 $ (15,891,276) 51.9% Building & Devlpmt 476,716 335,900 335,900 273,922 (61,978) 81.5% Police Services 269,023 136,460 136,460 68,477 (67,983) 50.2% Animal Care Services 8,873 12,000 12,000 4,390 (7,610) 36.6% Fire Services 10,529 10,651 10,651 2,738 (7,913) 25.7% Transit Fees 1,292,339 1,367,269 1,367,269 541,585 (825,684) 39.6% Culture & Recreation 728,364 795,572 795,572 301,042 (494,530) 37.8% Library Charges 57 304 304 17 (287) 5.6% Misc Charges For Services 57,590 176,753 176,753 25,484 (151,269) 14.4% Water Charges 8,679,147 8,232,517 8,232,517 3,663,693 (4,568,824) 44.5% Wastewater Charges 12,889,204 12,548,976 12,548,976 5,043,768 (7,505,208) 40.2% Refuse Charges 3,321,736 3,472,353 3,472,353 1,423,131 (2,049,222) 41.0% Landfill Charges 4,733,705 4,778,585 4,778,585 2,362,703 (2,415,882) 49.4% Stormwater Charges 969,936 1,200,000 1,200,000 394,596 (805,404) 32.9% Parking Charges - - - 3,070,519 3,070,519 Miscellaneous 5,831,390 6,080,826 6,080,826 2,412,247 $ (3,668,579) 39.7% Code Enforcement 451,306 461,664 461,664 190,784 (270,880) 41.3% Parking Fines 673,223 944,285 944,285 250,062 (694,223) 26.5% Library Fines & Fees 182,418 201,157 201,157 86,709 (114,448) 43.1% Contrib & Donations 941,615 895,816 895,816 117,796 (778,020) 13.1% Printed Materials 44,196 39,041 39,041 19,413 (19,628) 49.7% Animal Adoption 10,620 13,020 13,020 5,977 (7,044) 45.9% Misc Merchandise 62,252 215,220 215,220 40,086 (175,134) 18.6% Intra -City Charges 2,587,123 2,801,614 2,801,614 1,434,364 (1,367,250) 51.2% Other Misc Revenue 877,624 509,009 509,009 266,818 (242,191) 52.4% Special Assessments 1,013 - - 239 239 Other Financial Sources 6,776,937 20,623,015 28,062,128 11,437,553 $ (16,624,575) 40.8% Debt Sales 2,690,020 16,181,000 23,391,613 7,744,613 (15,647,000) 33.1% Sale Of Assets 1,997,537 2,081,450 2,309,950 1,110,000 (1,199,950) 48.1% City of Iowa City All Funds Revenues by Type FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 Total Revenues - All Funds $ 190,864,122 $ 184,283,810 $ 208,356,784 $ 88,307,954 $(120,048,830) 42.4% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 10 *2013 Actual 2014 Budget 2014 Revised 2014 Year -to -Date Pct Of 2014 Variance Revised Insurance Recoveries 7,520 - - - - Loans 2,081,860 2,360,565 2,360,565 2,582,940 222,375 109.4% Total Budgetary Revenues $ 173,662,169 $ 166,940,606 $ 191,013,580 $ 78,988,250 $(112,025,331) 41.4% Non - Budgetary Fund Revenues Internal Service Funds $ 17,201,953 $ 17,343,204 $ 17,343,204 $ 9,282,325 (8,060,879) 53.5% Agency Funds - - - 37,380 37,380 Total Non - Budgetary Revenues $ 17,201,953 $ 17,343,204 $ 17,343,204 $ 9,319,705 $ (8,023,499) 53.7% Total Revenues - All Funds $ 190,864,122 $ 184,283,810 $ 208,356,784 $ 88,307,954 $(120,048,830) 42.4% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 10 City of Iowa City All Funds Expenditures by State Program by Department FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 Budgetary Funds Expenditures Public Safety Finance Police Fire Housing and Inspection Service Public Works Parks Maintenance Public Works Health and Social Services Planning & Community Dvlpmnt Culture and Recreation Park and Rec Adminstration Recreation Parks Maintenance Cemetery Library Senior Center Community and Economic Dvlpmnt Parks Maintenance Planning & Community Dvlpmnt General Government City Council City Clerk City Attorney City Manager Finance Park and Rec Adminstration Debt Service Governmental Capital Projects Enterprise Funds City Manager Housing Authority Public Works Transportation Services Airport Enterprise Capital Projects Total Budgetary Expenditures Non - Budgetary Funds Expenditures Internal Service Finance Public Works Agency Park and Rec Adminstration Total Non - Budgetary Expenditures "2013 2014 2014 2014 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date 2014 Variance Revised $ 20,323,145 $ 21,784,088 $ 22,112,143 $ 10,291,353 $ 11,820,790 46.5% 307,130 295,638 295,638 120,711 174,927 40.8% 11,443,807 12,246,285 12,552,064 5,750,060 6,802,004 45.8% 7,093,507 7,636,665 7,658,941 3,670,871 3,988,070 47.9% 1,478,701 1,605,500 1,605,500 749,711 855,789 46.7% 6,823,672 7,483,926 7,483,926 2,668,496 4,815,430 35.7% 485,736 499,594 499,594 275,048 224,546 55.1% 6,337,936 6,984,332 6,984,332 2,393,448 4,590,884 34.3% 292,997 265,175 265,175 131,743 133,432 49.7% 292,997 265,175 265,175 131,743 133,432 49.7% 12,215,333 13,127,803 13,163,822 6,040,465 7,123,357 45.9% 313,910 326,866 326,866 167,335 159,531 51.2% 2,870,350 2,971,479 2,971,479 1,323,335 1,648,144 44.5% 2,182,062 2,443,275 2,451,225 1,226,182 1,225,043 50.0% 315,647 381,597 381,597 156,921 224,676 41.1% 5,692,845 6,101,961 6,111,961 2,789,282 3,322,679 45.6% 840,519 902,625 920,694 377,410 543,284 41.0% 10,020,900 10,700,289 10,792,932 5,833,212 4,959,720 54.0% 517,093 617,821 617,821 278,524 339,297 45.1% 9,448,771 10,031,815 10,124,458 5,533,318 4,591,140 54.7% 7,077,894 7,789,941 7,789,941 4,024,363 3,765,578 51.7% 103,002 122,207 122,207 60,885 61,322 49.8% 489,167 540,549 540,549 277,032 263,517 51.3% 654,800 690,133 690,133 318,701 371,432 46.2% 1,468,756 1,684,393 1,684,393 721,145 963,248 42.8% 3,878,221 4,254,110 4,254,110 2,466,216 1,787,894 58.0% 483,947 498,549 498,549 180,384 318,165 36.2% 19,170,582 13,496,700 13,496,700 966,978 12,529,722 7.2% 12,756,766 9,561,151 47,441,001 9,444,378 37,996,623 19.9% 50,471,073 45,981,637 46,620,482 24,655,561 21,964,921 52.9% 662,800 814,020 814,020 377,845 436,175 46.4% 7,644,701 7,922,279 7,922,279 3,789,551 4,132,728 47.8% 31,916,361 26,654,302 26,742,791 14,795,211 11,947,580 55.3% 9,925,955 10,247,321 10,797,677 5,518,876 5,278,801 51.1% 321,256 343,715 343,715 174,078 169,637 50.6% - - 37,879,633 14,492,062 23,387,571 38.3% $139,152,363 $130,190,710 $ 207,045,755 $ 78,548,611 $ 128,497,144 37.9% $ 15,829,967 $ 16,768,493 $ 16,768,493 $ 7,974,085 $ 8,794,408 47.6% 10,680,699 11,849,059 11,849,059 5,720,562 6,128,497 48.3% 5,149,268 4,919,434 4,919,434 2,253,523 2,665,911 45.8% 125,456 - - 12,427 (12,427) 125,456 - - 12,427 (12,427) $ 15,955,423 $ 16,768,493 $ 16,768,493 $ 7,986,512 $ 8,781,981 47.6% Total Expenditures -All Funds $155,107,786 $146,959,203 $223,814,248 $ 86,535,123 $ 137,279,125 38.7% 'FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 11 General Fund (1000 -1023) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 Expenditures by Department: City Council *2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct Of City Clerk Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised *Fund Balance, July 1 $ 46,294,999 $ 21,673,922 $ 44,499,871 $ 44,499,871 $ - 100.0% Revenues: 1,468,756 1,684,393 1,684,393 721,146 963,247 42.8% Taxes Levied On Property Taxes $ 27,937,740 $ 28,586,774 $ 28,586,774 $ 14,719,163 $ (13,867,611) 51.5% Delinquent Property Taxes 1,897 - - 8 8 45.8% Other City Taxes 10,536,839 4,656,733 4,393,378 1,225,402 (3,167,976) 27.9% Licenses And Permits 1,777,267 1,345,072 1,345,822 942,179 (403,643) 70.0% Use Of Money And Property 619,227 547,642 615,842 225,192 (390,650) 36.6% Intergovernmental 2,661,403 2,503,349 2,719,651 2,072,705 (646,946) 76.2% Charges For Fees And Services 1,469,628 1,362,974 1,362,974 628,383 (734,591) 46.1% Miscellaneous 4,484,836 4,678,524 4,714,897 2,132,527 (2,582,370) 45.2% Other Financial Sources 1,451,159 4,133,450 4,733,450 3,358,703 (1,374,747) 71.0% Sub -Total Revenues 50,939,996 47,814,518 48,472,788 25,304,262 (23,168,526) 52.2% Transfers In: Operating Transfers In 9,339,373 9,610,582 11,266,640 4,531,122 (6,735,518) 40.2% Sub -Total Transfers In 9,339,373 9,610,582 11,266,640 4,531,122 (6,735,518) 40.2% Total Revenues & Transfers In $ 60,279,369 $ 57,425,100 $ 59,739,428 $ 29,835,384 $ (29,904,044) 49.9% Expenditures by Department: City Council $ 103,002 $ 122,207 $ 122,207 $ 60,885 $ 61,322 49.8% City Clerk 489,167 540,549 540,549 277,032 263,517 51.3% City Attorney 654,800 690,133 690,133 318,701 371,432 46.2% City Manager 1,468,756 1,684,393 1,684,393 721,146 963,247 42.8% Finance 3,568,749 3,964,053 3,964,053 2,150,791 1,813,262 54.3% Police 11,443,807 12,246,285 12,552,064 5,750,059 6,802,005 45.8% Fire 7,093,507 7,636,665 7,658,941 3,670,870 3,988,071 47.9% Housing and Inspection Service 1,478,701 1,605,500 1,605,500 749,711 855,789 46.7% Parks and Recreation 7,168,745 7,739,181 7,747,131 3,607,728 4,139,403 46.6% Library 5,692,845 6,101,961 6,111,961 2,789,281 3,322,680 45.6% Senior Center 840,519 902,625 920,694 377,410 543,284 41.0% Planning & Community Development 3,246,579 6,933,498 7,026,141 3,944,111 3,082,030 56.1% Public Works 1,156,093 1,314,873 1,314,873 581,770 733,103 44.2% Sub -Total Expenditures 44,405,272 51,481,923 51,938,640 24,999,495 26,939,145 48.1% Transfers Out: Capital Project Fund 8,269,562 2,724,000 27,930,448 80,356 27,850,092 0.3% GO Bond Abatement 266,650 140,000 140,000 - 140,000 0.0% General Levy 209,729 190,470 190,470 95,235 95,235 50.0% Transfers Out - Transit Fund 4,027,141 2,869,291 2,869,291 1,434,759 1,434,532 50.0% Misc Transfers Out 2,832,102 64,922 64,922 33,308 31,614 51.3% IntrFund Loan 1,954,435 - - - - 0.0% Sub -Total Transfers Out 17,559,619 5,988,683 31,195,131 1,643,658 29,551,473 5.3% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 61,964,891 $ 57,470,606 $ 83,133,771 $ 26,643,153 $ 56,490,618 32.0% *Fund Balance, Ending $ 44,609,478 $ 21,628,416 $ 21,105,528 $ 47,692,101 $ 26,586,574 226.0% Adjustments to Cash / Non -Cash Asset/Liab (90,477) - - - - Change in Accounting Method (19,130) - - - - *Adjusted Fund Balance, Ending 44,499,871 21,628,416 21,105,528 47,692,101 26,586,574 226.0% Restricted / Committed /Assigned 27,371,720 5,004,285 5,674,734 29,517,270 23,842,536 520.2% Unassigned Balance $ 17,147,281 $ 16,624,131 $ 15,430,794 $ 18,174,831 $ 2,744,038 117.8% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 12 Road Use Tax (2200) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 *Fund Balance, July 1 Revenues: Intergovernmental Other State Grants Road Use Tax Charges For Fees And Services Building & Devlpmt Miscellaneous Misc Merchandise Other Misc Revenue Sub -Total Revenues Transfers In: Transfers In -Govt Activities Sub -Total Transfers In Total Revenues & Transfers In Expenditures: Road Use Tax Administration Sidewalk Inspection Traffic Engineering Streets System Maintenance Sub -Total Expenditures Transfers Out: Capital Project Fund Misc Transfers Out Sub -Total Transfers Out Total Expenditures & Transfers Out *Fund Balance, Ending $ 2,480,008 $ 1,957,306 $ 3,322,673 $ 3,864,793 $ 542,120 116.3% Change in Accounting Method 361,578 - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending 2,841,586 1,957,306 3,322,673 3,864,793 542,120 116.3% Restricted / Committed /Assigned - - - - - Unassigned Balance $ 2,841,586 $ 1,957,306 $ 3,322,673 $ 3,864,793 $ 542,120 116.3% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 13 *2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised $ 1,632,521 $ 1,476,219 $ 2,841,586 $ 2,841,586 $ - 100.0% $ 17,790 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,508,053 6,548,683 6,548,683 3,035,642 (3,513,041) 46.4% 26,345 30,000 30,000 16,189 (13,811) 54.0% 3,179 2,188 2,188 2,041 (147) 93.3% 36,563 27,445 27,445 9,896 (17,549) 36.1% 6,591,930 6,608,316 6,608,316 3,063,769 (3,544,547) 46.4% 425,659 405,477 405,477 202,739 (202,739) 50.0% 425,659 405,477 405,477 202,739 (202,739) 50.0% $ 7,017,589 $ 7,013,793 $ 7,013,793 $ 3,266,507 $ (3,747,286) 46.6% $ 2,406 $ 77,489 $ 77,489 $ - $ 77,489 0.0% 45,412 82,712 82,712 33,733 48,979 40.8% 1,485,931 1,532,486 1,532,486 72,197 1,460,289 4.7% 3,557,587 3,976,772 3,976,772 1,705,747 2,271,025 42.9% 5,091,336 5,669,459 5,669,459 1,811,677 3,857,782 32.0% 790,627 565,000 565,000 282,500 282,500 50.0% 288,139 298,247 298,247 149,123 149,124 50.0% 1,078,766 863,247 863,247 431,623 431,624 50.0% $ 6,170,102 $ 6,532,706 $ 6,532,706 $ 2,243,300 $ 4,289,406 34.3% *Fund Balance, Ending $ 2,480,008 $ 1,957,306 $ 3,322,673 $ 3,864,793 $ 542,120 116.3% Change in Accounting Method 361,578 - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending 2,841,586 1,957,306 3,322,673 3,864,793 542,120 116.3% Restricted / Committed /Assigned - - - - - Unassigned Balance $ 2,841,586 $ 1,957,306 $ 3,322,673 $ 3,864,793 $ 542,120 116.3% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 13 Employee Benefits (2400) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised *Fund Balance, July 1 $ 1,773,124 $ 1,820,996 $ 1,791,164 $ 1,791,164 $ - 100.0% Revenues: 9,173,732 9,173,732 4,586,866 4,586,866 50.0% $ 9,747,519 $ 1,715,419 75,745 Taxes Levied On Property Taxes $ 9,262,912 $ 9,406,082 $ 9,406,082 $ 4,843,060 $(4,563,022) 51.5% Delinquent Property Taxes 633 - - 3 3 $ 1,806,806 Other City Taxes 163,781 161,976 161,976 80,799 (81,177) 49.9% Intergovernmental State 28E Agreements 256,655 205,261 205,261 281,548 76,287 137.2% Miscellaneous Other Misc Revenue 5,833 1,750 1,750 228 (1,522) 13.0% Total Revenues $ 9,689,814 $ 9,775,069 $ 9,775,069 $ 5,205,638 $(4,569,431) 53.3% Expenditures: General Government Employee Benefits $ 353,125 $ 331,627 $ 331,627 $ 330,082 $ 1,545 99.5% Public Safety Employee Benefits 263,477 254,068 254,068 106,055 148,013 41.7% Sub -Total Expenditures 616,602 585,695 585,695 436,137 149,558 74.5% Transfers Out: Empl Benefits Levy to Gen Fund & RUT Total Expenditures & Transfers Out *Fund Balance, Ending Change in Accounting Method Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending Restricted / Committed /Assigned Unassigned Balance 9,130,917 9,173,732 9,173,732 4,586,866 4,586,866 50.0% $ 9,747,519 $ 1,715,419 75,745 $ 9,759,427 $ 1,836,638 - $ 9,759,427 $ 1,806,806 - $ 5,023,003 $ 1,973,799 - $ 4,736,424 $ 166,993 - 51.5% 109.2% 1,791,164 1,836,638 1,806,806 1,973,799 166,993 109.2% $ 1,791,164 $ 1,836,638 $ 1,806,806 $ 1,973,799 $ 166,993 109.2% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 14 Debt Service (5000 - 5999) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 15 *2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised *Fund Balance, July 1 $ 10,146,622 $ 4,728,477 $ 5,820,298 $ 5,820,298 $ 100.0% Revenues: Taxes Levied On Property Taxes $ 12,937,886 $ 12,039,013 $ 12,039,013 $ 6,198,421 $ (5,840,592) 51.5% Delinquent Property Taxes 878 - - 4 4 Other City Taxes 227,873 188,638 188,638 102,927 (85,711) 54.6% Use Of Money And Property Interest Revenues 125,012 142,438 142,438 32,699 (109,739) 23.0% Miscellaneous Contrib & Donations 170,143 - - - - Other Financial Sources Loan Repayments 535,150 26,479 26,479 94,396 67,917 356.5% Debt Sales 75,931 - - - - Sub -Total Revenues 14,072,873 12,396,568 12,396,568 6,428,448 (5,968,120) 51.9% Transfers In Transfers -In from Other Funds 1,101,066 559,660 559,660 22,163 (537,498) 4.0% Sub -Total Transfers In 1,101,066 559,660 559,660 22,163 (537,498) 4.0% Total Revenues & Transfers In $ 15,173,939 $ 12,956,228 $ 12,956,228 $ 6,450,611 $ (6,505,617) 49.8% Expenditures: Financial Services & Charges $ 6,372 $ - $ - $ - $ - Issuance Costs - - - (64) 64 GO Bonds Principal 16,770,000 11,644,000 11,644,000 - 11,644,000 0.0% GO Bonds Interest 2,394,210 1,777,365 1,777,365 929,374 847,991 52.3% Revenue Bonds Interest - 75,335 75,335 37,668 37,668 50.0% Sub -Total Expenditures 19,170,582 13,496,700 13,496,700 966,978 12,529,722 7.2% Transfers Out: Misc Transfers Out 454,522 - - - - Sub -Total Transfers Out 454,522 - - - - Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 19,625,104 $ 13,496,700 $ 13,496,700 $ 966,978 $ 12,529,722 7.2% *Fund Balance, Ending $ 5,695,457 $ 4,188,005 $ 5,279,826 $ 11,303,930 $ 6,024,104 214.1% Change in Accounting Method 124,841 - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending $ 5,820,298 $ 4,188,005 $ 5,279,826 $ 11,303,930 $ 6,024,104 214.1% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 15 Parking (7100 - 7102) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 *2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised *Fund Balance, July 1 $ 6,747,310 $ 5,441,542 $ 6,428,562 $ 6,428,562 $ - 100.0% Revenues: Use Of Money And Property Interest Revenues Rents Parking Meter Revenue Parking Lot Revenue Parking Ramp Revenue Misc Parking Revenue Charges For Fees And Services Refuse Charges Parking Charges Miscellaneous Parking Fines Other Misc Revenue Sub -Total Revenues Transfers In: Miscellaneous 1) Bond Ordinance Transfer Sub -Total Transfers In Total Revenues & Transfers In Expenditures: Parking Administration On Street Operations Parking Lot Operations Parking Ramp Operations Parking Debt Service Sub -Total Expenditures $ 47,422 $ 39,247 $ 39,247 $ 8,063 $ (31,184) 20.54% 21,790 - - - - 46.9% 789,191 1,090,574 1,090,574 - (1,090,574) 0.00% 212,500 177,495 177,495 (49) (177,544) -0.03% 3,466,776 2,832,340 2,832,340 - (2,832,340) 0.00% 132,547 58,385 58,385 - (58,385) 0.00% 43 1,677 1,677 - (1,677) 0.00% - - - 2,606,090 2,606,090 (340,127) 253,183 474,181 474,181 80,566 (393,615) 16.99% 35,707 47,835 47,835 16,289 (31,546) 34.05% 4,959,159 4,721,734 4,721,734 2,710,959 (2,010,775) 57.4% - - - 1,390 1,390 844,150 840,350 840,350 420,175 (420,175) 50.0% 844,150 840,350 840,350 421,565 (418,785) 50.2% $ 5,803,309 $ 5,562,084 $ 5,562,084 $ 3,132,524 $ (2,429,560) 56.3% $ 946,746 $ 1,050,817 $ 1,050,817 $ 571,161 $ 479,656 54.4% 786,887 778,290 778,290 365,041 413,250 46.9% 2,738 - - 11 (11) 840,350 1,194,908 1,303,181 1,303,181 519,772 783,409 39.9% 838,975 838,300 838,300 688,125 150,175 82.1% 3,770,254 3,970,588 3,970,588 2,144,109 1,826,479 54.0% Transfers Out: Capital Improvement Projects 827,266 900,000 900,000 1,057,221 (157,221) 117.5% 1) Debt Service Transfers 844,150 840,350 840,350 420,175 420,175 50.0% Interfund Loan Repayment to Landfill 507,442 - - - - Sub -Total Transfers Out 2,178,858 1,740,350 1,740,350 1,477,396 262,954 84.9% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 5,949,112 $ 5,710,938 $ 5,710,938 $ 3,621,505 $ 2,089,433 63.4% *Fund Balance, Ending $ 6,601,507 $ 5,292,688 $ 6,279,708 $ 5,939,581 $ (340,127) 94.6% Change in Accounting Method (172,945) - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending 6,428,562 5,292,688 6,279,708 5,939,581 (340,127) 94.6% Restricted /Committed /Assigned 1,666,646 1,670,796 1,668,696 1,262,275 (406,421) 75.6% Unassigned Balance $ 4,761,916 $ 3,621,892 $ 4,611,012 $ 4,677,306 $ 66,294 101.4% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 1) Same Fund Transfers required by bond covenants 16 Transit (7150 - 7151) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 *2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised *Fund Balance, July 1 $ - $ 4,342,249 $ 3,859,793 $ 3,859,793 $ 100.0% Revenues: Use Of Money And Property Interest Revenues $ 11,353 $ - $ - $ 436 $ 436 Rents 124,530 134,558 134,558 62,623 (71,935) 46.5% Parking Ramp Revenue 652,919 632,274 632,274 - (632,274) 0.0% Intergovernmental Fed Intergovnt Rev 1,043,854 1,025,000 1,025,000 - (1,025,000) 0.0% Other State Grants 644,416 483,175 754,675 300,164 (454,511) 39.8% Local 28E Agreements 120,413 32,844 32,844 17,396 (15,448) 53.0% Charges For Fees And Services Transit Fees 1,292,339 1,365,129 1,365,129 541,585 (823,544) 39.7% Misc Charges For Svc 3,016 75,000 75,000 215 (74,785) 0.3% Refuse Charges 1,541 2,518 2,518 906 (1,612) 36.0% Parking Charges - - - 449,089 449,089 Miscellaneous Misc Merchandise 1,361 1,112 1,112 153 (959) 13.7% Other Misc Revenue 736 5,994 5,994 430 (5,564) 7.2% Printed Materials - - - 45 45 Other Financial Sources Sale of Assets - - - 8,890 8,890 Sub -Total Revenues 3,896,478 3,757,604 4,029,104 1,381,931 (2,647,173) 34.3% Transfers In: Transfers In - General Fund 4,027,141 - - - - Transfer In - Transit Property Tax Levy 2,754,939 2,869,291 2,869,291 1,434,645 (1,434,646) 50.0% Transfer In - Operations to Impry Resn 1,892,475 - - - - Sub -Total Transfers In 8,674,555 2,869,291 2,869,291 1,434,645 (1,434,646) 50.0% Total Revenues & Transfers In $ 12,571,033 $ 6,626,895 $ 6,898,395 $ 2,816,576 $ (4,081,819) 40.8% Expenditures: Mass Transit Admin $ 345,618 $ 484,357 $ 484,357 $ 234,628 $ 249,729 48.4% Mass Transit Operations 4,112,979 4,160,431 4,710,787 2,364,617 2,346,170 50.2% Fleet Maintenance 1,539,029 1,482,792 1,482,792 708,283 774,509 47.8% Court St Transportation Center 158,075 149,153 149,153 67,238 81,915 45.1% Sub -Total Expenditures 6,155,701 6,276,733 6,827,089 3,374,767 3,452,322 49.4% Transfers Out: Capital Project Fund 152,622 270,000 270,000 270,000 - 100.0% InterFund Loan Repay Landfill 54,229 55,324 55,324 27,662 27,662 50.0% Reserve Transfers Out 1,892,475 - - - - Sub -Total Transfers Out 2,099,326 325,324 325,324 297,662 27,662 91.5% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 8,255,027 $ 6,602,057 $ 7,152,413 $ 3,672,429 $ 3,479,984 51.3% *Fund Balance, Ending $ 4,316,006 $ 4,367,087 $ 3,605,775 $ 3,003,940 $ (601,835) 83.3% Change in Accounting Method (456,213) - - - Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending 3,859,793 4,367,087 3,605,775 3,003,940 (601,835) 83.3% Restricted / Committed /Assigned 1,752,887 1,892,476 1,892,476 1,752,887 (139,589) 92.6% Unassigned Balance $ 2,106,906 $ 2,474,611 $ 1,713,299 $ 1,251,053 $ (462,246) 73.0% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 17 Wastewater Treatment (7200 - 7201) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 *2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised *Fund Balance, July 1 $ 25,451,053 $ 21,810,937 $ 24,137,050 $ 24,137,050 $ - 100.0% Revenues: Licenses And Permits Misc Permits & Lic Use Of Money And Property Interest Revenues Royalties & Commiss Charges For Fees And Services Misc Charges For Svc Wastewater Charges Refuse Charges Miscellaneous Misc Merchandise Other Misc Revenue Sub -Total Revenues: Transfers In: Debt Sales 1) Bond Ordinance Trans Sub -Total Transfers In Total Revenues & Transfers In Expenditures: $ 6,604 $ 5,896 $ 5,896 $ 6,803 $ 907 115.4% 291,054 276,163 276,163 144,328 (131,835) 52.3% 274 271 271 128 (143) 47.3% 1,386 8,665 8,665 1,872 (6,793) 21.6% 12,889,204 12,548,976 12,548,976 5,043,768 (7,505,208) 40.2% - 3,421 3,421 123 (3,298) 3.6% 524 323 323 - (323) 0.0% 94,567 151,486 151,486 38,917 (112,569) 25.7% 13,283,613 12,995,201 12,995,201 5,235,938 (7,759,263) 40.3% - 7,000,000 4,581,311 4,736,638 7,000,000 4,570,067 - (7,000,000) 2,368,319 (2,201,748) 0.0% 51.8% 4,581,311 11,736,638 11,570,067 2,368,319 (9,201,748) 20.5% $ 17,864,924 $ 24,731,839 $ 24,565,268 $ 7,604,257 $(16,961,011) 31.0% Wastewater Administration $ 1,447,946 $ 1,682,245 $ 1,682,245 $ 916,008 $ 766,237 54.5% Wastewater Treatment Plant Ops 2,824,314 2,914,034 2,914,034 1,215,294 1,698,740 41.7% Wastewater Collection Systems 839,205 851,549 851,549 406,437 445,112 47.7% Wastewater Debt Service 6,411,888 4,724,176 4,724,176 3,985,363 738,814 84.4% Sub -Total Expenditures 11,523,353 10,172,004 10,172,004 6,523,102 3,648,902 64.1% Transfers Out: Capital Project Fund ') Debt Service Funding Operating Subsidy Sub -Total Transfers Out Total Expenditures & Transfers Out *Fund Balance, Ending Change in Accounting Method Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending Restricted / Committed /Assigned Unassigned Balance 4,584,177 11,240,000 11,240,000 2,816,360 8,423,640 25.1% 4,581,311 4,736,638 4,736,638 2,368,319 2,368,319 50.0% 23,784 - - - - 9,189,272 15,976,638 15,976,638 5,184,679 10,791,959 32.5% $ 20,712,625 $ 26,148,642 $ 26,148,642 $ 11,707,781 $ 14,440,861 44.8% $ 22,603,352 1,533,698 $ 20,394,134 - $ 22,553,676 - $ 20,033,526 - $ (2,520,150) - 88.8% 24,137,050 10,073,881 20,394,134 10,231,272 22,553,676 9,919,772 20,033,526 8,456,837 (2,520,150) (1,462,935) 88.8% 85.3% $ 14,063,169 $ 10,162,862 $ 12,633,904 $ 11,576,689 $ (1,057,215) 91.6% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 1) Same Fund Transfers required by bond covenants 18 Water (7300 - 7301) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 Expenditures: *2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised *Fund Balance, July 1 $ 17,950,722 $ 9,280,891 $ 11,873,237 $ 12,138,269 $ 265,032 102.2% Revenues: 2,137,662 2,213,695 959,909 Use Of Money And Property 43.4% Water Distribution System 1,248,942 1,361,944 1,374,400 Interest Revenues $ 144,268 $ 147,967 $ 147,967 $ 43,621 $ (104,346) 29.5% Rents 1,000 - - 250 250 665,284 Royalties & Commiss 913 846 846 349 (497) 41.2% Charges For Fees And Services 45,554 37.4% Water Debt Service 7,063,088 1,985,039 Water Charges 8,673,278 8,225,837 8,225,837 3,660,594 (4,565,243) 44.5% Miscellaneous 12,624,784 7,930,586 8,019,075 4,461,401 Printed Materials 12 - - 13 13 Misc Merchandise 12,350 5,135 5,135 3,388 (1,747) 66.0% Intra -City Charges 2,000 4,000 4,000 2,000 (2,000) 50.0% Other Misc Revenue 143,303 2,236 2,236 469 (1,767) 21.0% Other Financial Sources 1,005,158 1,005,159 50.0% GO Bond Abatement 360,4$7 Sale Of Assets 16,325 - - - - 322,163 Sub -Total Revenues 8,993,449 8,386,021 8,386,021 3,710,684 (4,675,337) 44.2% Transfers In: - Sub -Total Transfers Out 4,459,143 2,954,641 1) Bond Ordinance Trans 1,996,115 2,010,316 2,010,316 1,005,158 (1,005,159) 50.0% Misc Transfers In 16,878 - - - $ 5,831,027 Sub -Total Transfers In 2,012,993 2,010,316 2,010,316 1,005,158 (1,005,159) 50.0% Total Revenues & Transfers In $ 11,006,442 $ 10,396,337 $ 10,396,337 $ 4,715,841 $ (5,680,496) 45.4% Expenditures: Water Administration $ 1,209,463 $ 1,169,368 $ 1,169,368 $ 694,390 $ 474,978 59.4% Water Treatment Plant Ops 1,935,659 2,137,662 2,213,695 959,909 1,253,786 43.4% Water Distribution System 1,248,942 1,361,944 1,374,400 571,578 802,822 41.6% Water Customer Service 1,099,863 1,203,857 1,203,857 538,573 665,284 44.7% Water Public Relations 67,769 72,716 72,716 27,162 45,554 37.4% Water Debt Service 7,063,088 1,985,039 1,985,039 1,669,789 315,250 84.1% Sub -Total Expenditures 12,624,784 7,930,586 8,019,075 4,461,401 3,557,675 55.6% Transfers Out: Capital Project Fund 2,078,787 600,000 730,000 342,306 387,694 46.9% ') Debt Service Funding 1,996,115 2,010,316 2,010,316 1,005,158 1,005,159 50.0% GO Bond Abatement 360,4$7 344,325 344,325 22,163 322,163 6.4% Operating Subsidy 23,784 - - - - Sub -Total Transfers Out 4,459,143 2,954,641 3,084,641 1,369,626 1,715,015 44.4% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 17,083,927 $ 10,885,227 $ 11,103,716 $ 5,831,027 $ 5,272,689 52.5% *Fund Balance, Ending $ 11,873,237 $ 8,792,001 $ 11,165,858 $ 11,023,084 $ (142,774) 98.7% Change in Accounting Method 265,032 - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending 12,138,269 8,792,001 11,165,858 11,023,084 (142,774) 98.7% Restricted / Committed /Assigned 4,630,541 3,857,993 4,655,818 3,485,379 (1,170,439) 74.9% Unassigned Balance $ 7,507,728 $ 4,934,008 $ 6,510,040 $ 7,537,705 $ 1,027,665 115.8% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 1) Same Fund Transfers required by bond covenants 19 Refuse Collection (7400) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 *2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised *Fund Balance, July 1 $ 487,466 $ 276,823 $ 446,568 $ 719,427 $ 272,859 161.1% Revenues: $ 530,439 $ 518,582 $ 518,582 Licenses And Permits 292,251 $ 226,331 56.4% Refuse Operations General Use Permits $ 5,500 $ 4,150 $ 4,150 $ 1,475 $ (2,675) 35.5% Use Of Money And Property 729,210 44.8% Yard Waste Collection 276,988 Interest Revenues 1,131 661 661 34 (628) 5.1% Charges For Fees And Services Curbside Recycling Collection 658,437 705,323 Refuse Charges 2,936,096 2,980,104 2,980,104 1,184,653 (1,795,451) 39.8% Miscellaneous 195,400 194,153 194,153 Other Misc Revenue 2,309 - - 120 120 2,929,934 Total Revenues $ 2,945,036 $ 2,984,915 $ 2,984,915 $ 1,186,281 $ (1,798,634) 39.7% Expenditures: Refuse Administration $ 530,439 $ 518,582 $ 518,582 $ 292,251 $ 226,331 56.4% Refuse Operations 1,268,670 1,321,132 1,321,132 591,922 729,210 44.8% Yard Waste Collection 276,988 220,638 220,638 148,692 71,946 67.4% Curbside Recycling Collection 658,437 705,323 705,323 328,994 376,329 46.6% White Goods /Bulky Collection 195,400 194,153 194,153 76,829 117,324 39.6% Sub -Total Expenditures 2,929,934 2,959,828 2,959,828 1,438,688 1,521,140 48.6% Transfers Out: Capital Project Fund 56,000 - - - - Sub -Total Transfers Out 56,000 - - - Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 2,985,934 $ 2,959,828 $ 2,959,828 $ 1,438,688 $ 1,521,140 48.6% *Fund Balance, Ending $ 446,568 $ 301,910 $ 471,655 $ 467,020 $ (4,635) 99.0% Change in Accounting Method 272,859 - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending 719,427 301,910 471,655 467,020 (4,635) 99.0% Restricted / Committed /Assigned - - - - Unassigned Balance $ 719,427 $ 301,910 $ 471,655 $ 467,020 $ (4,635) 99.0% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 20 Landfill (7500 - 7504) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 *2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised *Fund Balance, July 1 $ 22,343,555 $ 21,613,866 $ 23,963,396 $ 24,616,339 $ 652,943 102.7% Revenues: Use Of Money And Property Interest Revenues Rents Intergovernmental Other State Grants Charges For Fees And Services Refuse Charges Landfill Charges Miscellaneous Contrib & Donations Misc Merchandise Other Misc Revenue Sub -Total Revenues Transfer In: Interfund Loans Misc Transfers In Sub -Total Transfers In Total Revenues & Transfers In Expenditures: Landfill Administration Landfill Operations Solid Waste Surcharge Reserve Sub -Total Expenditures Transfers Out: Capital Project Funding Misc Transfers Out Sub -Total Transfers Out Total Expenditures & Transfers Out *Fund Balance, Ending Change in Accounting Method Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending Restricted / Committed /Assigned Unassigned Balance $ 114,833 $ 170,245 $ 170,245 $ 6,967 $ (163,278) 4.1 %' 25,311 40,711 40,711 12,860 (27,851) 31.6% (210,815) - - 11,104 11,104 59.6% 383,760 484,454 484,454 236,975 (247,479) 48.9% 4,733,705 4,778,585 4,778,585 2,362,703 (2,415,882) 49.4% 400 - - 713 713 40.6% 19,376 23,105 23,105 20,219 (2,886) 87.5% 29,133 24,738 24,738 14,610 (10,128) 59.1% 5,095,703 5,521,838 5,521,838 2,666,151 (2,855,687) 48.3% 2,795,347 86,193 246,143 - - 500,000 43,096 250,000 (203,047) (250,000) 17.5% 50.0% 2,795,347 86,193 746,143 293,096 (453,047) 39.3% $ 7,891,050 $ 5,608,031 $ 6,267,981 $ 2,959,247 $ (3,308,734) 47.2% $ 647,597 $ 894,623 $ 894,623 $ 444,847 $ 449,776 49.7% 3,402,742 3,799,291 3,799,291 1,605,424 2,193,867 42.3% 92,546 98,770 98,770 62,138 36,632 62.9% 4,142,885 4,792,684 4,792,684 2,112,409 2,680,275 44.1% 2,128,324 - 500,000 - 500,000 500,000 1,090,922 250,000 (590,922) 250,000 218.2% 50.0% 2,128,324 500,000 1,000,000 1,340,922 (340,922) 134.1% $ 6,271,209 $ 5,292,684 $ 5,792,684 $ 3,453,331 $ 2,339,353 59.6% $ 23,963,396 652,943 $ 21,929,213 - $ 24,438,693 - $ 24,122,255 - $ (316,438) - 98.7% 24,616,339 18,499,309 21,929,213 17,363,266 24,438,693 19,762,728 24,122,255 22,223,302 (316,438) 2,460,574 98.7% 112.5% $ 6,117,030 $ 4,565,947 $ 4,675,965 $ 1,898,953 $ (2,777,012) 40.6% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 21 Housing Authority (7900 - 7922) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 *2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised *Fund Balance, July 1 $ 6,793,632 $ 7,234,633 $ 6,447,868 $ 6,115,885 $ (331,983) 94.9% Revenues: $ 7,055,349 $ 7,514,936 $ 7,514,936 $ Use Of Money And Property $ 4,144,565 44.8% Public Housing Program 589,352 Interest Revenues $ 23,025 $ 16,492 $ 16,492 $ (462) $ (16,954) -2.8% Rents 203,286 208,001 208,001 96,689 (111,312) 46.5% Royalties & Commissions 28,516 20,545 20,545 12,919 (7,626) 62.9% Intergovernmental Fed Intergovnt Rev 6,985,739 7,684,859 7,787,215 3,253,881 (4,533,334) 41.8% Local 28E Agreements - 1,350 1,350 - (1,350) 0.0% Miscellaneous 18,000 18,414 18,414 9,207 Other Misc Revenue 16,338 35,879 35,879 10,237 (25,642) 28.5% Other Financial Sources 25,575 12,788 12,788 50.0% Loan Repayments 83,002 46,086 46,086 14,980 (31,106) 32.5% Sale Of Assets 980 - - 70,000 70,000 7,691,437 Sub -Total Revenues 7,340,886 8,013,212 8,115,568 3,458,244 (4,657,324) 42.6% Misc Transfers In 4,787 - - 1,158 1,158 6,597,168 Sub -Total Transfers In 4,787 - - 1,158 1,158 Total Revenues & Transfers In $ 7,345,673 $ 8,013,212 $ 8,115,568 $ 3,459,402 $ (4,656,166) 42.6% Expenditures: Voucher Program $ 7,055,349 $ 7,514,936 $ 7,514,936 $ 3,370,371 $ 4,144,565 44.8% Public Housing Program 589,352 407,343 407,343 419,180 (11,837) 102.9% Sub -Total Expenditures 7,644,701 7,922,279 7,922,279 3,789,551 4,132,728 47.8% Transfers Out: Capital Project Fund 3,736 - - 29,750 (29,750) Operating Subsidy - PILOT Gen Fund 18,000 18,414 18,414 9,207 9,207 50.0% Misc Transfers Out - Director Reimb 25,000 25,575 25,575 12,788 12,788 50.0% Sub -Total Transfers Out 46,736 43,989 43,989 51,745 (7,756) 117.6% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 7,691,437 $ 7,966,268 $ 7,966,268 $ 3,841,296 $ 4,124,972 48.2% *Fund Balance, Ending $ 6,447,868 $ 7,281,577 $ 6,597,168 $ 5,733,992 $ (863,176) 86.9% Change in Accounting Method (331,983) - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending 6,115,885 7,281,577 6,597,168 5,733,992 (863,176) 86.9% Restricted / Committed /Assigned 3,104,190 3,104,190 3,104,190 2,761,486 (342,704) 89.0% Unassigned Balance $ 3,011,695 $ 4,177,387 $ 3,492,978 $ 2,972,506 $ (520,472) 85.1% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 22 a 04-03 -14 IP5 MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 12, 2014 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Brock Grenis, Becky Soglin MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sue Dulek OTHERS PRESENT: None. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Grenis outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF JANUARY 8. 2014 MEETING MINUTES Baker moved to approve the minutes. Chrischilles seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS EXC14- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Hy -Vee Stores, Inc. for a pharmacy drive -thru for property located in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at 1109 & 1123 North Dodge Street. Walz presented an aerial view of the subject property. She said the property was rezoned in 2012 for the purpose of redevelopment, and at that time there was a conditional zoning agreement recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by City Council that requires a number of conditions including the appearance and construction design of the building, layout of the parking lot, landscaping and a number of other conditions. She said a special exception for the use had been approved by the Board of Adjustment in 2012, but the Board of Adjustment March 12, 2014 Page 2 of 7 term of a special exception had expired before Hy -Vee made progress on establishing the use.. For this reason, the applicant must go through the special exception process again. Walz said through the rezoning process and the previous application for special exceptions, the public has been made well aware of what is proposed for the site. Walz showed a general layout of the how the site will be developed and a visual of what the buildings and parking lot and landscaping would look like. Walz said the reasons drive - throughs must go through the special exception process is to evaluate whether there are enough drive - through lanes and stacking spaces for proposed use; whether there is safe vehicular circulation; whether the site is served by streets that can handle traffic that might be generated by drive - through use; whether the drive - through will interrupt pedestrian circulation on the site; whether a drive - through use would be detrimental to surrounding uses. Walz showed an example of a pharmacy drive - through that Hy -Vee at their Waterfront store. She said staff had requested that Hy -Vee add bollards on their plan for the subject site to ensure separation along the pedestrian walkway. She said use of these drive - throughs at Hy- Vees is fairly low intensity. A row of existing arbor vitae and the distance from the residential neighborhood to the north seemed sufficient for screening the drive - through from the neighborhood. She said staff is recommending approval of this drive - through with conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. • Installation of bollards between the sidewalk and drive - through lane; this aspect of the site plan to be approved by planning staff. Goeb asked about restrictions on the hours. Walz replied that staff chose not to place those restrictions on this drive - through due to the low intensity of use. Goeb had concerns about arbor vitae being adequate for screening. Walz said those in place are a dense row of growth and will be retained on the site in addition to the planting of other trees. Soglin asked what would happen if the existing trees died. Walz said they would have to be replaced with new screening that would have to be of sufficient height. Goeb asked about the configuration of St. Clements Street. Walz said when Hy -Vee develops the subject site they will build a new St. Clements Street right -of -way outside the parking lot. Grenis asked if this application was in any way different from the application the Board previously approved. Walz replied that it is the same. Walz clarified for Goeb the essence of a Main Street look that both Planning and Zoning and City Council required for this building, which includes street front windows and a higher quality of building. Goeb indicated that she did not believe the site, with its large parking area, to be characteristic of a Main Street look. The Board agreed to hear staff reports on both special exception items before proceeding with the findings and the motions. Board of Adjustment March 12, 2014 Page 3 of 7 EXC14- 00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Hy -Vee Stores, Inc. for a drive - through associated with a coffee shop located in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at 1109 & 1123 North Dodge Street. Walz explained that the proposed drive - through for coffee shop would be located in the southwest corner of the subject property. She said that because it is positioned across from a residential neighborhood, staff wanted to make sure that it would be well screened with a masonry wall and landscape screening to screen views of the cars, the sound system will be directed away from the neighborhood, the hours of operation will be limited, and it is limited to coffee and beverage sales with food sales being incidental, so it will not be a fast food establishment. She said there is adequate stacking space at the order board and the pickup window, and the two pedestrian walks will be well marked, and Hy -Vee is required to put a median and pedestrian connection to the sidewalk on Dodge Street. Baker asked why staff recommended restricting the hours if they are confident that the coffee shop is screened and buffered from the neighborhood. Walz said staff believed that because the drive - through was so close to a neighborhood, it was important to impose limits on the hours of operation. She indicated that the applicant could come back before the Board in the future if they feel those regulations are not needed. Goeb asked what form the incidental food will take. Walz said it will be only coffee related foods like pastries or similar items. Soglin asked if additional pedestrian markings could be required. Walz explained that what is a parking space on the current plans will actually be a raised, landscaped and curbed median. Soglin said she was unsure how this drive - through met the criteria for a "Main Street" look as there's a lane of traffic facing the neighborhood and a five foot wall only seventy feet from the nearest neighbor. Soglin asked how often you see two drive - throughs on the same property. Walz said that a property this large can accommodate two, and she sees does not see the low intensity of the pharmacy drive - through as comparable to a food - related drive - through. Soglin asked if the City keeps track of the number of drive - throughs. Walz said they don't and take each one on a case by case basis. Soglin said she sees the concept and reality of drive - throughs as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its goals for sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions. Walz said the Comprehensive Plan did not go into that level of detail in terms of sustainability. Grenis invited the applicant to speak John Brehm of the Hy -Vee Engineering Department briefly explained the history of the original application and how the length of their negotiations with Robert's Dairy delayed the project so they had to reapply. He said the site plan is the same as the original, the pharmacy drive - through would follow the pharmacy hours, and about one car per hour is the average use of a Hy -Vee pharmacy drive - through. He said everything they will be planting as screening will be evergreen so the site will be well screened even in winter. He said there are typically five or vehicles at one time in coffee shop drive - through lane. He explained that the wall will cut down Board of Adjustment March 12, 2014 Page 4 of 7 on headlight glare but people will still be able to see over the wall and won't act as a visible barrier. He said they will be attempting LEED certification on this project. Baker asked if the convenience store will be Hy -Vee owned. Brehm said it will be. Baker asked what the hours will be. Brehm replied that they don't know what the hours will be as each Hy- Vee sets its own hours, but a compromise was reached between the City, the neighborhood and Hy -Vee that the drive - through hours would be set somewhere between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Baker asked if there was illuminated signage on the west side. Brehm said there wasn't. Soglin asked for clarification on what will be sold. Brehm explained that the Caribou Coffee will sell the same types of items as a Starbucks and will be partitioned off from the rest of the convenience store so there can't be any "cross selling" out of the drive - through. Soglin asked if sandwiches were sold through Caribou Coffee. Brehm said he hasn't seen sandwiches at their Caribou facilities. Soglin asked if Brehm knew how many cars would be coming through the coffee shop drive - through in an hour's time. Brehm said at their busiest facility he's seen no more than six stacked at one time. Goeb stated that it is the coffee shop drive - through that will have the hours set between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and that the shop itself could be operated for 24 hours. Brehm said that was correct. Baker asked Brehm if he had experience with a coffee shop that stayed open 24 hours and the amount of traffic that would generate. Brehm said he didn't. Goeb asked if there was much public participation in the Commission and Board meetings that occurred the first time this application was approved. Walz said at the Planning and Zoning meeting issues arose about the design of the building that were ultimately resolved with Hy -Vee. Grenis opened public hearing. Baker move to approve EXC14- 00001, a pharmacy drive - through for property located in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at 1109 & 1123 North Dodge Street with the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. • Installation of bollards between the sidewalk and drive - through lane; this aspect of the site plan to be approved by planning staff. Chrischilles seconded. Goeb said from what she's seen of pharmacy drive - throughs, they are very low usage, and it is a convenience for certain people. She thinks the disturbance from the traffic generated by this use will be negligible. Soglin concurred with Goeb's remarks. Baker said that regarding EXC14 -00001 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of March 12, 2014, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless Board of Adjustment March 12, 2014 Page 5 of 7 amended or opposed by another Board member he recommended that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as their findings for the acceptance of this proposal. Grenis said he concurs with Baker's findings and as there is no opposition from the neighbors, that shows him that the project is supported by the neighbors. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0. Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. Soglin said for EXC14 -00002 she still had concerns about what is going to be sold and isn't fully convinced that it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if sustainability aspects that are now part of the Plan are considered. Grenis said he didn't understand how what they are selling makes a difference. Soglin said that Brehm had been unable to clarify whether more meal items would be sold than beverage items. She said a concentration of meal items would bring it closer to the aspect of a fast -food restaurant that staff has indicated is not appropriate for this area. Chrischilles moved to approve EXC14- 00002, a special exception to allow a drive - through associated with a coffee shop in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted, including screening, location of pedestrian access points, and order board. • A pedestrian route will be provided from the North Dodge Street right -of -way in conformance with code standards: four feet in width and separated from the parking area by two curbed landscaped medians — each median four feet in width and planted with permanent groundcover. • Hours of operation are limited to 5 AM to 9 PM weekdays and 5 AM to 10 PM weekends. • The drive - through use is limited to an eating establishment whose principal product sales are coffee and other beverages, with food sales being incidental and accessory. Baker seconded. Baker said he doesn't have concerns with the products being sold but he wonders if staff is being unnecessarily cautious about the hours of operation based on traffic concerns. Baker said the Board could accept the motion as is but add that the applicant knows they can come back any time and request a change in that restriction or the Board could remove the restriction and then review it further along in time. Walz said the Board can impose a restriction or not. Walz clarified that the Board can't say that they might impose a restriction in the future. Dulek said that was correct, but the applicant can return at any time requesting a change. Baker said he has no problem removing the restriction regarding the hours of operation. Board of Adjustment March 12, 2014 Page 6 of 7 Chrischilles said he thinks it's a reasonable restriction seeing as how customers can still go inside to get coffee. Goeb added that the applicant has the right to ask for removal of the restriction. Grenis said the sales are primarily coffee shop and he's not too worried about a food item being a primary sale. He said he thinks the City has a good means to enforce that. Chrischilles asked if Soglin's concern was that every time the Board approves something that encourages the use of cars, they are going counter to the general principle of sustainability. Soglin responded that her concern had to do with a use that requires cars to idle. Walz said the Comprehensive Plan set a general direction toward sustainability, but it hasn't been explicit in that area. She stated that the City had completed a sustainability assessment but has yet to create a sustainability plan with specific goals. Goeb said she still has issues with the North District Plan to foster a Main Street look, and this plan looks nothing like that, no matter how many little bushes you put around it. She said she really has no issue with the drive - through but questions the overall redevelopment plan. Chrischilles said regarding EXC14 -00002 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of March 12, 2014, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommended that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as their findings for the acceptance of this proposal. Soglin said regarding EXC14 -00002 she has concerns about General Standard #7 regarding the proposed use being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended, and since the Comprehensive Plan now includes sustainability components she is concerned about this type of drive - through going against some of the goals related to that especially in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -1 (Soglin opposed). Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. OTHER: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: ADJOURNMENT: Grenis moved to adjourn. Soglin seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote. z W H D 3 0 Q LL O a m 0 O U W w W 0 z a z W H a r 0 N M r 0 N N L U � x E LU a> a<<Z u n u xow ' 0 w Y x x x x x M co x x x x x r r N x x X x ; x C x X X X X o x X x x X C) N x x x x co 0 x x x x ti N x x x x co X X x X X 0 x X X X X Mo x x x x Co x x o x x N X x r- LO w v LO 00 W O 0 O O o 0 N N N N N N T T T T T T `W r W z W ~ J W U N -� Y W O m = m CN7 d U vi U Z z y a a o W = z 0 N z m C9 C9 U N L U � x E LU a> a<<Z u n u xow ' 0 w Y 1 04 -03 -14 IP6 MINUTES PRELIMINARY IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, March 24, 2014 HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Scott McDonough, Andrea French, John Gay MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney), Brian Greer (Fire Marshall), Julie Tallman (Development Regulations Specialist acting as minute taker), Doug Boothroy (Director, Neighborhood and Development Services), Dave Campbell (Building Inspector) OTHERS PRESENT: Marty Christiansen and Dan Ouverson RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended by a unanimous vote (4 -0) to proceed with the adoption of the proposed amendments to the 2009 International Mechanical Code that reflect the changes to commercial hood exhaust systems. CALL TO ORDER: John Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM ELECTION OF OFFICERS: French moved to .elect John Roffman as chairperson of the Board of Appeals. McDonough seconded. VOTE: Roffman was elected as chairperson of the BOA by a 4 -0 unanimous vote. McDonough moved to elect Andrea French as vice -chair of the Board of Appeals. Gay seconded. VOTE: French was elected vice -chair of the BOA by a 4 -0 unanimous vote. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes from 11/4/2013 meeting were reviewed. McDonough moved to adopt the minutes. French seconded. The minutes were approved by a unanimous 4 -0 vote. Appeal of the decision of the Buildinq Official or Fire Chief —120 E. Burlington St. — The Mill Restaurant Appealing the decision of the building inspector's decision that raised seating was required to be accessible to persons with disabilities per 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Dulek suggested that the appellants' second point be argued first, because if the appellants are able to prove one of the exceptions (accessibility is technically infeasible, or disproportionate relative to overall cost of improvement) then Section 202 applies to the situation at hand, but this particular project is exempt. If the appellants fail to prove that one of the two exceptions apply, then discussion will return to appellants' first point, which is that the project is already in compliance with Section 202 and additional modifications are not required. Dulek felt, and the Board and appellants agreed, that beginning with the appellants' second point would be a more efficient use of time. 2 PRELIMINARY Appellant Christensen gave a history of the last ten years since he and Dan Ouverson purchased The Mill as a mission to save an Iowa City live music venue. After nine years of operation, they had paid off the debt one year ago. Christensen said investment in the building was difficult because the owner of the building had not been willing to sign a lease for the last six years; however, when their debt was paid off, Christensen and Ouverson decided to invest in the front and back sections of The Mill over the lull of winter break. The improvement projects included raising some of the booths in the back section to improve patrons' visibility of performers on stage. Seven booths were raised on two tiers of platforms: one tier was elevated 7" and the second was elevated 14 ". Christensen pointed out that the vast majority of seating was accessible, with the exception of three booths. Christensen said that building staff had prepared a plan showing how ramps could be incorporated into the design of the raised platforms and seating, so the test of "technically infeasible" could not be met; however, Christensen maintained that the ramps and their attendant handrails would have a negative impact on circulation for wait staff and patrons, and in any event where the venue needed to be exited in an emergency. Christensen also expressed his opinion that "circulation path" was not clearly defined in Section 202, and that there was a clear circulation path around the interior of the seating area except for three out of the seven booths. Hennes reviewed Section 202.4 "alterations" and the issue of disproportional ity. He explained that the figure $20,000 was provided by Ouverson, so appellant had to prove that the cost of the ramps and handrails would exceed 20 %, or $4,000. Hennes illustrated how building staff arrived at a means to provide an accessible route to both platforms without losing any of the seating that appellants had provided. Using the design showing full accessibility, then, appellant had to show whether cost of construction for the ramps exceeded $4,000. McDonough asked if making both raised platforms accessible would essentially provide an advantage to disabled persons. Christensen pointed out that preferred seating is usually closest to the stage, so persons with disabilities were already afforded preferred seating. Hennes returned the discussion to clarifying the definitions of technical infeasibility and disproportional ity, and their applicability to appellants' appeal. Technical feasibility is, by definition, when structural changes are necessary to achieve accessibility — for instance, removing walls. Structural changes were not required in this instance so technical feasibility was not a proven exception. Disproportional ity had not been proven because appellants had not provided proof that the ramps would cost more than $4,000. Hennes also pointed out that even if disproportional ity was proven, then up to $4,000 would still have to be spent on accessibility improvements as part of the project. Hennes then provided some background on the progression of the project and that, while a building permit was required for the construction of the elevated platforms, no building permit was secured and that staff found out about the project from a Facebook posting. Hennes also noted that when staff notified appellants that the project required a building permit, they promptly came to the building department and secured a building permit. Roffman inquired if there was any language in Section 202 that would suggest that a ramp is not required; i.e., that accessibility was not a required element of the design for 7 booths on two raised platforms. McDonough noted that this was the discussion that would follow after consideration of whether the project met one of two exceptions: technical infeasibility, or disproportionality. Dulek and Hennes posed the question to BOA: "Does the Board agree that the ramps are either technically infeasible or disproportionate in cost ?" PRELIMINARY McDonough's opinion was that at least a part of the ramp design prepared by building staff could be done for $4,000 or less, and that the design was technically feasible. Roffman noted that if this was a sports venue, the existing configuration would be acceptable. McDonough stated that similar to a sports arena, visibility is assured for disabled patrons because accessible seating is on the floor. Christensen said that "dining area" is not clearly defined in Section 202 and the code instructs us to refer to a collegiate dictionary definitions. Hennes stated that if this is a dining area and had we reviewed the plan prior to issuing a building permit, we would have concluded that the appellants' points 1, 2, and 3 are not applicable; i.e., that accessibility to the raised platforms would be required. Christensen replied that the entire room is a dining area, and it is largely accessible. McDonough asked why the raised seating was not considered a mezzanine, and exempt from accessibility. Hennes replied that the platforms aren't mezzanines because there is not 7 feet between them and the next lowest floor. Dulek explained that Section 202 refers specifically to "all dining areas — including raised or sunken seating and. outdoor dining areas." Gay asked if the two platforms weren't really one raised dining area and if access to one of the two platforms would comply with Section 202. Roffman wondered if that was acceptable to the appellants. By providing ramp access to one of two platforms, they would not have the degree of construction from handrails and ramps that they would have from providing access to both platforms. Christensen wondered what exactly constituted a "dining area. He believed the entire 24 x 24 room is one dining area and it is 80% accessible. French stated that by code, an "altered area" such as the new raised platforms, carried with it specific requirements in Section 202. Christensen stated that the back of The Mill is almost like a dinner theatre more than a dining area. It's used for events, parties, performances. If it was called an assembly use, there would be exceptions to accessibility for fixed seating. The booths are fixed seating. Hennes said that if Section 221 applies, the code issues become more specific and require preferential seating to be accessible. The raised platforms were installed to improve line of sight, and would be considered preferential seating. Christensen replied that the best line of sight is from the floor where it's fully accessible. (He then distributed an email that The Mill had received, expressing appreciation for the venue's accessibility from a person with disabilities). Roffman said that the crux of the matter seems to be whether this is a dining area and asked the Board members if they agreed. Mcdonough said yes. 0 PRELIMINARY Ouverson stated that the Mill is not your typical place — there's no other venue that would struggle with the obstacles we do because of space. Hennes explained that code cannot be enforced that way— also, that there was the option of enforcing the IBC in place of the ADAAG, and IBC does give us interpretations on some of these issues. The IBC states a dining area is a "special occupancy." Section 1108.2.9 of the 2009 IBC explains the applicability of accessibility to dining areas — the commentary says "raised areas are required to be accessible" and therefore, accessible routes are required, especially in "special areas" (i.e., dining rooms). Roffman stated that they were back to appellants' point one, whether accessibility is required, and the conclusion appears to be that accessibility is, indeed, required. Hennes said that he thought Gay's solution seemed reasonable, providing access to raised seating on one of two adjacent platforms. MOTION: McDonough motioned that the elevated seating is required to be accessible and access to the 7 inch raised platform meets the accessibility requirement. Gay seconded. VOTE: The motion passed 4 -0. Christensen thanked staff for their consideration, and noted his gratitude for the opportunity to participate in a democratic process. Amendments to 2009 Mechanical Code for Type I and II exhaust fans in commercial kitchens. Hennes distributed a memo regarding the history of concerns over noise emanating from grease exhaust fans when restaurants were adjacent to residential uses. He clarified that the new code language would apply to changes in use; changes in occupancy; and new construction. Roffman asked about buildings downtown where finding the route for a chase to exhaust through the roof could prove near impossible. Hennes said that alley access was allowed in the amendments. Boothroy explained that Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning & Zoning Commission asked staff to look into the issue, both from the perspective of using noise measurement to determine whether an exhaust was a nuisance, and from the perspective of regulating new construction in a way that future exhaust chases could be designed into buildings where tenancy might be open to a future restaurant. It was staff's conclusion that measuring decibels was less preferred; that controlling the impacts of commercial exhaust was better achieved by regulating location than by reacting to an exhaust fan after it's installed. Hennes stated that replacing existing mechanical exhaust for commercial equipment can utilize existing termination locations. There could be instances where newly - installed equipment can't utilize an existing termination, in which case they would have to terminate through the roof or into an alley. MOTION: McDonough moved that the proposed amendments to the 2009 International Mechanical Code be recommended to City Council. French seconded. VOTE: The motion was approved with a unanimous vote 4 -0. Neighborhood and Development Services Boothroy introduced the BOA to the new staff organization at City Hall, under the heading of Neighborhood and Development Services. He explained that the new structure does not affect staff support of the Board of Appeals and that support would still be provided by the building inspection staff. PRELIMINARY He clarified that Planning and Building staff would be combined under the heading of Development Services. There were no questions. OTHER BUSINESS: None. Roffman adjourned the meeting at 5:40. Chairperson, Board of Appeals Date x z 0 0 X 71, C-)o � o u ii M u u m � o Q � ' Q: Q � ';* 7 1 C O Z a Q C p �"� � N N Q O � ? Z CD m K CD 'F �3�m CD CD _ M M �3�10' a) m s�� c o :3 U) m CD a m N � N (4 N N co N W (4 W w co w W ����� 00000 m 'xO wcnrn-4-4 ;Mu m 3 Z0) w D Z 'a w 3 Z� w C- Z z= c w zE K21 w D z� � cc �� W CA Z CD w Z 0 W Z OI X X X < W Z p �CD � w C- zd A z CD A X X X X lu A CD 7 a 0 O a) m ., ;U CL m O C) —h o D Q "D N � O 0D W y N O 04 -03 -14 IN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MARCH 20 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Paula Swygard STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Doug Boothroy, Jann Ream, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Sally Scott, Tracey Achenbach RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 5 Site Development Standards, Article B, Sign Regulations to: 1) change the standards for projecting signs and to allow them in all commercial zones, 2) to allow canopy roof signs in all commercial zones and to clarify the size provisions and 3) to regulate temporary window signs and the placement of permanent window signs in required storefront windows. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. Freerks introduced Doug Boothroy, who as the recently appointed Director of the newly formed Department of Neighborhood and Development Services explained the recent, new organizational chart for the department. Freerks said that she noticed that the name planning is no longer in the departments name and asked for assurance that planning for long term goals as well as development and neighborhood services is still what the City has in mind. Boothroy explained that he has training and background in Planning. He served as Senior Planner for many years and worked closely with the Planning and Zoning Commission. He also served as the president of the Iowa Chapter of the American Planning Association. He stated that comprehensive planning and current planning will still have the same importance. He explained that Neighborhood Services will comprise many elements of planning. Eastham requested that the City provide more Planning staff. Boothroy said he understands Eastham's desire to get more staff to get the Comprehensive Plan working as soon as possible. Eastham asked if this reorganization implies anything in terms of changes in the City's approach to land use regulation and planning. Boothroy responded that Neighborhood and Development Services will be viewed by the City as a higher priority than it has been in the past in terms of Code enforcement but he sees no change in planning activities and subdivision reviews. He said he does hope that bringing the Planning and Building Inspection departments together will Planning and Zoning Commission March 20, 2014 Page 2 of 7 improve customer service with home builders and other groups that in the past have not been very positive about the City's planning efforts. Thomas said that the Sustainability Report of 2013 showed that in the category of Housing most of the measurable items were defined as unclassified, and he asked Boothroy if he sees that as something that needs addressed. Boothroy said he would be meeting with Brenda Nations, the Sustainability Coordinator, to discuss that. Thomas said he was happy to see in the restructuring that sustainability is more integrated and hopes that sustainability emphasis will be applied to the stability of the neighborhoods. Boothroy replied that is the City's goal. Eastham stated his hopes that this restructuring will be better for measuring outcomes for some of the more pressing planning and rezoning approaches the City is taking, particularly those that relate to achieving actual mixed income neighborhoods. Boothroy said the City is not tracking those factors right now, and they need to be thinking of how they can do that. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. Zoning Code Items Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 5 Site Development Standards, Article B, Sign Regulations to: 1) change the standards for projecting signs and to allow them in all commercial zones, 2) to allow canopy roof signs in all commercial zones and to clarify the size provisions and 3) to regulate temporary window signs and the placement of permanent window signs in required storefront windows. Miklo introduced Jann Ream, who reviews most sign permits. Ream showed pictures of examples of all the kinds of signs addressed in the proposed amendment, said that currently projecting signs are allowed on a very limited basis, are only allowed downtown, can be no more than six square feet and can't be illuminated. She said she has found that those restrictions have stifled good designs and creativity for these signs and thinks that with new technology, it's time to loosen some of the restrictions, allowing a maximum size of twelve square feet, placement in all commercial zones, and a bit more illumination. Ream said they are also proposing changing the limitation of the top of the sign to the top of the first floor to between the first and second floor for hotels, indoor theaters and bowling alleys Eastham asked if increasing the area of the sign increases the hazard of the sign in wind. Jann pointed out the very strict mounting requirements in the chart provided to Commission members and said that the sign has to go through strict design review, and the proposed size is not large enough to create hazards. Ream explained that more and more canopy signs are being incorporated into modern commercial development, and they make a very good sign option, with opportunities for good design. Ream returned to the projecting sign discussion to explain that they are proposing one very specific circumstance where a sign over twelve square feet would be allowed: a commercial building whose first story is a minimum of eighteen feet from grade to top of the first story would be allowed to increase to an eighteen square foot canopy or projecting sign to be more in proportion to that size of building. Planning and Zoning Commission March 20, 2014 Page 3 of 7 Ream said in the past temporary signs in windows were never regulated but she showed a photograph of an example on Gilbert Street that illustrates the need for new regulations. She said the regulations of these types of signs will only be applied to those areas where there are required storefront windows. Freerks asked for clarification. Ream said in the Central Business Service (CB -2), Central Business Support (CB -5) and Central Business (CB -10) zones and certain areas of Riverfront Crossings a certain percentage of the fagade is required to be in windows or doors, and where windows are required they must allow a view to the business inside. Ream said for all intents and purposes window clings are permanent, and the City will consider these as window signs, and if it's a required storefront window, these clings will only be allowed to take up twenty -five percent of the window. She said the current window signs will probably be grandfathered and not be required to be taken down. Thomas asked if the proposed amendment will control the size of the imagery on the signs. Ream said that with the First Amendment, the City can't control imagery or wording. Greenwood Hektoen said that when the event that the signs are featuring or advertising is over, the business will have to take them down, and the grandfathering would end at that point. Ream said once this is adopted she will need to reach out to the businesses and explain the new regulations and also work with the Downtown Association. Freerks opened public discussion. Freerks closed public discussion. Thomas moved to recommend approval of the three amendments to the Sign Ordinance as it applies to the staff report. Eastham seconded. Freerks said it's been several years since any major changes in sign regulations have been made. She said technology has changed, and the way people use technology has an effect on the community and how the buildings work with pedestrians and that's important to the items that have been outlined in the Code and the way people are required to build things. She said she thinks this will help address some of the issues that have arisen in the past few years. She said she supports some flexibility to allow some more creative sign usage and she thinks these amendments are a job well done. Eastham said he thinks the first two provisions do add opportunities that aren't in the Code now. He said he wonders about the intentions of the business owners in the example presented with putting signage in their windows. Ream said in her conversations with business owners about signage, a lot of it has to with economics, as the more traditional ways of advertising are expensive. She said she understands that, but this is community landscape and there should be a good balance and a way to maintain the storefronts and still allow business owners some flexibility to use the windows to advertise. Ream said that because these temporary signs aren't regulated at all, Planning and Zoning Commission March 20, 2014 Page 4 of 7 they are allowed a tremendous amount of signage covering the fagade that wouldn't be allowed under the Code for a permanent sign. Theobald asked if there is an incentive from the distributors. Ream said that these signs are provided at no charge to the business owner. Freerks said that with less window area covered, the interaction between the store and the pedestrians will be different but there will still be the opportunity to advertise. Eastham said the signage in some cases has gone well over the balance point. Thomas said you can see that it has spiraled out of control. He said he thinks a nice window display or being able to see well what's inside would be more likely to draw in pedestrians than would be these billboard type signs. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. Discussion of Riverfront Crossings District Form -Based Code and proposed regulation of noise levels. Miklo said while the Commission was reviewing the Form -Based Code there was a proposal to incorporate regulation of noise based on the Smart Code, which uses a decibel reading. He said after research, it was found that is not an easy task or the most effective way to address the concern raised about commercial vents, as there are variables that make measuring noise difficult. He said the City used to have decibel levels in the Noise Ordinance, and it was found to be difficult to regulate and enforce. Other methods are being investigated, such as requiring commercial to vent to the roof. Staff is recommending that the Commission does not propose the Smart Code but continue to explore these other alternatives. Eastham asked how the lighting standards are measured and enforced. Miklo said it's done through design review before the lights are installed, and if there are complaints after the lights are installed there is a meter that can measure whether it exceeds the foot candles, the measurement permitted by the Code. Miklo said he's not sure if there are the same kinds of industry standards for noise as there are for lighting. Freerks opened public discussion. Freerks closed public discussion. Theobald moved to reconsider the previous recommendation to include the Smart Code provisions regarding regulation of noise in the Riverfront Crossings Code. Eastham seconded. Eastham said he's comfortable with the method of addressing noise described by staff rather than including the smart code noise provisions in the Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code. He said the new approach particularly with staff looking at potential noise sources and regulating those in the design of the building and attempting to see if that's a feasible way of Planning and Zoning Commission March 20, 2014 Page 5 of 7 reducing noise that's coming from uses within the building where those uses are fairly standard and predictable. Theobald said she can see the merits of prevention, but she said there are things you don't expect that create noise. Thomas said he agrees that prevention is the way to go. He said he's concerned that there may be noise sources that still may pose a problem. Eastham said he thinks this would helpful for business owners, as some violations of Code would be expensive to fix. Freerks said she's concerned about current issues and making sure that something that might truly be a problem not become grandfathered and stay that way. She said she hopes there could be mediation or some sort of problem solving in those circumstances while of course looking toward the future to see how to change things in a positive way. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. Comprehensive Plan item Discussion of amending the Comprehensive Plan, Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, to include a section on affordable housing. Miklo reminded the Commission that at their February 6th meeting they agreed to meet again and discuss this in more detail. He said their packets contain information on how affordable housing is covered in both the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan, which cover the area also included in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. He said if the Commission decides to make changes in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, they will need to set a public hearing. Eastham asked if all provisions in the Central, Southwest, Riverfront Crossings and Downtown District Plans apply to wherever the plans overlap. Miklo replied that provisions would apply when they are consistent, and he doesn't believe there are any inconsistencies. Freerks opened public discussion. Sally Scott of 205 Black Springs Circle, Chair of Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity Board and member of Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition, said in the Downtown /Riverfront Crossings Plan the only reference to affordable housing is in the Gilbert Street district, which only comprises 92 units, out of a projected 2400 units. She said this Plan needs to include language that makes clear affordable housing is a priority for the district as a whole. She said as the development gets closer to becoming reality, she believes there needs to be a commitment to affordable housing not just as an option for the area but as a definite feature for the area. She said there will not be opportunity like this for years to come, and if affordable housing is not part of this large area of town, an important opportunity will have been missed. Scott said the Coalition wants affordable housing to be clarified in the Master Plan and supported. Tracey Achenbach of 727 Rundell Street, Executive Director of the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County said that her group will want to see more specific language about affordable housing. She said this is too great an opportunity not to take advantage of for the community. Planning and Zoning Commission March 20, 2014 Page 6 of 7 Freerks closed public discussion. Eastham said he would like to consider staff's revised language as a potential amendment to the Riverfront Crossings Plan, but he's not sure he wants to support an amendment to the Downtown District Plan, but he doesn't know if there's a way to separate them. Freerks said she completely supports putting something like this forward, but she's hesitant to put specifics with percentages and goals into the Master Plan. She said the Commission deals with framework and incentives at this stage, and she probably wouldn't support language that is very specific with percentages, as she considers that the realm of City Council. She said she thinks the whole county needs to take a look at this, and although the Commission can look at pieces, it needs to be taken as a whole, which is why going to City Council and having them go further for all quality of life issues and affordable housing is important. Thomas said he would support this going forward. He said in terms of potential language that staff has proposed he suggested that they strike "City- assisted projects ". Dyer asked if the staff proposed language is the limit of the language the Commission could approve. Miklo said that would only be the initial language, if the Commission agrees to move forward. A vote was taken and the Commission agreed 6 -0 to set a public hearing on April 3rd for this item on April 17tH Consideration of Meeting Minutes: February 3 and February 20, 2014 Eastham moved to approve the minutes of February 3, the minutes of the informal meeting of February 20, and with corrections, the minutes of the formal meeting of February 20. Theobald seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. Other Adjournment Eastham moved to adjourn. Thomas seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. z O V5 U) O U z Z N CD z E z J a 0 v w w w U z z w a 0 N ch r 0 N z W w O Mx x x x x O x x Nxxxxxxx; x x x x x x x N NXXXXXXXII �DXxxxxx Nxxxxxxx; CD U) xxxxx ; xx NXXXXXXX; QXXDXX ; XX LO c �xxxOXXX M x x x x x ; x x co �w(Dwmr-- 5— XXXXXXXII — — z LOWLOM Z- T- 00 �xx0xxxx; W_ J w J o0xx0xxx; J Z r 2 0 d _ �_ oXXO -Xx J x to J � Dxxxxxx I- LU N F- 0 --.XXXXXXXII 0 G W LL U) I- I- � �XXXXOxx; �xxXXxxx; �wCOCOMI��oO�M WX00000000 W W w z zw40z J G �2m� Oa� a Q aa�Q U= Z Q m a w 2 W co W Q O W O ~ W za WU -20=-P z W W O z 0 N x x x x x x x N x x x x x x x M ;xxx0xxx T-XXXXXXx; 'XXXXxxx ° CD U) xxxxx ; xx QXXDXX ; XX M x x x x x ; x x co �w(Dwmr-- 5— — — z LOWLOM Z- waLn�LO0LO �-XOOOOOOOO 00 W W_ J w J J Z 2 0 d _ �_ J to J w � I- LU N F- Qi'Q�Q22W Z G W LL U) I- I- � c ate' a`) 'co U a) W = c C 0 N N .r aQQZn II II II II X O W i O W Y