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