The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-05-01 Info Packet��` CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org May 1, 2014 IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule MAY 6 WORK SESSION MEETING IP2 Work Session Agenda IP3 Excerpt of minutes from March 26 MPOJC Urbanized Area Policy Board: Single Use Plastic Bag Regulations IP4 Memo from Development Services Coordinator to City Manager: Outdoor Service Areas (for alcohol service) for commercial uses in residential zones IP5 Pending Work Session Topics IP6 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show MISCELLANEOUS IP7 Memo from Public Works Dir. to City Manager: Landfill Solid Waste Management Services Request for Proposal Update IP8 Email from City Manager to Iowa City School District Supt. Murley: Cluster 2 attendance area IP9 Copy of letter from Erick Wolfineyer to Iowa City Housing Rehab: Appreciation for CBG loan IP10 Copy of Press Release: Iowa City Retains Moody's Aaa Bond Rating IP11 Memo from Finance Dir.: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending March 31, 2014 IP12 Quarterly Investment Report (January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014 IP13 Copy of Mediacom letter to City Clerk: Channel Changes IP14 Article from City Manager: Council Passes Town / Gown Tax Deal IP15 Grant Wood Neighborhood Art Project IP16 Copy of Press Release: 83 Herkys hit streets of Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty to celebrate the return of Herky on Parade May 1, 2014 Information Packet (continued) 2 DRAFT MINUTES IP17 Citizens Police Review Board: April 21 IP18 Housing and Community Development Commission: April 17 IN Planning and Zoning Commission: April 17 IP20 Telecommunications Commission: March 24 IP1 1''' City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule ETL�r r*°%ro Subject to change May 1, 2014 CITY OF IOWA CITY Date Time Meeting Location 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 Monday, July 28, 2014 TBA Joint Meeting /Work Session Tiffin TBA 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 �. r? ip2 & t, CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa S2240 -1826 1319) 3S6 -SOHO (319) 3S6 -5009 FAX www.kgov.org City Council Work Session Agenda May 6, 2014 Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall 410 E. Washington Street • Questions from Council re Agenda Items • Continued discussion on the Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code [# 6a ] • Discuss plastic bag regulations (MPOJC) [IP# 3 of 5/1 Info Packet; and IP# 10, IP# 11 of 3/27 Info Packet] • Information Packet Discussion [April 17, 24, May 1 ] • Council Time ■ Meeting Schedule ■ Pending Work Session Topics [IP# 5 of 5/1 Info Packet] ■ Upcoming Community Events /Council Invitations IP3 MINUTES MPOJC URBANIZED AREA POLICY BOARD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014 — 4:30 PM IOWA CITY CITY HALL - HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Coralville: ICCSD: Iowa City: Johnson County: North Liberty: Tiffin: University Heights: University of Iowa: PRELIMINARY Jill Dodds Tuyet Dorau Terry Dickens, Susan Mims, Marian Karr, Jim Throgmorton, Kingsley Botchway, Michelle Payne John Etheredge, Rod Sullivan Gerry Kuhl, Terry Donahue Steve Berner Louise From David Ricketts STAFF PRESENT: John Yapp, Kent Ralston, Kris Ackerson, Brad Neumann, Darian Nagle -Gamm OTHERS PRESENT: 100 Grannies Becky Ross, Maureen Namsdorf 1. CALL TO ORDER Payne called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. a. Recognize alternates Marian Karr and John Etheredge were recognized as alternates for Rick Dobyns and Terrence Neuzil. Vice -Chair Michelle Payne conducted the meeting in place of Chair Tom Gill. b. Consider approval of meeting minutes Donahue moved to accept minutes; Throgmorton seconded. Motion was unanimously approved. c. Set next Board meeting dates, time and locations Meeting set for May 21 tentatively in Tiffin; if not then location will be in North Liberty. d. Introduce Doug Boothroy, Director of the newly- formed Iowa City Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Boothroy gave a brief overview of the reorganization of the departments of Planning, Neighborhood Services, Community Development and Housing and Inspection Services into the new department of Neighborhood and Development Services. Boothroy will be the new director of the Neighborhood and Development Services Department. He explained MPOJC will be housed under this new department. 2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA 3. ADMINISTRATION / a. Discuss options related to single -use plastic bag regulations i. Consider action Yapp updated the Board on current action with respect to single -use plastic bags and presented a packet attachment with information he received from a group representing the National Plastic Bag Association. Throgmorton questioned Yapp as to the background of the group representing the National Plastic Bag Association. Yapp said his research suggested the group was a lobbyist organization. Sullivan reported that Johnson County discussed and voted to abide by the course of action taken by Iowa City and Coralville as the majority of retailers and population is in these cities. Dodds reported that Coralville is opposed to a ban on plastic bags and is more interested in pursuing educational and recycling efforts to minimize single -use plastic bags. Kuhl reported that North Liberty will not pursue a ban at this time and is interested in pursuing educational and recycling efforts. From reported that University Heights is supportive of working towards the three points identified in the MPO memo. Payne said Iowa City will add the item to their work session agenda for further discussion. Becky Ross presented research on behalf of the 100 Grannies group outlining local businesses, student groups and nonprofits with current plastic bag policies. She proposed a Plastic Bag Free Day" for Johnson County modeled after the International Plastic Bag Free Day to promote awareness and education as to the environmental impact of plastic bags. Maureen Narnsdorf suggested exploring the option of retailers charging for plastic bags just like other merchandise. Kuhl suggested keeping this item on the May 21 MPOJC agenda for further discussion after Iowa City has discussed it as a Council. b. Discuss and consider approval of strategy for developing affordable housing information and recommendations from a regional perspective, with assistance from the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County Yapp updated the Board on his communications with Tracey Auchenbach about having the Housing Trust Fund assist in the development of affordable housing recommendations and strategies. Yapp outlined five strategy points to be considered: 1. Collect regional demographic and housing data, 2. Map the collected data, 3. Summarize the existing housing programs serving Johnson County, 4. Identify greatest needs not currently being met and 5. Recommend policies or programs to address the identified needs. Tracey Auchenbach is willing to assist staff in addressing these points. Throgmorton asked about data sources to be used and if maps and information will be categorized at a more specific level such as Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) r IP4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: April 29, 2014 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator7XV7 --' Re: Outdoor Service Areas (for alcohol service) for commercial uses in residential zones Introduction The City Council recently received a request from Amy Pretorius (see attached letter) to permit an Outdoor Service Area for alcohol service associated with a commercial restaurant in the Peninsula Development. The commercial use is permitted as part of a planned development in a residential zone. The City also received an inquiry from the new owners of a non - conforming restaurant in a residential zone at the corner of Iowa Ave t Dodge St (the old Lou Henri's); and we anticipate similar requests in the Riverfront Crossings District where commercial uses may be established in residential zones. History/Background Outdoor Service Areas (OSA's) are regulated in City Code Title 4 - Alcoholic Beverages. Currently, OSA's are only permitted in commercial zones. In some commercial zones (outside of the Central Business District and Community Commercial zones), OSA's must be at least 100 feet from a residential zone. The Zoning Code was amended in February, 2014 to allow OSA's in Community Commercial (CC -2) zone without the 100 -foot separation requirement. In the CC- 2 Zone, OSA's may be within 100 feet of a residential zone provided: • It is associated with a restaurant • It is closed by 10 PM, or when the kitchen closes (whichever is earlier) • It has an occupancy of no more than 30 • It has an approved lighting plan The 100 -foot separation requirement still applies in commercial zones outside of the Central Business District and CC -2 zones. Concerns with introducing OSA's into residential zones include nuisance issues associated with the alcohol service in a residential setting such as noise, behavior, lighting, litter and similar issues. Discussion One option is to make no change. Restaurants in residential zones, if they are permitted as part of a planned development or as an existing non - conforming use, may still operate. Alcohol service may still occur inside the restaurant — alcohol is just not permitted to be served or consumed outdoors. The other option is to amend Title 4: Alcoholic Beverages to allow Outdoor Service Areas in residential zones with conditions to mitigate potential nuisance issues. These conditions would SAMDUohMoutdoor service areas 2014.doc April 29, 2014 Page 2 likely include restrictions on amplified music or speech, hours of operation, fencing / screening, location (permitting the use only on the street facing side of the property), lighting, occupancy, etc. If this option is pursued, staff recommends GSA's in residential zones be permitted as a temporary use, requiring an annual renewal of the temporary use permit. The rationale behind the temporary use recommendation is twofold. First, OSA's are by their nature seasonal and lend themselves to a seasonal permitting process. Second, the temporary use gives the City more control over the use, more authority to revoke / restrict the temporary use if there are issues with operation of the OSA, and the opportunity to not renew the temporary use if there have been ongoing issues. Any decision by the City to approve or deny a temporary use is appealable to the Board of Adjustment, allowing for a public process. Recommendation If the City Council is interested in allowing Outdoor Service Areas in residential zones, staff recommends: • Pursuing an amendment to Title 4, Alcoholic Beverages to permit Outdoor Service Areas associated with restaurants in residential zones, with a requirement for a temporary use permit; and • Pursuing an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code to add Outdoor Service Areas associated with a restaurant as a permitted temporary use, with conditions to address location, size, design, and other operational standards (such as hours of operation, lighting, screening, amplified noise, etc.); and • Eliminate the 100 -foot separation requirement for OSA's in commercial zones. For OSA's within 100 feet of residential zones, apply the same standards as OSA's in residential zones. Staff would craft the amendments to apply not only to the property owners who have made recent inquiries, but also to future restaurant uses in /near residential zones such as the Riverfront Crossings District and other future mixed -use neighborhoods. Please let me know how to proceed, and /or if you would like to discuss. Cc: Doug Boothroy, Director, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager Deveintment Co.. LLC City Council members, My name Is Amy Pretorius of 670 Walker Circle In Iowa City. I also work for the Peninsula Development Company located at 1188 Foster Road in the Peninsula Neighborhood subdivision. Recently we have broken ground an our much anticipated "commercial" building. It was hoped that this building would be host to neighborhood amenities such as a restaurant, coffee shop, grocery and more and I am happy to say two individual proprietors have announced that a restaurant and coffee shop will be amongst the businesses going in. Our subdivision is unique in its mix use of properties, the flexibility to have commercial uses in a residential zone. The lot that will host the restaurant and coffee shop, lot 117, is classified as live/work and is surrounded by a majority of Rowhouses, Apartment Houses, and Multi -Unit Buildings. All of these properties also have the flexibility now and in the future to have commercial use on their ground floor (retail, personal service, offices, adult or child care, bed and breakfast, etc...). Per the code, lot 117 Is the only lot that would allow food and beverage service but only by Special Exception. I am happy to say on April especial exception was granted to both uses by the Board of Adjustments and partially because of the overwhelming community support. In regards to the restaurant, during this process it has come to our attention that the outdoor service of alcohol (OSA) was prohibited in residential zones by a code written in 1978. Because this restaurant (the size of Devotay) is small and somewhat Isolated its business plan requires an owner that is more Interested in the pride of owning his /her own business than making large sums of money. This restaurant Includes some fantastic outdoor seating that will be crucial to spring and summer sales. There is a brick courtyard where many residents have often talked about eating some food and drinking a glass of ovine on a beautiful day. it is our fear, my company and the owner, as well as the professional commercial real estate agent, that many patrons will simply decide to go elsewhere when finding out about the OSA. This has huge potential to hurt this small fragile business, before it has even started, which is why we understand there is a chance we may lose this fantastic owner and likely other potential owners aswell. When pursuing this issue with multiple departments in the City of Iowa City I came to the understanding the code stated OSA was prohibited with 100 feet of residential zones. What I ask is this; Can leniency be shown on lot 117, that is technically zoned residential but the property overlay and specific Peninsula code suggests the lot has commercial use? Can the residential units that exist within 100 feet of the proposed OSA area be given a chance to express their views on this issue? I suggest the restaurant be given a chance to prove its commitment to being neighborly and preserving the'peace in the community. Perhaps this can be done in the form of a 6 month trial period (starting with the first warm months following its completion). After the trial period the HOA could be given power to monitor the OSA associated with this business to encourage good behavior and conformity long after the trial period was over. 1188Fo-s-te-r-MaT a Iowa City, IA 52245 -1586 Phone: 319.887.1000 0 Fax:319.887.1005 www.ThePeninsu]&Ncighborhood.com IP5 LL i b t rA4 is d =401 -Tqc "W--_ CITY OF IOWA CITY PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS April 30, 2014 Pending Topics to be Scheduled 1. Review the National League of Cities Institute for Youth, Education and Families report entitled, "City Leadership to Promote Black Male Achievement" (originally distributed in the 5/16/2013 Information Packet) — To be considered in context with the City's annual equity /diversity report 2. Discuss recycling opportunities for multi - family housing (UISG letter in 10/1/2013 packet)- To be considered subsequent to Fiberight related decisions 3. Discuss merits of the consolidation of the City and County Assessor offices (May 2014) 4. Receive staff update on Gilbert/Highland/Kirkwood neighborhood concerns (summer 2014) 5. Discuss policy options for expanding mobile vending and/or food truck opportunities in the City 6. Discuss city related marijuana policies and potential legislative advocacy positions 7. Discuss community business attraction and anti - piracy compact �! CITY OF IOWA CITY GPs MEMORANDUM Date: May 1, 2014 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk 9-V Re: KXIC Radio Show KXIC offers a City show at 8:00 AM every Wednesday morning. In the past Council has volunteered for dates, and staff filled in as necessary. Please take a look at your calendars and come prepared to help fill in the schedule at your work session on May 6th: May 7 — Mims May 14 May 21 May 28 June 4 June 11 June 18 — Dobyns Future commitments: August 6 — Dobyns September 17 — Dobyns November 12 — Dobyns U:radioshowasking.doc r ®t CITY OF IOWA CITY IP7 RA N SUM �E�CJ Date: May 1, 2014 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Rick Fosse, Public Works Director Re: Landfill Solid Waste Management Services Request for Proposal Update In 2013 Iowa City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit and evaluate options for alternative means of managing solid waste at our landfill. This RFP was developed in response to a request by Fiberight for the Iowa City Landfill to enter into a long term agreement to provide municipal solid waste as a raw material for Fiberight's process to manufacture ethanol. Fiberight's request aligned with our objective to significantly reduce the volume of waste that is being landfilled and warranted further consideration. The RFP process was developed to evaluate Fiberight's proposal in a formal competitive environment where other competing technologies can also submit proposals. To date, we have completed a number of steps, including: • Issued a Request For Proposal • Conducted a pre - submittal meeting • Evaluated submittals • Designated Fiberight as the Preferred Contractor for negotiations • Began negotiations At this time Fiberight is breaking ground on their Marion and Blairstown facilities and plan to be operational in the first quarter of 2015. We expect that Fiberight will learn a great deal during the construction and commissioning of these facilities. This, in turn, can have an impact on the proposed Iowa City facility and operations. Based on this we suggested that the negotiation process for the Iowa City facility be adjusted to benefit from what they learn at the other sites. This will also help to minimize expenses related to negotiations by providing a more firm scope of contract. Fiberight agrees that this is a reasonable approach. We will continue to track Fiberight's progress at their Marion and Blairstown facilities and then resume active negotiations as they prepare to go into production. Marian Karr IP8 From: Tom Markus Sent: Wednesday, April 30,2014 4:37 PM To: 'Stephen Murley'; James Throgmorton; Matt Hayek Cc: Board; Administrators ESC; Steve Long; Council Subject: RE: Cluster 2 attendance area Steve, Thank you for the information regarding the attendance area process. As new versions of maps are developed and as public discussions move forward, I will continue to apprise you of the communication we are receiving from our residents. Similarly, if there is pertinent information from the City, I will share that with you as well. I am glad to hear you reinforce the ICCSD's commitment to strengthen neighborhood schools. This commitment is particularly meaningful to our City Council and many of our residents. I can assure you the City is employing a variety of strategies to bolster housing, infrastructure and recreation opportunities in all areas of the community. As you can imagine each neighborhood is unique and thus requires a different set of approaches. Our prior communication with you focused on a particular approach in specific neighborhoods simply because that was generally where we were hearing concerns from our residents. I am more than happy to talk to you about strategies in other neighborhoods that may be of interest to you. I am also happy to explain the City's role in providing public housing and how factors such as the age of housing stock and community zoning policies influence the housing market in particular geographic regions of the metropolitan area. Please know the City will gladly explore joint partnerships with the ICCSD that help us achieve our common neighborhood goals in a fiscally responsible manner. A meeting to discuss these opportunities in more detail is a good idea. As you point out, walkability is an important part of our neighborhood development and redevelopment efforts. Through past discussions with your staff we are keenly aware of your interest in this subject, particularly your desire to reduce transportation costs. While our motivations may be different for enhancing safe, walkable routes to schools, I trust we will continue to work cooperatively and build on our recent accomplishments. In the last year, the City completed an infill sidewalk project on Scott Blvd and relocated a city- funded crossing guard for the sole purpose of reducing ICCSD discretionary busing expenses. Similarly, we have recently taken the following steps in cooperation with your staff to aid safe walking routes to schools: • Installed a pedestrian flashing sign at Park/ Ferson • Installed electronic speed limit signs near Wood and Horn • Established a 20 mph zone near Mann School • Created crossing guard criteria warrants and formalized a process to request new crossing guards • Collected an electronic inventory of sidewalks and curb ramps • Created a neighborhood walkability map with variables determined cooperatively by City and ICCSD staff • Continued setting aside funds for annual sidewalk infill projects and curb ramp improvements As you can see we have been working with your staff on the very issues that you referenced in your email. Our staffs are also engaged in discussions on pedestrian accommodations to the new south and east elementary schools. Other upcoming City funded capital projects, such as the 1 st Avenue Grade separation project near South East Junior High, will eliminate or minimize barriers that will make schools more accessible for pedestrians. Please continue to keep an open dialogue with us on these issues. I did not realize the ICCSD had taken a position on inclusionary zoning, but is good to note your support of such policies. The Johnson County Metropolitan Planning Organization has recently discussed the potential for regional inclusionary zoning and affordable housing strategies. If the ICCSD has not done so I would strongly encourage you to voice your support for such policies to that entity and to other municipalities with overlapping jurisdictions. A coordinated regional approach to housing issues is the most effective way to ensure meaningful long -term results. Additionally, I am currently evaluating how a Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) may assist the region in achieving affordable housing goals. If the region can come together on this issue I think there will be tremendous benefits to the larger community. ICCSD leadership and support on this matter will undoubtedly help facilitate real progress toward shared regional goals. I look forward to discussing these topics with you in the near future, as well as continuing our discussions on 28e agreements for shared facilities and public infrastructure accommodations to new school sites. Thank you for your willingness to meet on these topics, as well as on the Facilities Master Plan and Attendance Area Development process. Please call me at your convenience to schedule. Sincerely, Tom Markus From: Stephen Murley [mailto:Murley .Stephen @iowacityschools.org] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 1:42 PM To: James Throgmorton; Matt Hayek; Tom Markus Cc: Board; Administrators ESC; Steve Long Subject: RE: Cluster 2 attendance area Good Afternoon Jim, Tom and Matt, Thank you for sharing the email below Jim. Please know that the process for generating the attendance area maps is an iterative process based on community input at the engagement meetings and through feedback that the District receives between those meetings. We will have a new version of the Cluster 2 map available later this week that will reflect the latest community input. I agree with your suggestion that the District and the City work strengthen neighborhood schools. I also concur with your assessment regarding the importance of "stabilizing and improving our older core neighborhoods." You mention Mann ES, Longfellow ES, Twain ES, and Lincoln ES. I hope that you would extend this focus to the Wood ES and Lucas ES neighborhoods also. I think that the municipal goal to "purchase, rehab, and sell homes throughout these neighborhoods" could go a long way toward alleviating the concentration of lower income families currently residing in these attendance areas. The impact of such a change would be enormous on the student population and the attendance zones for these schools, especially related to walkability. You cite the role of walkability in the success of the UniverCity program. This is also mentioned in the attached letter that the District received from the City last week. Given this emphasis on walkability I look forward to setting up a meeting to discuss how and where the City can add crossing guards, construct of overpasses/ underpasses, ensure completion of sidewalks, and add new traffic features to enhance the walkability of all school attendance zones in Iowa City. I appreciate the initiation of dialog on these issues and look forward to setting up a meeting with the City to establish clear opportunities where effective municipal strategic planning can begin to diversify housing stock throughout Iowa City through programs like the UniverCity program. Promoting these programs in other neighborhoods and the development of inclusionary zoning for future development could substantially change this discussion. I also look forward to expanding discussions about the role of the City in enhancing walkability for our students! Thanks again, Steve Stephen F. Murley Superintendent of Schools Iowa City Community School District 1725 North Dodge Street Iowa City, IA 52245 -9589 Phone: 319- 688 -1000 Fax: 319 - 688 -1009 Web: http: / /www.iowacityschools.org Community Engagement: http: / /www.engageiowacilyschools.org IOWA A C COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Chtldca�td . >E',rtirrr -bbd From: James Throgmorton [mailto.jthrogmo @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 4:23 PM To: Sally Hoelscher; Chris Lynch; Patti Fields; Brian Kirschling; Tuyet Dorau; Jeff McGinness; Marla Swesey Cc: Matt Hayek; Tom Markus; Stephen Murley Subject: Cluster 2 attendance area Dear Board members, I know you have a lot on your plate right now, so I'll be brief. Please revise the Cluster 2 attendance boundary pertaining to Longfellow. Here's why I urge you to do this. One of the most important and vexing challenges facing Iowa City is stabilizing and improving our older core neighborhoods. To a great extent, the long -term prosperity and sustainability of Iowa City as a whole depends on our ability to respond to that challenge successfully. As you know, those core neighborhoods are under tremendous pressure from student demand for rental housing close to the university. I'm glad students want to live in our city, and think it's important that they have access to good apartments in well- maintained buildings. But too much rental housing undermines our core neighborhoods. Buildings deteriorate through landlord disinvestment and renter abuse. As buildings deteriorate, so do entire blocks and entire neighborhoods. With these facts in mind, we on the City Council have committed to working with the District to ensure that our policies align. By ensuring the long term viability of the City's older neighborhoods as attractive places for families with children, Iowa City government can help ensure stable enrollment in the neighborhoods' elementary schools; and by investing in Mann's, Longfellow's, Twain's, and Lincoln's facilities, the ICCSD can help ensure the long term viability of Iowa City's core neighborhoods. Aligning our policies creates a virtuous circle. A key part of the City's effort has been to invest heavily in the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program. Inspired and aided by this program, young parents with school -age children have been buying homes in our core neighborhoods. Over the past four years, the City, the University of Iowa, and local lenders have invested approximately $11.6 million to purchase, rehab and sell homes throughout those neighborhoods. To date, 47 homes have been acquired, 35 have been rehabilitated and sold, and the remaining homes will be rehabilitated and sold over the summer. Seven additional homes will be acquired by August 1 to bring the total number of homes to 54 and the total investment to over $12.7 million. This program has been a fabulous success. It has been great for the neighborhoods, and it has been increasingly good for the core schools. It demonstrates that we are committed to playing our part in completing the virtuous circle. But certain particular features of your Cluster 2 attendance area strategy for complying with the Diversity Policy threaten to completely undermine what we've been doing. I refer especially to shifting from Longfellow to Mann students who live in the area bounded by Woodlawn, Van Buren, the Iowa Interstate RR tracks, and Summit. Fifteen (15) UniverCity homes are located within the area along S. Governor and S. Lucas between Burlington and the RR tracks. Iowa City government purchased, rehabbed and sold these 15 homes to low /moderate income families, many of which purchased the homes because they wanted their children to walk to Longfellow school, which is located only 2 -4 blocks from their homes. The total investment made in the 15 homes in the Governor /Lucas area has been over $3.4 million. I fully recognize that you and the administrative staff face a difficult challenge. As you may already know, I am a strong supporter of the Diversity Policy. I want you to achieve its goals efficiently and wisely. To undermine our core neighborhoods in the name of implementing the diversity policy would not be wise. With these factors in mind, I ask you to have the Administration revise its attendance zones to enable students living in the area bounded by Woodlawn, Van Buren, the Iowa Interstate RR tracks, and Summit to continue attending Longfellow. Please feel free to phone me at 621 -9391 if you would like to discuss any of this with me. And thank you for doing the best you can on behalf of the students and people of the entire district. Jim Throgmorton District C, Iowa City City Council Iowa City Housing Rehab 460 E Washington Iowa City, IA, 52240 T LIOVA 4 — �,r, t n" Ww�1�5 f VV-.^ M:j S U I WT� fl GaJ J WA� - Dear Iowa City Housing Rehab, � w 1 write with my deepest thanks and appreciation for the federal CBG loan that allowed me to install central air - conditioning in my house (JUL 2013). The summer of 2013 was particularly brutal (hot!), but regardless, the benefits include: • Increased property value • Improved internal /external aesthetics • Greatly improved efficiency • Effective, whole -house cooling • Lower monthly utility bills • Quiet operation • Safer (no seasonal installation of extremely heavy window unit) The program provided an affordable way for me to make this improvement. I was able to pay off the loan within less than a year. In 2011, with previous help from another Iowa City Housing Rehab program, I had all my doors and windows replaced. I feel great about being as energy efficient as I can. I am glad to be able to own (vs. rent) my home and make both quantitative and qualitative improvements. I would not be able to make them without this assistance. I cannot say enough good things about working with Iowa City Housing Rehab staff Jeff Vanatter and Liz Osborne. I don't know what I would've done without their assistance regarding my needed home - improvements. This house was all I could afford in the Iowa City market, but it was in rather rough shape when I bought it. Now I am so proud of it and get frequent compliments. My house was built in 1900, but people frequently ask if it's new. This is my first home purchase, which I didn't make until my mid -40's. It contributes to a significant part of my quality of life here in Iowa City. Thanks again!! Erick Wolfineyer 18201 Street Iowa City, IA 52240 From: City of Iowa City <webmaster @iowa - city.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 4:05 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: Iowa City Retains Moody's Aaa Bond Rating Contact: Dennis Bockenstedt Contact Phone: 319 - 356 -5053 Iowa City Retains Moody's Aaa Bond Rating Issued by: Communications Office Mailing List(s): General City News Originally Posted 4/29/2014 4:04:59 PM Moody's Investors Service, a global market rating agency, has notified the City of Iowa City that it has once again been awarded the highest possible Aaa credit rating, indicting a level of financial stability that is among the top in the State of Iowa and nation. The Moody's rating is used by banking authorities and investors to determine the potential risk of future bond sales or other lending or financial transactions with the City. The top rating represents the least amount of credit risk to investors. The Aaa ranking also means that Iowa City will benefit from lower interest rates on loans for municipal projects, which represents money- savings for the City and taxpayers. This is the 38th consecutive year that Iowa City has received the top ranking. Iowa City's rating comes at a time when numerous other communities across the country are experiencing downgrades in their bond ratings. Many of those downgrades are the result of a new rating methodology from Moody's that became effective in January 2014. According to a January 15, 2014 Moody's release, the new rating methodology "increases the weight in Moody's overall assessment on debt and pensions to 20% from 10 %, decreases the weight on economic factors to 30% from 40 %, and introduces a scorecard for US local governments to enhance the transparency of key rating considerations. "The change in methodology has led to the recent downgrade of bond ratings in several Iowa communities, leaving Iowa City and West Des Moines as the only two Aaa rated communities in the State of Iowa. "I am extremely proud that Moody's has reaffirmed Iowa City's Aaa bond rating. The City Council has demonstrated great leadership in setting policies, adopting budgets and making infrastructure and service - related decisions that both meet community needs and exhibit a commitment to the highest level of financial stewardship," said City Manager Tom Markus. "However, it is very clear that rapidly growing pension obligations and the impending effect of the 2013 property tax reform legislation will continue to increase the financial pressures on our community." In its report Moody's noted, "The City's financial operations are expected to remain sound going forward given management's commitment to controlling expenditure growth and maintaining healthy reserves." The report noted that the City's fiscal year 2013 adjusted pension liability is $117.5 million and that the annual contribution to pension plans now totals $4.9 million or 6.6 percent of operating expenditures. It further cautions that property tax reform will result in substantial revenue loss over the next ten years. In response to these issues, Moody's noted that the City has created an emergency reserve and is exploring revenue diversification strategies in addition to ongoing expenditure control efforts. In summing up the report, Finance Director Dennis Bockenstedt stated, "While we are extremely pleased with the Aaa bond rating, we understand that it is a snapshot in time and that the City must continue its diligence in conducting its financial affairs." View this article on the ICGov Web Site: htto: / /www.icaov.ora /ai3Ds /news / ?newslD =9600 This media release was sent to: marian- karrRiowa- citv.ora Do not reply directly to this e-mail! It is produced from an automated system, and is not monitored for replies. If you have a question or comment about this information, please contact the individual(s) listed in the release. • Unsubscribe or edit your subscription details. • Visit our jobs page for employment opportunities. MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE New Issue: Moody's assigns Aaa to Iowa City's (IA) $12M GO Bonds, Ser. 2014 Global Credit Research - 29 Apr 2014 Maintains Aaa on $60.6M of GOULT debt post -sale IOWA CITY (CITY OF) IA Cities (including Towns, Villages and Townships) IA Moody's Rating ISSUE RATING General Obligation Bonds, Series 2014 Aaa Sale Amount $11,980,000 Expected Sale Date 05/06/14 Rating Description General Obligation Moodys Outlook Opinion NEW YORK, April 29, 2014 — Moody's Investors Service has assigned a Aaa rating to the City of Iowa City's (IA) $12 million General Obligation Bonds Series 2014. Debt service on the bonds is secured by the city's general obligation unlimited tax ( GOULT) pledge. A portion of the proceeds of the bonds will be used to refund the 2016 and 2017 maturities of the city's Series 2006C and 2007A bonds for estimated net present value savings of $141,000. The remainder of the proceeds will be used to pay for various capital improvements. Concurrently, Moody's maintains the Aaa rating on the city's outstanding general obligation (GO) debt. Following the current sale, the city will have $60.6 million of GO bonds outstanding. SUMMARY RATING RATIONALE The Aaa rating reflects the city's stable tax base anchored by the State University of Iowa (Aa1 stable); history of strong financial operations and maintenance of healthy reserves in its General Fund and Internal Service Funds; moderate debt burden with rapid principal amortization; and moderate exposure to unfunded pension liabilities. STRENGTHS - Stable economy bolstered by the presence of the University of Iowa - Healthy financial operations with substantial additional liquidity in the city's Internal Service Funds CHALLENGES - Moderately sized tax base and lower socioeconomic indicators relative to similarly rated entities - Slightly above average debt and pension liabilities DETAILED CREDIT DISCUSSION STABLE TAX BASE IN EASTERN IOWA ANCHORED BY UNIVERSITY The city's tax base is expected to exhibit ongoing stability given sound of local economic conditions and strong institutional presence provided by the University of Iowa. Over the past five years, the city's full valuation has grown at a modest average annual rate of 2.0% to the current $4.8 billion. The city has also realized steady growth in population, growing by 9.1 %from 2000 to 2010 according to US Census reports. The University of Iowa is by far the city's largest employer with over 22,000 employees, and the university's hospital system employs an additional 6,800 people. Several of the city's other major employers are also in the education sector, including Pearson Educational Measurement (1700 employees) and ACT, Inc. (1400 employees). The city is currently undergoing substantial redevelopment following the 2008 flooding of the Iowa River. The University of Iowa is in the process of constructing new children's hospital ($357 million), auditorium ($176 million), school of music ($153 million), and art museum ($77 million), in addition to several other multi - million dollar projects. The city is also experiencing continued commercial and residential development. The total valuation of building permits in 2013 was $184.9 million, compared to $169.2 million in the prior year. Management expects the positive trend in building permit to continue in 2014. The city's unemployment rate in January 2014 was a low 3.0% compared to the state rate of 5.4% and national rate of 7.0% for the same time period. Median family income is estimated at 114% of the national figure. CITY EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN SOUND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS AND HEALTHY RESERVE BALANCES The city's financial operations are expected to remain sound going forward given management's commitment to controlling expenditure growth and maintaining healthy reserves. The city's General Fund balance policy is to maintain 25% of expenditures in unassigned reserve, and any excess above the 25% is to be used for one -time capital projects or to pre -pay debt. The city has closed each of the last five fiscal years with an operating surplus in the General Fund. Very large surpluses in fiscal years 2010 through 2013 have been inflated by the collection of sales tax revenue within the General Fund, with proceeds of the tax committed to flood remediation efforts. In May 2009, voters approved a I% local option sales tax that expired at the end of fiscal 2013. The city accumulated the tax revenue in the General Fund, and plans to transfer the reserved amount of over $20 million to the Capital Projects Fund in fiscal 2014. At the close of fiscal 2013, the city's unassigned General Fund balance, which better reflects the General Fund's true position given the accumulated sales tax reserves, was $17.1 million, or 28.5% of General Fund revenues. The city's General Fund reserves are lower than the median Aaa rated cities, but Iowa City also maintains significant additional liquidity in its Internal Service Funds. At the end of fiscal 2013, the Internal Service Funds had a total of $23.9 million in unrestricted net assets. The combined available balance of the city's General Fund and Internal Service Funds was $42.8 million, or a substantial 58.1 % of operating revenues (inclusive of the General Fund and Debt Service Fund). In fiscal 2014, management expects the unassigned General Fund balance to decrease to $15.0 million due to a $376,000 transfer for one -time capital projects and the creation of an emergency reserve to be initially funded at $1,656,000. The reserve is intended to cover potential revenue shortfalls, natural disaster contingency, pension and healthcare rate spikes, or other unforeseen financial emergencies. Management intends add to the emergency reserve each year there are surplus operations until it is funded at approximately $3.3 million. The city's fiscal 2015 budget, projects a General Fund surplus of $609,000, net of a $522,000 transfer to the Capital Projects Fund. Management reports that the surplus will likely be moved to the Emergency Reserve, which will be marked as restricted within the General Fund. Property taxes comprised 76% of General Fund operating revenues (not including committed sales tax receipts) in fiscal 2013. While the city levies the statutory maximum of $8.10 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, it retains the flexibility to implement a $0.27 emergency levy that would generate an estimated $841,000 of additional revenue. Additionally, the city does not fully utilize its trust and agency levy, and has the ability to generate an additional $1.8 million in revenue if fully utilized. The city could also increase its franchise fee on electric and gas utilities. The city has had a 1 % franchise fee in place since 2010, but could increase this fee as high as 5% in the future, which would generate an estimated $3.7 million in additional revenue. Like other local governments in Iowa, the city is subject to recent property tax reforms, which increases the rollback on commercial property and reclassify multi - residential property as residential rather than commercial. The state has pledged to back -fill the commercial rollback, which will be $1 million in fiscal 2015 and $2 million in fiscal 2016. The multi - residential change will begin in fiscal 2017 and will be gradually phased in. The city estimates it will lose $852,000 in fiscal 2017, growing each year until fiscal 2024 when the estimated annual loss is $3.4 million. Management is actively managing these revenue impacts by creating its emergency reserve as well as exploring potential revenue enhancements through a new local option sales tax or an increase in the utility franchise fees. MANAGEABLE DEBT BURDEN WITH RAPID PRINCIPAL AMORTIZATION The city's debt burden is expected to remain manageable given the city's rapid repayment of outstanding debt. The city's direct debt burden is slightly above average at 1.2% of full valuation. Amortization of outstanding debt is rapid, as 100% of post -sale general obligation principal is scheduled to be repaid within ten years. Additionally, the city frequently uses its surplus revenues to repay debt early. Debt service comprised an above average 29% of operating expenditures in fiscal 2013. Over the next four years, the city plans to issue between $8 million and $12 million in general obligation debt annually for capital improvements. The city may also issue additional parking revenue debt and TIF revenue debt in the near -term, but the projects have not been finalized. The city has no variable rate debt outstanding and is not a party to any interest rate swap agreements. MODERATE EXPOSURE TO UNFUNDED PENSION LIABILITIES The city's fiscal 2013 adjusted net pension liability (AN PL) is $117.5 million, equivalent to 2.44% of full valuation and 1.81 times operating revenue. The ANPL is based upon our allocation of the reported unfunded liabilities of two multi - employer cost - sharing pension plans to which the city contributes as well as our methodology of adjusting reported pension information. City employees are members of the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System (IPERS) and the Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa (MFPRSI), and the city's fiscal 2013 contribution to the two plans was $4.9 million, or 6.6% of operating expenditures. We allocated the reported unfunded liabilities of the plans to the city based on its share of total public employer contributions (less contributions of self - supporting essential enterprises). The city's share of reported unfunded pension liabilities allocated by Moody's is an estimated $42.9 million in fiscal 2013. WHAT COULD CHANGE THE RATING - DOWN - Deterioration of the tax base or weakening of socioeconomic indicators - Material declines in the city's financial reserves - Material growth in the city's debt burden KEY STATISTICS Tax Base Size - Fiscal 2013 Full Value: $4.8 billion Full Value Per Capita: $71,124 Socioeconomic Indices - MFI: 114.0% of the US Fiscal 2013 Available Operating Funds Balance (General Fund, Debt Service Fund, Internal Service Funds): 58.1% of revenues 5-Year Dollar Change in Available Operating Fund Balance as % of Revenues: 19.5% Fiscal 2013 Operating Funds Cash Balance (General Fund, Debt Service Fund, Internal Service Funds): 92.3% of revenues 5-Year Dollar Change in Cash Balance as % of Revenues: 47.0% Institutional Framework: Aa Operating History: 5 -Year Average of Operating Revenues / Operating Expenditures: 1.09x Net Direct Debt / Full Value: 1.2% Net Direct Debt / Operating Revenues: 0.82x 3-Year Average of Moody's Adjusted Net Pension Liability / Full Value: 2.40% 3 -Year Average of Moody's Adjusted Net Pension Liability / Operating Revenues: 1.66x PRINCIPAL METHODOLOGY The principal methodology used in this rating was US Local Government General Obligation Debt published in January 2014. Please see the Credit Policy page on www.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology. REGULATORY DISCLOSURES For ratings issued on a program, series or category/class of debt, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of the same series or category/class of debt or pursuant to a program for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody's rating practices. For ratings issued on a support provider, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support provider's credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt, in each case where the transaction structure and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab on the issuer /entity page for the respective issuer on www.moodys.com. Regulatory disclosures contained in this press release apply to the credit rating and, if applicable, the related rating outlook or rating review. Please see www.moodys.com for any updates on changes to the lead rating analyst and to the Moody's legal entity that has issued the rating. Please see the ratings tab on the issuer /entity page on www.moodys.com for additional regulatory disclosures for each credit rating. Analysts Cora Bruemmer Lead Analyst Public Finance Group Moody's Investors Service Rachel Cortez Additional Contact Public Finance Group Moody's Investors Service Contacts Journalists: (212) 553 -0376 Research Clients: (212) 553 -1653 Moody's Investors Service, Inc. 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 USA MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE © 2014 Moody's Corporation, Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Moody's Analytics, Inc. and /or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, " MOODY'S "). All rights reserved. CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. ( "MIS ") AND ITS AFFILIATES ARE MOODY'S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT -LIKE SECURITIES, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHED BY MOODY'S ( "MOODY'S PUBLICATION ") MAY INCLUDE MOODY'S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT -LIKE SECURITIES. MOODY'S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL, FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL -BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY'S ANALYTICS, INC. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. NEITHER CREDIT RATINGS NOR MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY'S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS AND PUBLISHES MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WALL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE. MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO CONSIDER MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS OR MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS IN MAKING ANY INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY'S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third -party sources. However, MOODY'S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing the Moody's Publications. To the extent permitted by law, MOODY'S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY'S. To the extent permitted by law, MOODY'S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY'S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. MIS, a wholly -owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Corporation ( "MCO "), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MIS have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MIS for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,500 to approximately $2,500,000. MCO and MIS also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of MIS's ratings and rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5 %, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading "Shareholder Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy." For Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY'S affiliate, Moody's Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and /or Moody's Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to "wholesale clients" within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY'S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a "wholesale client" and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to "retail clients" within the meaning of section 761 G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY'S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail clients. It would be dangerous for "retail clients" to make any investment decision based on MOODY'S credit rating. If in doubt you should contact your financial or other professional adviser. CITY O F IOWA CITY IP11 ,ft owl MEMORANDUM Date: May 1, 2014 To: City Manager, City Council From: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending March 31, 2014 Introduction This memorandum contains the quarterly financial analysis for the City's financial position as of March 31, 2014, March 31 is the three- quarters point or 75% mark of the fiscal year which starts July 1 and ends June 30. 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. 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 as of March 31 are as follows: Combined Statements All Funds Summary (page 8): The ending fund balance for the quarter ending March 31, 2014, was $178,296,690 compared to beginning fund balance of $174,494,520 for all funds. Of that amount, $76,987,157 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. That leaves of balance of $101,309,533 that is unassigned. Revenues by Type (page 9 -90): Year -to -date total revenues for all budgetary funds is $108,388,430 compared to revised budget of $191,013,580 and are 56.7% of the revised budget (found on the second page of this statement). Internal service fund revenues are at 75.9% of their revised budget. Individual funding source highlights are as follows: All Funds Budgetary Revenues by Type FY2014 Through the Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 $60,000,000 $55,000,000 j ... $50,000,000 �. *; 545,000,000 ':... _... _... $40,000,000 j .:..........._........ _..............-_.._... ...._......_........._...._...: .. - ...- .._..._..... _._..._ $35,000,000 �..._..._..._..... ....- _...._......_.._- .._...._..._.. _.._.... ... ..............._. ..._.......__..._...._ ..._...__.....__....._...._.... $30,000,000 _ ................._...... S .._.,....:..... $25,000,000 . a _ .................. ..... ..... _...,.- ._..- ...__............. .'..._. $20,000,000:Y- _._._.._.._..._.... _....__._._._._._.._..._..__._. :($ '' a 2024 Revised $15,000,000 � r�,,a _-.._..._..__.._........_... .....____........__..._......_. ..._. �..._.._........._.._. $1010001000 s $5,000,000 2014 Year-to-Date *es OC J er es a ¢es ��•' .may 3 cFe� By eery Q�u ¢ \awe° R`oqe aPrb ti m �allo Taxes Levied on Property Taxes: Year -to -date revenues are in line with the revised budget at 56.4% of the revised budget. The majority of the second half collection of property taxes will be received in April and May. TIF Revenues: Year -to -date revenues are in line with the revised budget at 52.4 %. Like property taxes, a major portion of the tax collections will be received in April and May. Other City Taxes: Year -to -date revenues are 37.5% 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 55.0% 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. Hotel /motel taxes for the year are up 16% over the same point last year. Utility franchise tax is also at 55.0% of the revised budget for the same reason. Utility franchise taxes are up 5% over the same point last year. Gas and electric franchise tax is at 49.6% of the revised budget, and is received primarily in November and May of each year. These taxes are meant to replace property taxes on utilities and are collected in a similar time frame. Licenses, Permits & Fees: Year -to -date revenues are 78.0% of the revised budget. The majority of the revenue is associated with franchise fees and construction permit and inspection fees, which are at 49.8% and 100.5 %, respectively. Cable franchise revenue received in the first quarter of FY2014 is accrued back to FY2013 based on the dates of cable service so 49.8% is an appropriate percentage for year -to -date for franchise fees. Revenue from construction permit and inspection fees already exceeds the budgeted revenue for the year. .......... _ Use, of- Money._and Property:... Year -to -date revenues. are at -20 0 %0 of the revised budget . Revenues include interest income, rents, royalties and commissions. The budget also 2 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 65.0% of the revised budget after excluding the parking revenue budgets in this category. Interest income. of $445,986 is 45.0% 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 55.4% 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 at 78.7% of the revised budget; however, it would be 68.7% 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. Other noteworthy highlights of service charges include: • Building and Development Fees are at 109.4% of the revised budget. FY2014 building and development fees are higher than budget due to a continued high level of construction activity. • Culture & Recreation charges are at 57.7% of the revised budget. This is due to seasonal trends which should correct itself with the spring and early summer program registrations. • Miscellaneous service charges are at 18.3% of the revised budget. This appears to be mostly due to transit advertising revenue being at only 2.9% of budget and building electronic permit processing fees (a new fee) being well below its original estimate. • Storm water charges for services are 56.0% 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. • All of the utility fund revenue comparisons (water, sewer, refuse) are impacted by the accrual of revenues back to the prior fiscal year. Thus, their revenue totals generally are presented below the 75% mark. • Miscellaneous: Year -to -date revenues are 62.8% of the revised budget. Parking fine revenue is at $381,894 or only 40.4% of the revised budget. This is due to the changes in the City's parking citation practices. Contributions & Donations budget not yet received relates to capital improvement projects cost - sharing and Library activities. • Other Financial Sources: Year -to -date revenues are 43.8% 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. Expenditures by State Program by Department (page 11): Year -to -date expenditures for all budgetary funds are at 51.3% 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 nat budgeted and do not fall under this_ restriction __The chart below presents the actual expenditures for each program area versus its appropriated level. 3 : $90,000,000 $80,000,000 $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 All Funds Budgetary Expenditures by Program March 31, 2014 � ro�S � y e9q �c�o\.0� , � ``i 6 Op Qp o c0 a a J,` r F J raO ara Gs r �er� C� Low n2014 Revised e 2014 Year -to -Date Major budget variances include Debt Service expenditures being at 7.2% of budget for the year. This is due to general obligation bond principal payments being due in June. Governmental Capital Project expenditures are at 25.4% of the revised budget. This percentage is expected to change as we get further into the 2014 construction season. This also applies to the Enterprise Funds which are at 60.6% primarily due to enterprise fund capital projects' activity being at only 43.0% of budget. As a note, Enterprise fund capital projects are budgeted with the governmental capital projects as part of the five -year capital improvement program, however, they are reported separately to the State with the enterprise fund operating activities instead. This sometimes creates some reporting challenges. Also noteworthy, is that 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 expenditures and revenue are included in the next FY2014 budget amendment that will have a public hearing on May 6. Major Funds Genera! Fund (page 12): Revenues: General Fund year -to -date revenues are at 61.9% 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 87.6% 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 82.5% 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. Licenses and Permits revenue is at 95.5% of budget due to a continued high level of construction activity. Overall, revenues . ......appear_to.be_an pace.to_meet_budget expectations, 4 Expenditures: General fund total expenditures are at 68.8% 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 73.9% due to accrual of the July revenue back to FY2013 and appear to be on track to meet the budget estimate. Expenditures: Year -to -date expenditures are at 58.8% of the revised budget. 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 this activity as of March 31. In addition, Traffic Engineering is at 24.6% 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 59.3 %, and for the entire fund expenditures would be at 68.1 % of budget rather than at 58.8% of budget. Employee Benefits Fund (page 14): Revenue: Year -to -date revenues are at 58.1 % of budget. Revenue from State 28E agreements are higher than the revised budgeted (137.2 %) due to the receipt from the University of Iowa for their contributions attributed to Fire operations which were higher than estimated. Overall, the fund's revenue totals are less than the 75% mark due to the timing of the property tax collections, which is the primary funding source for the Employee Benefits fund. Expenditures: Year -to -date expenditures are at 91.2% of budget. Overall expenditures are high due to General Government expenses. These expenses are at 103.1% of budget due to the annual loss reserve payment which has already occurred for this fund. This is also over budget due to the worker's compensation insurance payment which was higher than estimated in the original budget. Debt Service Fund (page 15): Revenues: Total year -to -date revenues are at 57.2% of budget. Of those revenues, loan repayments are at 535.3% 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. The overall revenue totals are closer to the percentage of property tax collections of 56.5 %, because property taxes are the primary funding source for the City's repayment of general obligation debt. 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 83.3% 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 $4,1 58,794, and the actual receipts are $3,753,483. The actual percentage versus budget for these revenues is 90.3d/o - much higher than the 75% mark. Parking revenue is higher so far this year partly due to timing of the annual permit parking payment from..the. University.of.lpwa..Increases were also made in FY2014 to the City's parking rate structure, and the ability for customers to pay with credit cards was also 5 added. These changes are also contributing to higher revenue. Parking fines, however, are at 28.64% of the revised budget due to the change in the City's parking citation practices. Expenses: Parking year -to -date expenditures are at 74.8% of budget. Parking Debt Service expenditures are at 100.0% 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 $285,156 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. Transit Fund (page 17): Revenues: Year -to -date transit revenues are at 59.5% 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 $532,833 or 84.3% of budget. Parking charges in Transit are from the Court Street Transportation Center. Transit fees revenue totals $1,034,479 which is 75.8% and appears to be on track to meet budget. Expenses: Year -to -date expenditures are at 74.8% and there are no major anomalies to report. Wastewater Fund (page 18): Revenues: Year -to -date revenues are at 62.9% of budget. This is primarily due to the, change in accounting system which accrues revenues back to the prior fiscal year. In addition to the accounting change, wastewater charges are also about 5% lower than FY2013 through the same period last year. Under the Transfers In section, the transfer in from the sale of sewer revenue bonds of $7,000,000 in FY2014 for the South Wastewater Treatment Plant project 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 82.4% of budget. Wastewater Debt Service is at 98.8% 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 67.8% of budget. There are no major anomalies to report for water fund revenues. The percentage versus budget is below 75% due to the change in accounting method. Expenses: Water expenditures year -to -date are at 74.7% 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 100.0% 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 64.4% of budget. Refuse Charges are at a lower percentage_of the revised due to accruals as discussed in the all funds .. _. revenue section. The furid's revenues are expected to end the year near budget. 6 Expenses: Year -to -date expenditures are at 71.1% of budget. Refuse Administration is at a higher percentage of budget (77.4 %) 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 (92.3 %), 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 67.4% of budget. Of note here is the Interest Revenues and Inter -fund Loans revenue (Transfers In), which are only at 11.3% and 26.3% 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. Expenses: Landfill expenditures for the year are at 63.4% of budget. Solid Waste Surcharge Reserve year -to -date is 76.1% 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, landfill water main extension, and Video Camera Upgrade projects. These are shown over budget by $1,300,922. These transfers are 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 64.2% of budget. Federal revenues are at 63.3% of the revised budget and represent about 96% of the Housing Authority revenue. Actual Interest Revenues are at 8.1% due to accruals that were made back to FY2013 and the poor interest rate environment. Sale of Assets has income of $70,000 from the sale of property that was not originally budgeted. Expenses: Housing Authority expenditures are at 77.5% of budget. The Voucher program year -to -date percentage is in -line with the revised budget. The Public Housing program budget, however, is at 135.7% 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 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. The public hearing for that budget amendment is expected to be May 6, The Finance Department believes in an open and transparent system, and 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 March 31, 2014 s Beginning Ending Unassigned Fund Fund Restricted, Fund Balance Transfers Transfers Balance Committed, Balance Fund 7/1/2013 Revenues In Expenditures Out 313112014 Assigned 3/31/2014 Budgetary Funds General Fund $ 44,499,871 $ 30,003,380 $ 6,782,273 $ $5,717,898 $ 2,522,681 $ 43,044,945 $ 27,722,303 $ 15,322,642 Special Revenue Funds CDBG & CDBG Rehab - 522,599 - 586,875 - (64,275) (54,275) HOME Program (7,695) 419,205 - 450,083 1,158 (39,731) (39,731) Road Use Tax 2,841,586 4,884,472 304,168 3,331,753 644,052 4,054,361 - 4,054,361 Other Shared Revenue (79,875) 849,910 - 758,414 11,621 11,621 Energy Efficiency and Conservation (23,395) 226 - (23,169) (23,169) UniverCity Neighborhood Partnershil (2,645) 2,098 (547) - - Metropolitan Planning Organization 130,144 233,414 257,473 486,207 - 134,824 134,824 Employee Benefits 1,791,164 5,674,435 - 534,173 6,880,299 51,127 61,127 Peninsula Apartments 71,949 50,176 - 36,992 - 85,132 5,561 79,571 TIF 2,129 237,666 113 10,125 229,783 - 229,783 $$MID 1,590 149,844 - 143,748 7,686 7,686 Debt Service 5,820,298 7,093,814 433,660 966,978 - 12,380,793 - 12,380,793 Fiduciary Funds Perpetual Care - Cemetery 115,191 52 115,243 115,243 Enterprise Funds Parking 6,428,561 3,933,685 630,262 2,968,327 1,815,418 6,208,764 1,625,349 4,583,415 Transit 3,859,793 2,395,922 2,151,968 5,105,443 249,089 3,053,152 1,752,500 1,300,652 Wastewater Treatment 24,137,050 8,178,443 3,552,478 8,378,933 6,731,493 20,757,545 8,957,968 11,799,577 Water 12,138,269 5,684,364 1,507,736 6,993,430 2,577,434 10,759,505 4,265,102 6,494,403 Refuse Collection 719,427 1,921,014 2,104,941 - 535,500 - 535,500 Landfill 24,616,339 3,724,434 314,645. 3,040,636 2,050,922 23,563,859 21,982,755 1,581,104 Airport 298,497 484,627 54,257 249,340 (109,437) 697,478 108,580 588,898 Stormwater Management 773,102 672,593 - 360,349 48,229 1,037,118 - 1,037,116 Cable Television 1,765,355 417,789 18,750 558,361 240,000 1,403,534 322,333 1,081,201 Housing Authority 6,115,885 5,207,354. 1,158 6,139,364 62,742 5,122,291 3,078,321 2,043,970 Capital Project Funds 12,756,766 25,649,012 7,903,476 28,340,374 200,374 17,768,506 - 17,768,506 Sub -total Budgetary Funds $ 148,769,356 $ 108,388,430 $ 23,914,455 $ 106,262,197 $ 23,914,456 $ 150,895,689 $ 69,936,014 $ 80,959,575 Non - Budgetary Funds Internal Service Funds Equipment $ 8,480,191 $ 4,509,788 $ - $ 3,356,686 $ - $ 9,633,292 $ 6,912,629 $ 2,720,664 Risk Management Loss Reserve 3,067,793 1,107,161 38,044 832,262 38,044 3,342,692 3,342,692 Information Technology 2,799,045 1,477,935 1,418,813 2,858,168 2,858,168 Central Services 761,381 158,121 133,795 785,708 785,708 Health Insurance Reserve 10,359,253 5,642,807 - 5,493,205 10,508,854 10,508,854 Dental Insurance Reserve 118,521 269,531 - 254,178 133,874 133,874 Agency Funds Project Green 136,979 40,649 41,114 - 138,514 138,514 Sub -total Non - Budgetary Funds $ 25,725,164 $ 13,205,992 $ 38,044 $ 11,530,064 $ 38,044 $ 27,401,101 $ 7,051,143 $ 20,349,959 Total All Funds $ 174,494,820 $ 121,694,422 $ 23,952,499 $ 117,792,251 $ 23,962,499 $ 178,296,690 $ 76,987,157 $ 101,309,633 s City of Iowa City All Funds Revenues by Type FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 `2013 2014 2014 Revised 2014 2014 Variance Pct Of Actual Budget Year -to -Date Revised Budgetary Fund Revenues Taxes Levied On Property Taxes $ 27,937,740 $ 50 307,189 $ 50,307,189 $ 28,396,750 $ (21,910,439) 56.4% Current Taxes 27,937,740 50,307,189 50,307,189 28,396,750 (21,910,439) 56.4% Delinquent Property Faxes 22,202,695 411 $ 411 Delinquent Taxes 22,202,695 - - 411 411 TIF Revenues 453,937 463,937 237,566 $ (216,271) 52.4% TIF Revenues 453,937 453,937 237,666 (216,271) 52.4% Other City Taxes 10,826,396 5,007,3471 5,007,347 1,875,549 $ (3,131,798) 37.6% Other City Taxes 10,826,395 5,007,347 5,007,347 1,875,549 (3,131,798) 37.5% Licenses, Permits, & Fees 1,T77,267 2,193,686 2,193,586 1,710,699 $ (482,887) 78,0 %_ General Use Permits 71,396 56,953 56,953 45,145 (11,808) 79.3 % Food & Liq Licenses 109,068 98,363 98,363 57,143 (41,220) 58.1% Professional License 18,190 14,705 14,705 8,570 (6,135) 58.3% Franchise Fees - 838,468 838,468 417,277 (421,191) 49.8% Misc Permits & Licenses 3,310 9,346 9,346 10,298 952 110.2% Const Per& Ins Fees 1,553,320 1,147,103 1,147,103 1,152,697 5,594 100.5% Misc Lic & Permits 21,983 28,648 28,648 19,569 (9,080) 68.3 % Use Of Money And Property 6,392,301 6,953,361 6,953,361 1,390,460 $ (5,562,901) 20.0% Interest Revenues _ 243,055 991,785 991,785 445,986 (545,799) 45.0% Rents 711,616 1,082,248 1,082,248 885,018 (187,230) 81.8% Parking Meter Revenue 21,790 1,090,574 1,090,574 - (1,090,574) 0.0% Parking Lot Revenue 789,191 177,495 177,495 (49) (177,544) 0.0% Parking Ramp Revenue 354,065 3,486,614 3,486,614 - (3,486,614) 0.0% Misc Parking Revenue 3,466,776 58,385 58,385 - (58,385) D.0% Royalties & Commissions 805,808 66,260 66,260 59,505 (6,755) 89.8% Intergovernmental 43775,082 42,264,005 58,887,866 32,641,205 $ (26,246,661) 55.4% Fed Intergovnt Revenue 19,411,572 24,025,941 27,485,674 14,905,630 (12,580,044) 54.2% Property Tax Credits 57,528 24,888 24,888 40,830 15,942 164.1% Road Use Tax 17,790 6,548,683 6,548,683 4,846,457 (1,702,227) 74.0% State 28E Agreements 1,504,557 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 16,714 (319,901) 5.0% Other State Grants 14,059,712 8,577,956 21,346,430 10,236,048 (11,110,382) 48.0% Local 28E Agreements 8,385,123 958,702 1,364,356 744,118 (620,238) 54.5% Charges For Fees And Services 16,097,859 33 067,340 33,067,340 26,030,093 $ (7,037,247) 78.7% Building & Devlpmt 450,371 335,900 335,900 367,382 31,482 109.4% Police Services 269,023 136,460. 136,460 74,392 (62,068) 54.5% Animal Care Services 8,873 12,000 12,000 6,030 (5,970) 50.3% Fire Services 10,529 10,651 10,651 7,233 (3,418) 67.9% Transit Fees - 1,367,269 1,367,269 1,034,479 (332,790) 75.7% Culture & Recreation 728,364 795,572 795,572 459.420 (336,152) 57.7% Library Charges 57 304 304 32 (273) 10.4% Misc Charges For Services 1,345,527 176,753 176,753 32,265 (144,488) 18.3% Water Charges 5,869 8,232,517 8,232,517 5,578,391 (2,654,126) 67.8% Wastewater Charges 1,386 12,548,976 12,548,976 7,961,243 (4,587,733) 63.4% Refuse Charges 12,892,516 3,472,353 3,472,353 2,200,638 (1,271,715) 63.4% Landfill Charges 383,760 4,778,585 4,778,585 3,331,014 (1,447,571) 69.7% Stormwater Charges - 1,200,000 1,200,000 671,978 (528,022) 56.0% Parking Charges 1,584 - - 4,305,596 4,305,596 Miscellaneous 5,202,427 6,080,826 6 080,826 3,817,636 $ (2,263,190) 62.8 % _ Code Enforcement 451,306 461,664 461,664 284,294 (177,370) 61.6% Parking Fines 420,040 944,285 944,285 381,894 (562,391) 40.4% Library Fines & Fees 182,418 201,157 201,157 131,946 (69,211) 65.6% Contrib & Donations 812,822 895,816 895,816 394,463 (501,353) 44.0% Printed Materials 44,184 39,041 39,041 34,701 (4,340) 88.9% Animal Adoption 10,620 13,020 13,020 7,672 (5,349) 58.9% Misc Merchandise 25,874 215,220 66,724 49,421 (17,303) 74.1% Intra -City Charges 2,597,473 2,801,614 2,801,614 2,136,804 (664,810) 76.3% Other Misc Revenue 656,677 509,009 657,505 396,174 (261,331) 60.3% Special Assessments 1,013 - - 269 269 Other Financial Sources 4,968,968 20,623,015 28,062,128 12,287,961 $ (15,774,167) 43.8% Debt Safes.. ........_ .... ........._....... _.......3, -149, 239 ......,........16;181; 000..........23 391'613 613. .._(15;6471000)_ 33.1%- Sale Of Assets 910,589 2,081,450 2,309,950 1,711,110 (598,840) 74.1% City of Iowa City All Funds Revenues by Type FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 10 *2013 Actual 2014 Budget 2014 Revised 2014 Year -to -Date 2014 Variance Pct Of Revised Insurance Recoveries 7,520 - - - - Loans 901,610 2,360,565 2,360,565 2,832,238 471,673 120.0% Total Budgetary Revenues $ 139,180,724 $ 166,940,606 $ 191,013,580 $ 108,388,430 $ (82,625,150) 56.7% Non - Budgetary Fund Revenues Internal Service Funds $ 617,301 $ 17,343,204 $ 17,343,204 $ 13,165,343 (4,177,861) 75.9% Agency Funds 40,649 40,649 Total Non - Budgetary Revenues $ 617,301 $ 17,343,204 $ 17,343,204 $ 13,205,992 $ (4,137,212) 76.1% Total Revenues -All Funds $139,798,025 $184,283,810 $ 208,356,784 $ 121,594,422 $ (86,762,362) 58.4% *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 March 31, 2014 Non - Budgetary Funds Expenditures *2013 Actual 2014 Budget 2014 Revised 2014 Year -to -Date 2014 Variance Pct of Revised Budgetary Funds Expenditures Internal Service $ 15,829,967 $ 16,768,493 $ 16,768,493 $ 11,488,939 $ 5,279,564 Public Safety $ 20,323,145 $ 21,784,088 $ 22,112,143 $ 15,393,293 $ 6,718,860 69.6% Finance 307,130 295,638 295,638 213,939 81,699 72.4% Police 11,443,807 12,246,285 12,552,064 8,774,660 3,777,404 69.9% Fire 7,093,507 7,636,665 7,658.941 5,305,515 2,353,426 69.3% Housing and Inspection Service 1,478,701 1,605,600 1,605,500 1,099,178 506,322 68.5% Public Works 6,823,672 7,483,926 7,483,926 4,549,193 2,934,733 60.8% Parks Maintenance 485,736 499,594 499,594 366,485 133,109 73.4% Public Works 6,337,936 6,984,332 6,984,332 4,182,708 2,801,624 59.9% Health and Social Services 292,997 266,176 265,176 194,969 70,206 73.6% Planning & Community Dvlpmnt 292,997 265,175 265,175 194,969 70,206 73.5% Culture and Recreation 12,215,333 13,127,803 13,163,822 8,770,364 4,393,458 66.6% Park and Rec Adminstration 313,910 326,866 326,866 248,093 78,773 75.9% Recreation 2,870,350 2,971,479 2,971,479 1,956,132 1,015,347 65.8% Parks Maintenance 2,182,062 2,443,275 2,451,225 1,682,803 768,422 68.7% Cemetery 315,647 381,597 381,597 220,526 161,071 57.8% Library 5,692,846 6,101,961 6,111,961 4,095,411 2,016,550 67.0% Senior Center 840,519 902,625 920,694 567,399 353,295 61.6% Community and Economic Dvipmnt 10,020,900 10,700,289 10,792,932 7,737,688 3,056,244 71.7% Housing and Inspection Service 55,036 50,653 60,653 36,992 13,661 73.0% Parks Maintenance 517,093 617,821 617,821 359,550 258,271 58.2% Planning & Community Dvlpmnt 9,448,771 10,031,81.5 10,124,458 7,341,146 2,783,312 72.5% General Government 7,077;894 7,789,941 7,789,941 5,410,215 2,379,727 69.6% City Council 103,002 122,207 122,207 88,585 33,622 72.5% City Clerk 489,167 540,549 540,549 385,835 154,714 71.4% City Attorney 654,800 690,133 690,133 474,670 215,463 68.8% City Manager 1,468,756 1,684,393 1,684,393 1,056,657 627,736 62.7% Finance 3,878,221 4,254,110 4,254,110 3,116,003 1,138,107 73.2% Park and Rec Adminstration 483,947 498,549 498,549 288,466 210,083 57.9% Debt Service 19,170,582 13,496,700 13,496,700 966,978 12,629,722 7.2% Governmental Capital Projects 21,665,402 18,864,211 47,441,001 12,058,809 35,382,192 25.4% Enterprise Funds 89,622,679 75,600,527 84,600,116 51,180,689 33,319,426 60.6% City Manager 662,800 814,020 814,020 558,361 255,659 68.6% Housing Authority 7,644,701 7,922,279 7,922,279 6,139,364 1,782,915 77.6% Public Works 31,916,361 26,654,302 26,742,791 19,878,289 6,864,502 74.3% Transportation Services 9,925,955 10,247,321 10,797,677 8,073,770 2,723,907 74.8% Airport 321,256 343,715 343,715 249,340. 94,375 72.5% Enterprise Capital Projects 39,151,506 29,518,890 37,879,633 16,281,566 21,598,067 43.0% Total Budgetary Expenditures $187,212,504 $169,012,660 $207,045,765 $ 106,262,197 $ 100,783,658 51.3% Non - Budgetary Funds Expenditures Internal Service $ 15,829,967 $ 16,768,493 $ 16,768,493 $ 11,488,939 $ 5,279,564 68.5% Finance 10,680,699 11,849,059 11,849,059 8,132,253 3,716,806 68.6% Public Works 5,149,268 4,919,434 4,919,434 3,356,686 1,562,748 68.2% Agency 125,456 - - 41,114 (41,114) Park and Rec Adminstration 125,456 - 41,114 (41,114) Total Non - Budgetary Expenditures $ 15,956,423 $ 16,768,493 $ 16,768,493 $ 11,630,064 $ 6,238,439 68.8% Total Expenditures - All Funds $ 203,167,927 $186,781,153 $ 223,814,248 $ 117,792,261 $ 106,021,997 52.6% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 11 General Fund (1000 -1023) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 Expenditures by Department: *2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct Of City Council 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: 654,800 690,133 690,133 474,670 215,463 68.8% Taxes Levied On Property Taxes $ 27,937,740 $ 28,586,774 $ 28,586,774 $ 16,140,081 $ (12,446,693) 56.5% Delinquent Property Taxes 1,897 - 3,964,053 235 235 70.5% Other City Taxes 10,536,839 4,656,733 4,393,378 1,689,446 (2,703,932) 38.5% Licenses And Permits 1,777,267 1,345,072 1,345,822 1,285,143 (60,679) 95.5% Use Of Money And Property 619,227 547,642 615,842 $55,748 (260,094) 57.8% Intergovernmental 2,661,403 2,503,349 2,719,651 2,383,036 (336,615) 87.6% Charges For Fees And Services 1,469,628 1,362,974 1,362,974 898,472 (464,503) 65.9% Miscellaneous 4,484,836 4,678,524 4,714,897 3,345,093 (1,369,804) 70.9% Other Financial Sources 1,451,159 4,133,450 4,733,450 3,906,126 (827,324) 82.5% Sub -Total Revenues 50,939,996 47,814,518 48,472,788 30,003,380 (18,469,408) 61.9% Transfers in: 44,405,272 51,481,923 51,938,640 35,717,898 16,220,742 68.8% Operating Transfers In 9,339,373 9,610,582 11,266,640 6,782,273 (4,484,367) 60.2% Sub -Total Transfers In 9,339,373 9,610,582 11,266,640 6,782,273 (4,484,367) 60,2% Total Revenues & Transfers In $ 60,279,369 $ 5.7,425,100 $ 59,739,428 $ 36,785,653 $ (22,953,775) 61.6% Expenditures by Department: $ 44,609,478 $ 2 21,628,416 $ $ 21,105,528 $ $ 43,044,945 $ $ 21,939,418 204.0% Adjustments to Cash / Non -Cash Asset/Liab ( City Council $ 103,002 $ 122,207 $ 122,207 $ 88,585 $ 33,622 72.5% City Clerk 489,167 540,549 540,549 385,835 154,714 71.4% City Attorney 654,800 690,133 690,133 474,670 215,463 68.8% City Manager 1,468,756 1,684,393 1,684,393 1,056,657 627,736 62.7% Finance 3,568,749 3,964,053 3,964,053 2,795,769 1,168,284 70.5% Police 11,443,807 12,246,285 12,552,064 8,774,660 3,777,404 69.9% Fire 7,093,507 7,636,665 7,658,941 5,305,515 2,353,426 69,3% Housing and Inspection Service 1,478,701 1,605,500 1,605,500 1,099,178 506,322 68.5% Parks and Recreation 7,168,745 7,739,181 7,747,131 5,122,054 2,625,077 66.1% Library 5,692,845 6,101,961 6,111,961 4,095,411 2,016,550 67.0% Senior Center 840,519 902,625 920,694 567,399 353,295 61.6% Planning & Community Development 3,246,579 6,933,498 7,026,141 5,101,210 1,924,931 72.6% Public Works 1;156,093 1,314,873 1,314,873 850,955 463,918 64,7% Sub -Total Expenditures 44,405,272 51,481,923 51,938,640 35,717,898 16,220,742 68.8% Transfers Out: $ 44,609,478 $ 2 21,628,416 $ $ 21,105,528 $ $ 43,044,945 $ $ 21,939,418 204.0% Adjustments to Cash / Non -Cash Asset/Liab ( Capital Project Fund 8,269,562 2,724,000 27,930,448 178,832 27,751,616 0.6% GO Bond Abatement 266,650 140,000 140,000 - 140,000 0.0% General Levy 209,729 190,470 190,470 142,853 47,618 75.0% Transfers Out - Transit Fund 4,027,141 2,869,291 2,869,291 2,151,968 717,323 75.0% Misc Transfers Out 2,832,102 64,922 64,922 49,028 15,894 75.5% IntrFund Loan 1,954,435 - - - - Sub -Total Transfers Out 17,559,619 5,988,683 31,195,131 2,522,681 28,672,450 8.1% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 61,964,891 $ 57,470,606 $ 83,133,771 $ 38,240,579 $ 44,893,193 46.0% *Fund Balance, Ending $ $ 44,609,478 $ 2 21,628,416 $ $ 21,105,528 $ $ 43,044,945 $ $ 21,939,418 204.0% Adjustments to Cash / Non -Cash Asset/Liab ( (90,477) - - - - - - - - Change in Accounting Method ( (19,130) - - - - - - - - *Adjusted Fund Balance, Ending 4 44,499,871 2 21,628,416 2 21,105,528 4 43,044,945 2 21,939,418 204.0% Restricted / Committed /Assigned 2 27,371,720 5 5,004,285 5 5,674,734 2 27,722,303 2 22,047,569 488.5% Unassigned Balance $ $ 17,147,281 $ 1 16,624,131 $ $ 15,430,794 $ $ 15,322,642 $ $ (108,151) 99.3% ..... ..I....... .. ......__ _ ........_.._.__. _ _ _....... _ . ....._..... *FY2013 Cash Basis, Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 12 Road Use Tax (2200) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 *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 Change in Accounting Method Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending Restricted / Committed /Assigned Unassigned Balance *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 4,846,457 (1,702,227) 74.0% 26,345 30,000 30,000 22,430 (7,570) 74.8% 3,179 2,188 2,188 2,041 (147) 93.3% 36,563 27,445 27,445 13,545 (13,900) 49.4% 6,591,930 6,608,316 6,608,316 4,884,472 (1,723,844) 73.9% 425,659 405,477 405,477 304,108 (101,369) 75.0% 425,659 405,477 405,477 304,108 (101,369) 75.0% $ 7,017,589 $ 7,013,793 $ 7,013,793 $ 5,188,580 $ (1,825,213) 74.0% $ 2,406 $ 77,489 $ 77,489 $ - $ 77,489 0.0% 45,412 82,712 82,712 34,421 48,291 41.6% 1,485,931 1,532,486 1,532,486 377,220 1,155,266 24.6% 3,557,587 3,976,772 3,976,772 2,920,113 1,056,659 73.4% 5,091,336 5,669,459 5,669,459 3,331,753 2,337,706 58.8% 790,627 565,000 565,000 420,367 144,633 74.4% 288,139 298,247 298,247 223,685 74,562 75.0% 1,078,766 863,247 863,247 644,052 219,195 74.6% $ 6170,102 $ 6,532,706 $ 6,532,706 $ 3,975,805 $ 2,556,901 60.9% $ 2,480,008 $ 1,957,306 $ 3,322,673 $ 4,054,361 $ 731,688 122.0% 361,578 - - - - 2,841,586 1,957,306 3,322,673 4,054,361 731,688 122.0% $ 2,841,586 $ 1,957,306 $ 3,322,673 $ 4,054,361 $ 731,688 1220% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 13 Employee Benefits (2400) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 Transfers Out: Empl Benefits Levy to Gen Fund & RUT 9,130,917 2013 9,173,732 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct of $ 9,759,427 $ 9,759,427 Actual $ 2,344,955 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: Adjusted Fund Balance', Ending 1,791,164 1,836,638 1,606,806 51,127 (1,755,679) 2.8% Restricted / Committed /Assigned Taxes Levied On Property Taxes $ 9,262,912 $ 9,406,082 $ 9,406,082 $ 5,310,637 $(4,095,445) 56.5% Delinquent Property Taxes $ 51,127 633 2.8% - - 77 77 Other City Taxes 163,781 161,976 161,976 81,844 (80,132) 50.5% Intergovernmental State 28E Agreements 256,655 205,261 205,261 281,548 76,287 137.2% Miscellaneous Other Misc Revenue 5,833 1.750 1,750 328 (1,422) 181% Total Revenues $ 9,689,814 $ 9,775,069 $ 9,775,069 $ 5,674,435 $(4,100,634) 58.1% Expenditures: General Government Employee Benefits $ 353,125 $ 331,627 $ 331,627 $ 341,818 $ (10,191) 103.1% Public Safety Employee Benefits 263,477 254,068 254,068 192,356 61,712 75.7% Sub -Total Expenditures• 616,602 585,695 585,695 534,173 51,522 91.2% Transfers Out: Empl Benefits Levy to Gen Fund & RUT 9,130,917 9,173,732 9,173,732 6,880,299 2,293,433 75.0% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 9,747,519 $ 9,759,427 $ 9,759,427 $ 7,414,472 $ 2,344,955 76.0% `Fund Balance, Ending $ 1,715,419 $ 1,836,638 $ 1,806,806 $ 51,127 $(1,755,679) 2.8% Change in Accounting Method 75,745 - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance', Ending 1,791,164 1,836,638 1,606,806 51,127 (1,755,679) 2.8% Restricted / Committed /Assigned - - - - Unassigned Balance $ 1,791,164 $ 1,836,638 $ 1,806,806 $ 51,127 $(1,755,679) 2.8% "FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 14 Debt Service (5000 - 5999) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 *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 $ 6,796,188 $ (5,242,825) 56,5% Delinquent Property Taxes 878 - - 99 99 Other City Taxes 227,873 188,638 188,638 104,259 (84,379) 553% Use Of Money And Property 2,394,210 1,777,365 1,777,365 929,374 847,991 52.3% Interest Revenues 125,012 142,438 142,438 51,518 (90,920) 36.2% Miscellaneous 19,170,582 13,496,700 13,496,700 966,978 12,529,722 7.2% Contrib & Donations 170,143 - - - - Other Financial Sources $ 5,820,298 $ 4,188,005 $ 5,279,826 $ 12,380,793 $ 7,100,957 234.5% Loan Repayments 535,150 26,479 26,479 141,750 115,271 535.3% Debt Sales 75,931 - - - - Sub -Total Revenues 14,072,873 12,396,568 12,396,568 7,093,814 (5,302,754) 57.2% Transfers in Transfers -In from Other Funds 1,101,066 559,660 559,660 433,660 (126,000) 77.5% Sub -Total Transfers In _ 1,101,066 559,660 559,660 433,660 (126,000) 77.5% Total Revenues & Transfers In $ 15,173,939 $ 12,956,228 $ 12,956,228 $ 7,527,473 $ (5,428,755) 58.1% 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 124,841 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 $ 12,380,793 $ 7,100,967 234.5% Change In Accounting Method 124,841 - - - Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending $ 5,820,298 $ 4,188,005 $ 5,279,826 $ 12,380,793 $ 7,100,967 234.5% Restricted / Committed /Assigned - - - - - Unassigned Balance $ 5,820,298 $ 4,188,005 $ 5,279,826 $ 12,380,793 $ 7,100,957 234.5% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 15 Parking (7100 - 7102) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 *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 l=ines Other Misc Revenue Sub -Total Revenues Transfers In: 'l 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 Transfers Out: Capital Improvement Projects it Debt Service Transfers Interfund Loan Repayment to Landfill Sub -Total Transfers Out Total Expenditures & Transfers Out *Fund Balance, Ending Change in Accounting Method Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending Restricted / Committed /Assigned Unassigned Balance $ 47,422 $ 39,247 $ 39,247 $ 17,835 $ (21,412) 45.44% 21,790 - - - 235,849 69.7% 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 2,968,327 (58,385) 0.00% 43 1,677 1,677 - (1,677) 0.00% - - - 3,753,483 3,753,483 98.9% 253,183 474,181 474,181 135,795 (338,386) 28.64% 35,707 47,835 47,835 26,620 (21,215) 55.65% 4,959,159 4,721,734 4,721,734 3,933,685 (788,050) 83.3% 844,150 840,350 840,350 630,262 (210,088) 75.0% 844,150 840,350 840,350 630,262 (210,088) 75.0% $ 5,803,309 $ 5,562,084 $ 5,562,084 $ 4,563,947 $ (998,137) 82.1% $ 946,746 $ 1,050,817 $ 1,050,817 $ 811,135 $ 239,682 77,2% 786,887 778,290 778,290 542,441 235,849 69.7% 2,738 - - - - 1,194,908 1,303,181 1,303,181 776,451 526,730 59.6% 838,975 838,300 838,300 838,300 - 100,0% 3,770,254 3,970,588 3,970,588 2,968,327 1,002,261 74.8% 827,266 900,000 900,000 1,185,156 (285,156) 131.7% 844,150 840,350 840,350 630,262 210,088 75.0% 507,442 - - - - 2,178,858 1,740,350 1,740,350 1,815,418 (75,068) 104.3% $ 5,949,112 $ 5,710,938 $ 5,710,938 $ 4,783,745 $ 927,193 83.8% $ 6,601,507 $ 5,292,688 $ 6,279,708 $ 6,208,764 $ (70,944) 98.9% (172,945) - - - 6,428,562 5,292,688 6,279,708 6,208,764 (70,944) 98.9% 1,666,646 1,670,796 1,668,696 1,625,349 (43,347) 97.4% $ 4,761,916 $ 3,621,892 $ 4,611,012 $ 4,583,415 $ (27,597) 99.4% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 ') Same Fund Transfers required by bond covenants 16 Transit (7150 - 7151) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 *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 Rents Parking Ramp Revenue Intergovernmental Fed Intergovnt Rev Other State Grants Local 28E Agreements Charges For Fees And Services Transit Fees Misc Charges For Svc Refuse Charges Parking Charges Miscellaneous Misc Merchandise Other Misc Revenue Printed Materials Other Financial Sources Sale of Assets Sub -Total Revenues $ 11,353 $ - $ - $ 1,434 $ 1,434 63.4% 124,530 134,558 134,558 93,558 (41,000) 69.5% 652,919 632,274 632,274 - (632,274) 0.0% 1,043,854 1,025,000 1,025,000 - (1,025,000) 0.0% 644,416 483,175 754,675 694,978 (59,697) 92.1% 120,413 32,844 32,844 26,119 (6,725) 79.5% 1,292,339 1,365,129 1,365,129 1,034,479 (330,650) 75.8% 3,016 75,000 75,000 215 (74,785) 03% 1,541 2,518 2,518 1,260 (1,258) 50.0% $ 2,106,906 $ - - 532,833 532,833 75.9% 1,361 1,112 1,112 376 (736) 33.8% 736 5,994 5,994 1,735 (4,259) 29.0% - - - 45 45 - - 8,890 8,890 3,896,478 3,757,604 4,029,104 2,395,922 (1,633,182) 59.5% Transfers in: Transfers In - General Fund 4,027,141 - - - Transfer In - Transit Property Tax Levy 2,754,939 2,869,291 2,869,291 2,151,968 (717,323) 75.0% Transfer In - Operations to Impry ResR 1,892,475 - - - Sub -Total Transfers In 8,674,555 2,869,291 2,869,291 2,151,968 (717,323) 75.0% Total Revenues & Transfers In $ 12,571,033 $ 6,626,895 $ 6,898,395 $ 4,547,891 $ (2,350,504) 65.9% Expenditures: Mass Transit Admin Mass Transit Operations Fleet Maintenance Court St Transportation Center Sub -Total Expenditures Transfers Out: Capital Project Fund InterFund Loan Repay Landfill Reserve 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 $ 345,618 $ 484,357 $ 484,357 $ 306,861 $ 177,496 63.4% 4,112,979 4,160,431 4,710,787 3,585,532 1,125,255 76.1% 1,539,029 1,482,792 1,482,792 1,106,610 376,183 74.6% 158,075 149,153 149,153 106,441 42,712 71.4% 6,155,701 6,276,733 6,827,089 5,105,443 1,721,646 74.8% 152,622 274,000 270,000 207,596 62,404 76.9% 54,229 55,324 55,324 41,493 13,831 75.0% 1,892,475 - - - 2,099,326 325,324 325,324 249,089 76,235 76.6% $ 8,255,027 $ 6,602,057 $ 7,152,413 $ 5,354,532 $ 1,797,881 74.9% $ 4,316,006 $ 4,367,087 $ 3,605,775 $ 3,053,152 $ (552,623) 84.7% (456,213) - - - 3,859,793 4,367,087 3,605,775 3,053,152 (552,623) 84.7% 1,752,887 1,892,476 1,892,476 1,752,500 (139,976) 92.6% $ 2,106,906 $ 2,474,611 $ 1,713,299 $ 1,300,652 $ (412,647) 75.9% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 17 Wastewater Treatment (7200 - 7201) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 *Fund Balance, July 1 Revenues: Licenses And Permits Misc Permits & Lie 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: Wastewater Administration Wastewater Treatment Plant Ops Wastewater Collection Systems Wastewater Debt Service Sub -Total Expenditures Transfers Out: Capital Project Fund ') Debt Service Funding Operating Subsidy Sub -Total Transfers Out Total Expenditures & Transfers Out *2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised $ 25,451,053 $ 21,810,937 $ 24,137,050 $ 24,137,050 $ - 100,0% $ 6,604 $ 5,896 $ 5,896 $ 6,803 $ 907 115.4% 291,054 276,163 276,163 154,400 (121,763) 55.9% 274 271 271 212 (59) 78.1% 1,386 8,665 8,665 1,944 (6,721) 22.4% 12,889,204 12,548,976 12,548,976 7,961,243 (4,587,733) 63.4% - 3,421 3,421 413 (3,008) 12.1% 524 323 323 1,375 1,052 425.7% 94,567 151,486 151,486 52,054 (99,432) 34.4% 13,283,613 12,995,201 12,995,201 8,178,443 (4,816,758) 62.9% 7,000,000 4,581,311 4,736,638 7,000,000 4,570,067 - (7,000,000) 3,552,478 (1,017,589) 0.0% 77.7% 4,581,311 11,736,636 11,570,067 3,552,478 (8,017,589) 30.7% $ 17,864,924 $ 24,731,839 $ 24,565,268 $ 11,730,922 $ (12,834,346) 47.8% $ 1,447,946 $ 1,682,245 $ 1,682,245 $ 1,234,036 $ 448,209 73.4% 2,824,314 2,914,034 2,914,034 1,950,228 963,806 66.9% 839,205 851,549 851,549 525,988 325,561 61.8% 6,411,888 4,724,176 4,724,176. 4,668,681 55,495 98.8% 11,523,353 10,172,004 10,172,004 8,378,933 1,793,071 82.4% 4,584,177 11,240,000 11,240,000 3,179,015 8,060,985 28.3% 4,581,311 4,736,638 4,736,638 3,552,478 1,184,160 75.0% 23,784 - - - - 22,553,676 9,189,272 15,976,638 15,976,638 6,731,493 9,245,145 42.1% $ 20,712,625 $ 26,148,642 $ 26,148,642 $ 15,110,426 $ 11,038,216 57.8% *Fund Balance, Ending $ 22,603,352 $ 20,394,134 $ 22,553,676 $ 20,757,545 $ (1,796,131) 92.0% Change in Accounting Method 1,533,698 - - - Adjusted Fund Balance% Ending 24,137,050 20,394,134 22,553,676 20,757,545 (1,796,131) 92.0% Restricted / Committed /Assigned 10,073,881 10,231,272 9,919,772 8,957,968 (961,804) 90.3% Unassigned Balance $ 14,063,159 $ 10,162,862 $ 12,633,904 $ 11,799,577 $ (834,327) 93.4% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 Same Fund Transfers required by bond covenants 18 Water (7300 - 7301) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 *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: Use Of Money And Property $ 1,209,463 $ 1,169,368 $ 1,169,368 $ 920,557 $ 248,811 78.7% Interest Revenues $ 144,268 $ 147,967 $ 147,967 $ 99,640 $ (48,327) 67.3% Rents 1,000 - - 250 250 60.0% Royalties & Commiss 913 846 846 548 (298) 64.7% Charges For Fees And Services 67,769 72,716 72,716 39,429 33,287 54.2% Water Charges 8,673,278 8,225,837 8,225,837 5,573,612 (2,652,225) 67.8% Miscellaneous 12,624,784 7,930,586 8,019,075 5,993,430 2,025,645 74.7% Printed Materials 12 - - 13 13 Misc Merchandise 12,350 5,135 5,135 7,831 2,696 152.5% Intra -City Charges 2,000 4,000 4,000 2,000 (2,000) 50.0% Other Misc Revenue 143,303 2,236 2,236 471 (1,765) 21.0% Other Financial Sources Sale Of Assets 16,325 - - - - Sub -Total Revenues 8,993,449 8,386,021 8,386,021 5,684,364 (2,701,657) 67.8% Transfers In: 1) Bond Ordinance Trans 1,996,115 2,010,316 2,010,316 1,507,736 (502,580) 75.0% Misc Transfers in 16,878 - - - - Sub -Total Transfers In 2,012,993 2,010,316 2,010,316 1,507,736 (502,580) 75.0% Total Revenues & Transfers In $ 11,006,442 $ 10,396,337 $ 10,396,337 $ 7,192,100 $ (3,204,237) 69.2% Expenditures: Water Administration $ 1,209,463 $ 1,169,368 $ 1,169,368 $ 920,557 $ 248,811 78.7% Water Treatment Plant Ops 1,935,659 2,137,662 2,213,695 1,411,605 802,090 63.8% Water Distribution System 1,248,942 1,361,944 1,374,400 824,187 550,213 60.0% Water Customer Service 1,099,863 1,203,857 1,203,857 812,705 391,152 67.5% Water Public Relations 67,769 72,716 72,716 39,429 33,287 54.2% Water Debt Service 7,063,088 1,985,039 1,985,039 1,984,946 93 100.0% Sub -Total Expenditures 12,624,784 7,930,586 8,019,075 5,993,430 2,025,645 74.7% Transfers Out: Capital Project Fund 2,078,787 600,000 730,000 1,047,535 (317,535) 143.5% ii Debt Service Funding 1,996,115 2,010,316 2,010,316 1,507,736 502,580 75.0% GO Bond Abatement 360,457 344,325 344,325 22,163 322,163 6.4% Operating Subsidy 23,784 - - - - Sub -Total Transfers Out 4,459,143 2,954,641 3,084,641 2,577,434 507,207 83.6% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 17,083,927 $ 10,885,227 $ 11,103,716 $ 8,570,865 $ 2,532,851 77.2% *Fund Balance, Ending $ 11,873,237 $ 8,792,001 $ 11,165,858 $ 10,759,505 $ (406,353) 96.4% Change in Accounting Method 265,032 - - - Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending 12,138,269 8,792,001 11,165,858 10,759,505 (406,353) 96.4% Restricted / Committed /Assigned 4,630,541 3,857,993 4,655,818 4,265,102 (390,716) 91.6% Unassigned Balance $ 7,507,728 $ 4,934,008 $ 6,510,040 $ 6,494,403 $ (15,637) 99.8% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 'i Same Fund Transfers required by bond covenants 19 Refuse Collection (7400) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 *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: Licenses And Permits General Use Permits Use Of Money And Property Interest Revenues Charges For Fees And Services Refuse Charges Miscellaneous Other Misc Revenue Total Revenues Expenditures: Refuse Administration Refuse Operations Yard Waste Collection Curbside Recycling Collection White Goods/Bulky Collection Sub -Total Expenditures Transfers Out: $ 5,500 $ 4,150 $ 4,150 $ 1,475 $ (2,675) 35.5% 1,131 661 661 170 (491) 25.7% 2,936,096 2,980,104 2,980,104 1,919,249 (1,060,855) 64.4% 2,309 - - 120 120 $ 2,945,036 $ 2,984,915 $ 2,984,915 $ 1,921,014 $ (1,063,901) 64.4% $ 530,439 $ 518,582 $ 518,582 $ 401,160 $ 117,422 77.4% 1,268,670 1,321,132 1,321,132 886,718 434,414 67.1% 276,988 220,638 220,538 203,742 16,896 92.3% 658,437 705,323 705,323 498,221 207,102 70.6% 195,400 194,153 194,153 115,100 79,053 59.3% 2,929,934 2,954,828 2,959,828 2,104,941 854,887 71.1% Capital Project Fund 56,000 - - Sub -Total Transfers Out 56,000 - - - - Total Expenditures t£ Transfers Out $ 2,985,934 $ 2,959,828 $ 2,959,828 $ 2,104,941 $ 854,887 71.10 *Fund Balance, Ending $ 446,568 $ 301,910 $ 471,655 $ 535,500 $ 63,845 113.5% Change in Accounting Method 272,859 - - - Adjusted Fund Balance% Ending 719,427 301,910 471,655 535,500 63,845 113.5% Restricted / Committed /Assigned - - - - - Unassigned Balance $ 719,427 $ 301,910 $ 471,655 $ 535,500 $ 63,845 113.5% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 20 Landfill (7500 - 7504) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 Expenditures: Landfill Administration *2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 Pct of Landfill Operations 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: 4,142,885 4,792,684 4,792,684 3,040,636 1,752,048 63.4% Use Of Money And Property Interest Revenues $ 114,833 $ 170,245 $ 170,245 $ 19,225 $ (151,020) 11.3% Rents 25,311 40,711 40,711 44,140 3,429 108.4 % Intergovernmental 2,128,324 500,000 1,000,000 2,050,922 (1,050,922) 205.1% Other State Grants (210,815) - - 12,242 12,242 87.9% Charges For Fees And Services $ 23,963,396 $ 21,929,213 $ 24,438,693 $ 23,563,859 $ (874,834) 96.4% Refuse Charges 383,760 484,454 484,454 279,145 (205,309) 57.6% Landfill Charges 4,733,705 4,778,585 4,778,585 3,331,014 (1,447,571) 69.7% Miscellaneous 18,499,309 17,363,266 19,762,728 21,982,755 2,220,028 111.2% Contrib & Donations 400 - - 713 713 33.8% Misc Merchandise 19,376 23,105 23,105 20,219 (2,886) 87.5% Other Misc Revenue 29,133 24,738 24,738 17,737 (7,001) 71.7% Sub -Total Revenues 5,095,703 5,521,838 5,521,838 3,724,434 (1,797,404) 67.4% Transfer In: Interfund Loans 2,795,347 86,193 246,143 64,644 (181,499) 26.3% Misc Transfers In - - 500,000 250,000 (250,000) 50.0% Sub -Total Transfers In 2,795,347 86,193 746,143 314,645 (431,499) 42.2% Total Revenues & Transfers In $ 7,891,050 $ 5,608,031 $ 6,267,981 $ 4,039,078 $ (2,228,903) 64.4% Expenditures: Landfill Administration $ 647,597 $ 894,623 $ 894,623 $ 589,534 $ 305,089. 65.9% Landfill Operations 3,402,742 3,799,291 3,799,291 2,375,906 1,423,385 62.5% Solid Waste Surcharge Reserve 92,546 98,770 98,770 75,196 23,574 76.1% Sub -Total Expenditures 4,142,885 4,792,684 4,792,684 3,040,636 1,752,048 63.4% Transfers Out: Capital Project Funding 2,128,324 500,000 500,000 1,800,922 (1,300,922) 360.2% Misc Transfers Out - - 500,000 250,000 250,000 50.0% Sub -Total Transfers Out 2,128,324 500,000 1,000,000 2,050,922 (1,050,922) 205.1% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 6,271,209 $ 5,292,684 $ 5,792,684 $ 5,091,558 $ 701,126 87.9% *Fund Balance, Ending $ 23,963,396 $ 21,929,213 $ 24,438,693 $ 23,563,859 $ (874,834) 96.4% Change in Accounting Method 652,943 - - Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending 24,616,339 21,929,213 24,438,693 23,563,859 (874,834) 96.4% Restricted / Committed /Assigned 18,499,309 17,363,266 19,762,728 21,982,755 2,220,028 111.2% Unassigned Balance $ 6,117,030 $ 4,565,947 $ 4,675,965 112581,104 $ (3,094,861) 33.8% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual in FY2014 I 21 Housing Authority (7900 - 7922) Fund Summary FY 2014 Through The Quarter Ended March 31, 2014 *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 $ 1,928,228 74.3% Public Housing Program 589,352 Interest Revenues $ 23,025 $ 16,492 $ 16,492 $ 1,343 $ (15,149) 8.1% Rents 203,286 208,001 208,001 154,146 (53,855) 74.1% Royalties & Commissions 28,516 20,545 20,545 20,408 (137) 99.3% Intergovernmental Fed Intergovnt Rev 6,985,739 7,684,859 7,787,215 4,931,005 (2,856,210) 63.3% Local 28E Agreements - 1,350 1,350 - (1,350) 0.0% Miscellaneous 18,000 18,414 18,414 13,811 Other Misc Revenue 16,338 35,879 35,879 10,698 (25,181) 29.8% Other Financial Sources 25,575 19,181 6,394 75.0% Loan Repayments 83,002 46,086 46,086 19,753 (26,333) 42.9% Sale Of Assets 980 - - 70,000 70,000 7,691,437 Sub -Total Revenues 7,340,886 8,013,212 8,115,568 5,207,354 (2,908,214) 64.2% Misc Transfers In 4,787 - 6,447,868 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 $ 5,208,512 $ (2,907,056) 64.2% Expenditures: Voucher Program $ 7,055,349 $ 7,514,936 $ 7,514,936 $ 5,586,708 $ 1,928,228 74.3% Public Housing Program 589,352 407,343 407,343 552,656 (145,313) 135.7% Sub -Total Expenditures 7,644,701 7,922,279 7,922,279 6,139,364 1,782,915 77.5% Transfers Out: Capital Project Fund 3,736 - - 29,750 (29,750) Operating Subsidy - Gen Fund 18,000 18,414 18,414 13,811 4,604 75.0% Misc Transfers Out - Director Relmb 25,000 25,575 25,575 19,181 6,394 75.0% Sub -Total Transfers Out 46,736 43,989 43,989 62,742 (18,753) 142.6% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 7,691,437 $ 7,966,268 $ 7,966,268 $ 6,202,106 $ 1,764,162 77.9% *Fund Balance, Ending $ 6,447,868 $ 7,281,577 $ 6,597,168 $ 5,122,291 $ (1,474,877) 77.6% Change in Accounting Method (331,983) - - - Adjusted Fund Balance *, Ending 6,115,885 7,281,577 6,597,168 5,122,291 (1,474,877) 77.6% Restricted / Committed /Assigned 3,104,190 3,104,190 3,104,190 3,078,321 (25,869) 99.2% Unassigned Balance $ 3,011,695 $ 4,177,387 $ 3,492,978 $ 2,043,970 $ (1,449,008) 58.5% *FY2013 Cash Basis; Budget Converted from Cash to Accrual In FY2014 22 IP12 CITY OF IOWA CITY QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014 Finance Department Prepared by: Brian Cover Senior Accountant OVERVIEW The City of Iowa City's investment objectives are safety, liquidity and yield. The primary objective of the City of Iowa City's investment activities is the preservation of capital and the protection of investment principal. The City's investment portfolio remains sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet operating requirements that cash management procedures anticipate. In investing public funds, the City's cash management portfolio is designed with the objective of regularly exceeding the average return on the six month U.S. Treasury Bill. The Treasury Bill is considered a benchmark for riskless investment transactions and therefore comprises a minimum standard for the portfolio's rate of return. The rolling average return on the six -month U.S. Treasury Bill for the prior 365 days was 0.08% at 3/31114. The investment program seeks to achieve returns above this threshold, consistent with risk limitations and prudent investment principles. The rate of return on the City's entire portfolio for the quarter was 0.39% which is 31 basis points higher than the threshold. (See exhibit A) Investments purchased by the City of Iowa City for the third quarter of this fiscal year had an average return of 0.36 %. Rates on new investment purchases in our operating cash portfolio for the third quarter were approximately. 11 basis points higher than investments purchased at this time last year. The rate of return is lower this quarter due to the maturing of $8,197,315 in December that had rates of 3.75% and 4.18 %. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which banks lend to each other. In the March meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, the decision was made to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate would remain appropriate for the next few years. - The quarterly investment report lists investments by fund, by institution, by maturity date, and investments purchased and redeemed. New official state interest rates setting the minimum that may be paid by Iowa depositories on public funds in the 180 to 364 day range during this quarter were 0.05% in January, 0.05% in February, and 0.05% in March 2014. >1 4- 0 0 O 2r K� 1110 �!PjNl� ff 1 10.0.0.0 OR M qp� 450 g R BENI Z- 01M w! M gn oal! �g 010 IRMO '4 Now el— A 499� RPPM—m'm 5-"0 1 HE ONE i�A ;Vlz ME d•7 r-g H ill 49 L IBM N 1'ggi g $, 0, AE;ET' a R.gg' O 12 P Ei.k"i "HI.H.- . .1 1. ." RM 05 NOW Op OR . . . . . . . . . . . gg i H -H-mil NO!' HONK -P ;iK , z.T 4g" gg RE ;o py" N, §'p ja S N!-HISIN R M4 gg FR' rNT'Nrl 5 g gg S R o OR 06 No: 01 -:F-- 10 ...'OR Mill E-0- R NO ORA. ISHRIP, q ap V M mill RUN man, IVO X-1 IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E -Mv f gggg S 1 gmg�g g loans loll 1 I,*- (D U') It M N O 6 C5 6 6 6 ci 6 ujnjej jo GB131UG3J9d ux W zn • atn • as Q, aS IMP G'L �✓ RPM INIR'. 71 i, ESE LL �4'a RS to OL,cya m s d HEN, oil LL lap 60,(ya rI N 60��v / ^f/ LL �0 %aa s �0,��' Y �0'aa Mr (l s O O O O O O O CU L6 4 M N �- 6 ' (/ 5 S }�� 1 �L k�1..� S L i� 'G- G..F �£ G S•n. i72�«t' � �..CS, �'i,�'xo 4 t :_ �..i, e u�"z &x"., 3 z- t� .F•y � ' m s .. � xss� i �,, .Yte � - ...�• -�L' "terns.- 3t 1x15�.•� �.' 1 s..i.. � � si F''._ �- r-+� }5i i� 4tl�il..L. S�eS,., i H•�mY.r'ir�. .`i J7 �.�4 �"�" -i .i. 1 i �' Ys } i; � ~�'2 -S* f 3�,• � i "�. �'Y l�. t L L f 3 1 Y � ' k , •L "}.�,Z �i 7" � S 'S "h.�H' S Y �fll a..Ja � y$. �,^'� x,x�'�5�- t•.fr ypYom. -�-, y _ ER '� "�' 1 I , ..? ri & -�' . t �y� ,fist €9r, .•[. j x i � 3. 4 Y z l. — t.. 4' n •,t i' � ] it Y' S ; t Y . t .LC2.R2 �x -t..x. #r 'Yi�t��,�:'' �x�� cS F "t� ;I'�`t3'F�'C S � t.'C iN C �'' -. r ; � �`�a�`i3:•;-�ir, j,a•.l . x G ,. • as Q, aS IMP G'L �✓ RPM INIR'. 71 i, ESE LL �4'a RS to OL,cya m s d HEN, oil LL lap 60,(ya rI N 60��v / ^f/ LL �0 %aa s �0,��' Y �0'aa Mr (l s O O O O O O O CU L6 4 M N �- 6 ' (/ 5 S }�� 1 �L k�1..� S L i� 'G- G..F �£ G S•n. i72�«t' � �..CS, �'i,�'xo 4 t :_ �..i, e u�"z &x"., 3 z- t� .F•y � ' m s .. � xss� i �,, .Yte � - ...�• -�L' "terns.- 3t 1x15�.•� �.' 1 s..i.. � � si F''._ �- r-+� }5i i� 4tl�il..L. S�eS,., i H•�mY.r'ir�. .`i J7 �.�4 �"�" -i .i. 1 i �' Ys } i; � ~�'2 -S* f 3�,• � i "�. �'Y l�. t L L f 3 1 Y � ' k , •L "}.�,Z �i 7" � S 'S "h.�H' S Y �fll a..Ja � y$. �,^'� x,x�'�5�- t•.fr ypYom. -�-, y _ ER CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND DETAIL LISTING BY MATURITY DATE 3/31/2014 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE IPAIT IPAIT •27- Sep -06 $1,500,000.00 VAR HILLS BANK MONEY MRKT 30- Mar -10 $ 9,000,000.00 1.040 WELLS FARGO SAV 20- Apr -10 $ 10,000,000.00 0.350 WELLS FARGO SAV 25- Jul -12 $ 15,000,000.00 0.150 CR BANK & TRUST CD 12- Apr -13 11- Apr -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.260 CR BANK & TRUST CD 12- Apr -13 04- Apr -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.220 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 17- May -13 09- May -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.250 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 17- May -13 16- May -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.270 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 17- May -13 02- May -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.230 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 12- Jul -13 03- Jul -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.310 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 12- Jul -13 11- Jul -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.340 UICCU CD 12- Jul -13 27- Jun -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.285 IPAIT CD 22- Aug -13 08- Aug -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.390 IPAIT CD 22- Aug -13 01- Aug -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.339 UICCU CD 22- Aug -13 15- Aug -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.360 UICCU CD 22- Aug -13 22- Aug -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.360 UICCU CD 20- Sep -13 19- Sep -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.460 UICCU co 20- Sep -13 29- Aug -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.450 UICCU CD 20- Sep -13 05- Sep -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.460 UICCU CD 20- Sep -13 12- Sep -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.460 FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK CD 27- Sep -13 19- Sep -14 $ 1,000,000.00 0.430 FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK CD 27- Sep -13 26- Sep -14 $ 1,000,000.00 0.430 MIDWEST ONE BANK CD 30- Sep -13 30- Sep -15 $ 14,824,850.63 1.000 UICCU CD 25- Oct -13 03- Oct -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.435 UICCU CD 25- Oct -13 10- Oct -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.445 UICCU CD 25- Oct -13 17- Oct -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.455 UICCU CO 25- Oct -13 24- Oct -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.465 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 15- Nov -13 07- Nov -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.440 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 15- Nov -13 31- Oct -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.410 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 15- Nov -13 14- Nov -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.450 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 16- Dec -13 12- Dec -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.445 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 16- Dec -13 05- Dec -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.430 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 16- Dec -13 26- Nov -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.415 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 16- Dec -13 21- Nov -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.400 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 23- Jan -14 09- Jan -15 $ 2,000,000.00 0.232 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 23- Jan -14 16- Jan -15 $ 2,000,000.00 0.235 CR BANK & TRUST CD 23- Jan -14 02- Jan -15 $ 2,000,000.00 0.280 CR BANK & TRUST CD 23- Jan -14 23- Jan -15 $ 2,000,000.00 0.300 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 21- Feb -14 30- Jan -15 $ 2,000,000.00 0.335 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 21- Feb -14 06- Feb -15 $ 2,000,000.00 0.420 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 21- Feb-14 13- Feb -15 $ 2,000,000.00 0.375 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 21- Feb -14 20- Feb -15 $ 2,000,000.00 0.425 IPAIT CD 20- Mar -14 24- Mar -15 $ 2,000,000.00 0.420 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 20- Mar -14 27- Feb -15 $ 2,000,000.00 0.229 CR BANK & TRUST CD 12- Apr -13 01- Jun -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.260 UICCU CD 20- Sep -13 30- May -14 $ 1,000,000.00 0.430 UICCU CD 28- Jun -10 26- Jun -15 $ 846,700.00 2.510 UICCU CD 28- Jun -10 26- Jun -15 $ 300,000.00 2.510 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 18- Jan -13 01- Jul -14 $ 1,000,000.00 0.300 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 14- Feb -13 01- Jul -14 $ 1,000,000.00 0.270 UICCU CD 12- Jul -13 01- Jul -14 $ 2,000,000.00 0.305 UICCU CD 20- Sep -13 30- Jun -14 $ 1,000,000.00 0.440 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04- Mar -14 04- Mar -16 $ 450,000.00 0.640 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04- Mar -14 04- Mar -16 $ 2,030,221.00 0.640 TOTAL $ 137,951,771.63 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND SUMMARY BY FUND FUND TYPE ALL OPERATING FUNDS GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND BOND RESERVE FUND TOTAL CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND LISTING BY INSTITUTION 3131114 3/31/13 INVESTMENT INVESTMENT AMOUNT AMOUNT $128,324,850.63 $128,051,389.01 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 11,500,000.00 $ 8,626,921.00 $ 21,001,029.00 $139,951,771.63 $160,552,418.01 TOTAL $139,951,771.63 $160,552,418.01 3131114 3/31 /13 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT INVESTMENT DEPOSITORY NAME AMOUNT AMOUNT LIMIT BANK OF THE WEST $ - $ - $ 75,000,000.00 BANKER'S TRUST $ - $ - N/A CEDAR RAPIDS BANK & TRUST $ 12,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 20,000,000.00 FARMERS & MERCHANTS SAVINGS BANK $ 2,000,000.00 $ - $ 15,000,000.00 FIRST AMERICAN BANK $ - $ - $ 35,000,000.00 FREEDOM SECURITY BANK $ - $ - $ 15,000,000.00 HILLS BANK & TRUST $ 9,000,000.00 $ 9,000,000.00 $ 25,000,000.00 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST $ 7,500,000.00 $ 1.8,051,389.01 NIA LIBERTY BANK $ - $ - $ 25,000,000.00 MIDWESTONE BANK $ 50,305,071.63 $ 58,200,000.00 $100,000,000.00 TWO RIVERS BANK $ 7,000,000.00 $ 10,342,315.00 $ 10,000,000.00 U OF I COMM CREDIT UNION $ 27,146,700.00 $ 34,396,700.00 $ 50,000,000.00 US BANK $ - $ $ 65,000,000.00 US TREASURY NOTES AND AGENCIES $ - $ - N/A WELLS FARGO BANK $ 25,000,000.00 $ 27,562,014.00 $ 50,000,000.00 WEST BANK $ $ 35,000,000.00 TOTAL $139,951,771.63 $160,552,418.01 c. t ► April 25, 2014 Ms. Marian Karr City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826 RE: Channel Changes Dear: Ms. Karr On or about June 1, 2014 Mediacom will move the following channels currently on the Sports & Information tier to the Digital Family Cable tier. Programming FXX Channel Location 212 At this same time, the following channels will move from the Sports & Information HD tier to the HD Family Tier Programming FXX HD Channel Location 760 If there are any questions please contact me at 319 - 395 -9699 ext. 3461 Sincerely, 064 4 Aot Lee Grassley Senior Manager, Government Relations Mediacom Communications Corporation 6300 Council St. NE • Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 • 319 - 395 -7801 • Fax 319- 393 -7017 LO:5-ul-14 P13 w From the City Manager �P14 hftp: / /www.towntopics. com/word press /2014 /04 /30 /cou nci i- passes- towngown- tax -deal/ [5/1/2014 8:15:07 AM] Council Passes Town /Gown Tax Deal The town of Princeton and Princeton University have produced a seven year agreement under which the University will make voluntary unrestricted financial contributions to the municipality totaling $21.72 million, as well as one -time contributions valued at $2.59 million to several identified municipal projects. The agreement was voted on at Monday's public meeting after brief discussion and public comment. Mayor Lempert and Councilwoman Heather Howard recused themselves from the discussion and vote because of a conflict of interest; both of their spouses are employed by Princeton University. Council President Bernie Miller summarized the agreement and the process by which it had been achieved since last fall. He described it as "unique" and "groundbreaking" for three reasons: it is for seven years; contributions increase annually; and the University will make one -time contributions to projects that were agreed to be of mutual benefit to the University and the town. In a press release from the University last week, Mr. Miller described the seven year duration as important for "fiscal stability." The annual amounts paid by the University will increase at a rate greater than permitted for the municipal property tax under New Jersey State law. In addition, the University has agreed to donate to the municipality for its use the Universityowned parking lot on Franklin Street that has been valued in the range of $1 million. In the same press release, Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber is quoted: "We are very pleased to be able to make these contributions to the town of Princeton, and in doing so to reaffirm both our desire to help sustain the vitality and well -being of our home community and our deep appreciation for the many aspirations and interests we share." At Monday's meeting, Mr. Miller went on to thank Mr. Eisgruber, who participated in the initial town /gown meeting last fall, for setting a positive tone for the negotiations that recognized the interests of both the University and the municipality in an atmosphere of mutual respect. He gave special thanks to the town's administrator Bob Bruschi and Councilman Patrick Simon, who served with him on the negotiating team and he thanked Council members Jo Butler, Jenny Crumiller and Lance Liverman for their input. "It will serve Princeton well and be a model for other towns where town and gown share common goals," Mr. Miller said after listing highlights that include the following: In calendar year 2014 the University's voluntary unrestricted contribution will be $2.75 million, an increase of more than 10 percent over its 2013 contribution; in each subsequent year through 2020, the University will increase its contribution by 4 percent per year; in 2014 the University will contribute an additional $90,000 for the purchase of a new Free -B vehicle. Over the course of the agreement, the University will also make the following one -time contributions: $250,000 toward construction of a new storage facility for the town's Department of Public Works equipment; $500,000 toward construction of a new Princeton First Aid and Rescue Squad facility on municipal land; $250,000 toward the expansion of the Witherspoon Fire Station (in addition to $300,000 already committed to this project under a prior agreement); and $500,000 toward the purchase of fire - fighting apparatus. Patrick Simon expressed his pleasure at the agreement and for having "turned a page" in the relationship between the municipality and the University. He thanked Council members Lance Liverman, Jenny Crumiller, and Jo Butler, who met regularly with the municipal negotiators, and volunteer Brad Middlekauff for invaluable assistance. University representatives Robert Durkee, vice president and secretary, and Kristen Appelget, director of community and regional affairs, who were at the meeting, were praised for their efforts; both had worked on the agreement. Public Comment Several members of the public, including Mary Clurman, Kip Cherry and Paul Driscoll, rose in public comment to question the amount that the University has committed to the town. In 2011, a group of local residents sued the University on the grounds that it should pay property taxes on nearly 20 buildings not directly related to classroom or educational activities, such as Princeton University Press, Alexander Hall, Prospect House, Dillon Gym and Stephens fitness center, McCarter Theatre, the Frist Center, and McCosh Infirmary. "They [the University] should be paying more, given the amount of property they own and the percentage they are contributing to the town's budget," said Ms. Cherry. She then went on to question the contributions promised by the University to projects that have not yet been discussed or approved by the citizens of Princeton. "These are projects that the town hasn't decided upon and yet they appear on the budget." Mr. Bruschi replied that the funds could go to other projects, a point reiterated by Mr. Miller who explained the projects as candidates for funding by the University; projects that would be of mutual benefit to both. "If any or all of these projects do not come about we can sit down again with the University and discuss others, and if this or a future council changes plans, we can work with the University to redirect the funds." But Ms. Cherry was not sufficiently assured. Ms. Butler commented that while she understood Ms. Cherry's concerns, it was important to find projects of mutual interest. It was pointed out that in addition to the contributions described in the agreement, the University makes additional voluntary contributions each year through a longstanding practice of leaving certain properties, such as nondormitory graduate student housing, on the tax rolls even though they could qualify for exemption from property taxes under New Jersey law. According to the new agreement, the University intends to continue this practice and that if the practice is modified, it will make additional voluntary payments to the municipality and the schools at the levels they would have received if the properties had remained on the tax rolls. The University's property taxes are expected to increase significantly in future years with the completion of its Lakeside graduate student housing and Merwick/Stanworth faculty /staff housing projects. Following Ms. Cherry's remarks, Mr. Driscoll expressed his dissatisfaction with the transparency of decision - making in the town. From the public's perspective, he said: "it feels like powerful groups in the University come in and trump our needs. No matter how many times we come in and talk, we feel powerless." There was no response to his comment from members of Council. Mr. Durkee was then invited to speak. Addressing the council, he said: "We appreciate the opportunity to provide the community an unrestricted contribution which you decide how to spend and to provide funding for projects that you have described." He endorsed Mr. Miller's earlier remark that the agreement represents an effective model for other university towns on how to work together. The agreement, which can be viewed on the University's website www.princeton.edu / main / news / archive /S39 /83 /46G77 /index.xm1) passed unanimously. Written by: Linda Arntzenius " - A" ' Ak" V 1,"'V ZZL 19r11. join Us to Celebrate the Grant Wood Neighborhood Art Pro'eecct_ "Grant Wood- ANethborhoodofseasong' by Jill Hai per and City High Students Saftwdaj, MaylOt}y 2014, 2A0pm -4AOpm 19301a1ideDc *Park along Lakeside Dr. or in the parking lot of Grant Wood Elementary school and join us on the Sycamore Greenway Trail!! Sponsored by: Grant Wood Neighborhood Association Iowa City Public Art Program !i Please join us to celebrate the two mosaic pillars that were recently installed at the entrance of our Sycamore Greenway Trail called "Grant Wood- A Neighborhood of Seasons ". This Neighborhood Art Project, funded by the Iowa City Public Art Program was envisioned by neighborhood res- idents who wanted to create an inviting entrance to the South Sycamore Trail on Lakeside Drive. They also wanted to highlight the diversity of the neighborhood through the art. They chose to work with Jill Harper, City High Art teacher, and several of her students to create the two mosaic pillars. Help us celebratel There will be free entertainment, piz- za and juice, and an Artisans Fair featuring many local artists, craftspeople and bakersl If you have any questions regarding this event, you may contact Ashley Zitzner at 319.356.5230 or at Ashley- Zitzner @iowa - city.org. Thursday, May 1, 2014 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TO: News /Sports FROM: Laurie Haman, Vice President, Iowa City /Coralville Area CVB 319.337.6592 or laurie @iowacitvcoralville.org IR:I MOFIM COMMUNIn CONTACTS: Josh Schamberger, President, Iowa City /Coralville Area W „, CREDITUNION CVB 319.337.6592 or ioshua @iowacitvcoralville.orz Rick Klatt, Associate Director of External Affairs, University of Iowa 319.335.9431 or rick- klatt@hawkeyesports.com Dale Arens, Director of Licensing and Athletics Hall of Fame, University of Iowa 319.384 -1031, Dale- Arens @hawkevesports.com 83 Herkys hit streets of Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty to celebrate the return of Herky on Parade JOHNSON CO, Iowa —The Iowa City /Coralville Area Convention & Visitors Bureau and UI Athletics Department along with the cities of Iowa City, Coralville & North Liberty are pleased to introduce the 2nd edition of Herky on Parade presented by the University of Iowa Community Credit Union. 83 six foot Herky statues will be unveiled together and at the same time all over the community on Monday, May 5th at 9:00am. Each Herky, in the "superman” pose, has been transformed by over 50 local and regional artists and sponsored by area businesses. Artists and sponsors will participate in the celebration by unveiling the Herky they helped create. "The community responded to the 2004 parade like no other event we've ever produced. There were a lot of families and kids who didn't want to see the Herkys go away. We've been asked when we're going to bring the Herkys back ever since," says Josh Schamberger, president of the CVB. "With 2014 being the 10th anniversary of the first Herky on Parade, the timing seemed right." Herky on Parade fans are encouraged to share their photos and stay in touch with the different social sites available. Social media sites and applications that were not as available back in 2004. An official Herky on Parade app will be available May 5th thru Google Play and /or iTunes. The app will list each Herky and his exact location, provide more information about each statue, allow for photo sharing, merchandise purchases, a ranking system, opportunities for winning contests and more. Learn more about Herky on parade by visiting www.herkyonparade2.com or through the following social media sites: facebook.com/herkyonparacle twitter.com/HerkyOnParade instagra m.com /herkyon parade pinterest.com/herkyonparade YouTube: www.herkvtube.com CI crtM HERKY ON PARADE NEWS CONFERENCE AGENDA Date: MONDAY, MAY 5 Time: 8:25 -8:50 Location: IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Agenda: Welcome, Introductions, and HOP2 Comments Josh Schamberger, President Iowa City /Coralville Area CVB EPIC Iowa Road Trip / Iowa's Tourism Industry Shawna Lode, Director Iowa Department of Tourism 125/75/10 Anniversary, HOP Comments Gary Barta, Athletics Director University of Iowa Business Community, Private /Public Partnership, HOP Comments Jeff Disterhoff, President & CEO University of Iowa Community Credit Union "Just Herky" Statue Unveil Herky and Iowa Spirit Squad Immediately following news conference media will be encouraged to flood the pedmall and participate in the numerous adjacent public unveils. All statues will be unveiled publicly all over town at 9AM. DRAFT CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — April 21, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Melissa Jensen, Donald King, Mazahir Salih (5:37 PM) MEMBERS ABSENT: Royceann Porter STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Doug Hart of the ICPD; Marian Karr, City Clerk and Jerry Nixon, Cable TV Gov. Programmer RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #13 -05 (2) Request a 45 -day extension for CPRB Complaint #13 -07 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by King, seconded by Jensen, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 03/11/14 Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent. IP17 OLD BUSINESS Community Forum — The forum is set for Tuesday, May 13th. Treloar and Jensen will work together to work on an introduction piece for the forum. Tuttle handed out an email received for the forum. The Board agreed to forward the email to the Police Department for a response and acknowledge receipt and read the email and the response at the forum. Video — Karr stressed the importance of Board members participating and scheduling a time for their interview for the video. Nixon said he was willing to work with Board members to find a time that will work for them. He also offered to be available before and after their next meeting. NEW BUSINESS None. (Karr and Nixon left the meeting) PUBLIC DISCUSSION Hart introduced himself to the Board as Captain Wyss's replacement due to his retirement. CPRB April 21, 2014 Page 2 BOARD INFORMATION Salih reported that many members of the Sudanese community have contacted her regarding the process of a pending taxi investigation. Many members of the community were confused of what their rights are and the proceedures of the Police Department. Hart suggested holding a community meeting where they can educate and give them the opportunity to ask questions. He said to contact the new Public Relations Officer Al Mebus to set up a meeting. King announced that this was his last meeting and that he was resigning from the Board. Staff requested that he send an email to include in the Council packet. Treloar extended his thanks for his service to the Board and the Community. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle asked the Board to look over the contact sheet and let her know if there are any corrections needed. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by King, seconded by Jensen to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Open session adjourned at 6:10 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:49 P.M. Motion by Jensen, seconded by King to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB Complaint #13 -05 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Motion by Jensen, seconded by King to request a 45 -day extension for CPRB Complaint #13 -07, due to a second request for additional information from the Iowa City Police Department; and direct staff to request the information for review at their next meeting. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Is] U V April 21, 2014 Page 3 Motion by Jensen, seconded by Salih to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint #14 -01 to 8 -8 -7 (13)(1)(d), Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the Board's own investigation; and direct staff to request additional information from the Iowa City Police Department regarding CPRB Complaint #14 -01. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • May 5, 2014, 5:30 PM, TBD • May 13, 2014, 6:00 PM, IC Public Library, Room A - Annual Community Forum • June 10, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • July 8, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm Moved by Jensen, seconded by Salih to schedule a Monday, May 5th meeting at 5:30 PM. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by King, seconded by Salih. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:56 P.M. n u n u u CrQ fD �V O i y� ro �d N N � w n O A� �S y ro 0 0 ay 0 a � W yC D'C DC DC � NA 00 N yC O �C DC DC O O 0No ✓ti j ✓ti /V ITV 1^� I•'•� N j Iry � Iry Iry � fD �V O i y� ro �d N N � w n O A� �S y ro 0 0 CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5041 April 21, 2014 To: City Council Complainant City Manager -� Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police 4 ==f Officer(s) involved in complaint 4 n 4 yr �sa °+l CD From: Citizen Police Review Board Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #13 -05 This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB #13 -05 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -713 (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ( "Report ") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on October 22, 2013. As required by Section 8 -8 -5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on January 21, 2014. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8 -8 -7 (B) (1) (d), Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the Board's own investigation. The Board met to consider the Report on January 28, 2014, February 11, 2014, March 11, 2014, and April 21, 2014. FINDINGS OF FACT On August 31, 2013 at approximately 1843 hours, the Complainant called 9 -1 -1 about his camera being stolen while he was at the Airliner. At 1846, an officer was dispatched and arrived about four minutes later but could not locate the Complainant. At approximately 1931 hours the Complainant again called 9 -1 -1 where he becomes abusive and curses the dispatcher. During the call he is told the officer was there but could not locate him. The Complainant tells the dispatcher that he is across the street at the bus stop and will wait for the officer. At 1938 hours the Complainant again calls the 9 -1 -1 dispatcher for the third time. He is again abusive and swearing and hangs up on the dispatcher. Less than a minute later he calls again for the fourth time, more irate and swearing. The Complainant claims he has been waiting for two hours for an officer to show up. Officers arrive two minutes later. When asked what had happened, the Complainant says the "And the person in dispatch got all stupid and shit on me." While talking with the Complainant the officers noticed signs of intoxication so they asked if he had been drinking. He admitted that he had something to drink but declines to take a breath test on three different occasions. After the Complainant refused a breath test he was arrested for public intoxication. The Complainant is walked to the officer's vehicle and told to put his bag on the trunk of the car. During the arrest the Complainant turns to his right and both officers began to make comments or give instructions indicating that the Complainant did something unexpected. The Complainant later explained that he turned because one of the officers had grabbed his bag from behind unexpectedly and he reacted. Both officers thought the bag was already on the vehicle. Officer A thought the Complainant was turning around to continue to debate his arrest and the officer did not think the Complainant was being resistive or non - compliant. Both officers said that the complainant was "moved" back toward the car and finished handcuffing him. After he was handcuffed, he was placed in the back of the patrol car without incident. The complainant was offered a post- arrest breath test which was refused. There was no mention from the complainant that he wanted an alternate test. Officer A attempted to gather information about the missing camera. The camera bag was searched and placed in the back of Officer B's vehicle and taken to the Wilson Building to await the Complainant's release from jail. Neither officer recalls seeing an Pad or a point and shoot digital camera in the complainant's bag. ALLEGATION 1: Complainant alleges that Officers violated his rights by not reading him a Miranda warni after he was arrested. g c a Once the Complainant was in custody he was only asked about his missinff?n�mem ands address. The questions did not deal with the charges against him which wouV a`'ve triggered a Miranda warning. r�, -ca NOT SUSTAINED =` °' co ALLEGATION 2: Complainant alleges that officers used excessive force Investigation shows that while the Complainant was being handcuffed he turned toward one of the officers, regardless of the reason for his action, there is no evidence that the officers used excessive force and if they used force it appears to be minimal. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION 3: Complainant complained that the officers threw his bag into the patrol car. Video from the patrol vehicle shows that the officer set the Complainant's bag in the back seat of the car. He does not throw the bag in the car and can clearly be seen setting the bag in his patrol car. NOT SUSTAINED COMMENTS: None. wX a PO 0 W— MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2014 — 6:30 PM DALE HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bacon Curry, Andrew Chappell, Cheryll Clamon, David Hacker, Jim Jacobson, Peter Matthes, Dottie Persson, Christine Ralston, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: Joel Shrader, Miller Thammovongsa, Jaclyn Steiff RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: The Commission voted 9 -0 to recommend the approval of the FYI Annual Action Plan with minor typographical corrections. The Commission voted 9 -0 to recommend the approval of the FY14 Annual Action Plan Amendment #2. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair Andrew Chappell. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 20 AND MARCH 6, 2014 MINUTES Clamon moved to approve both sets of minutes. Bacon Curry seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 9 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None STAFF /COMMISSION COMMENT: Hightshoe told the Commission that the City is offering the Building Change program again for downtown /Northside Marketplace improvements such as fagade renovations, energy efficiency improvements, accessibility and utilization of upper level spaces. In addition to CDBG fagade grants, three local lenders have agreed to each deposit $50,000 in a fund administered by the City that provides no interest, no fee loans for these types of improvements. The participating lenders include MidWestOne Bank, Hills Bank and the University of Iowa Community Credit Union. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION April 17, 2014 PAGE 2 of 5 Jacobson asked if the UniverCity program use realtors to sell /market the homes. Hightshoe stated to date the City has not needed to use realtors for this program. The City uses online marketing, has a website, issues press releases and has used other avenues to advertise the program. There has been sufficient interest in the homes so that we have not had to use realtors. Review of the FYI Annual Action Plan (www.icgov.orq /actionplan Hightshoe explained that the Annual Action Plan identifies how the City will utilize its federal funds during FY15. The plan is a HUD required document and also includes information regarding general program management such as monitoring practices, affirmative marketing, resale /recapture provisions, program certifications, and identifying low income and minority concentrations per census tract. Hightshoe questioned the commission about their approval of the Targeted Rehab Program. When the commission recommended $140,000, they didn't specifically address if a portion of the allocation could be used for downpayment assistance per the revised application. In the draft Action Plan, staff included $125,000 for rehab and $15,000 for downpayment assistance for a total $140,000 allocation. She said if the Commission prefers that the funds only be used for rehab, they need to make the recommendation that the $140,000 be utilized only for rehab. Chappell said it didn't seem that anyone had any concerns about that particular part of the project. Hightshoe explained that the public comment period goes from April 4 to May 6. The City Council will hold a public meeting on May 6. The Council can either accept the plan as recommended by HCDC or they may alter it. The plan must be submitted to HUD by May 15, 2014. Jacobson asked how staff tracks if the jobs in economic development projects are going to low - moderate income persons. Hightshoe stated that businesses are required to give employees an income survey for any new position created during the first year. The income survey must be kept in the personnel file. Businesses either send staff all the surveys at the end of the year or staff monitors their employee files as it relates to the CDBG funds. An employee can refuse to complete the survey, but they have to be considered over income on the annual report. At the end of the year, the business completes a report identifying the income for each position created that year. CDBG does not have a specified time the business must retain that position. The City elects to track the jobs for a year. Perrson moved to recommend the approval of the FYI Annual Action Plan with minor typographical corrections. Matthes seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 9 -0. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION April 17, 2014 PAGE 3 of 5 Review of the FY14 Annual Action Plan Amendment #2 Hightshoe explained that the Commission had allocated HOME funds to Charm Homes to purchase two homes in FY14. She said they have identified one home, but unable to identify a second home that meets their accessibility needs. Charms was also allocated FY13 HOME funds to purchase two homes. They acquired one and are looking for the second. They believe they will locate a second home to complete their FY13 agreement, but do not believe they could identify a third home by the end of the fiscal year. Charms is requesting an amendment to utilize the FY14 funds for one home as opposed to two. This reduces the beneficiaries from eight to four and requires an action plan amendment. Hightshoe stated staff is recommending approval of this request. This will reduce the amount of private financing required and helps keep the units affordable. The City would not have time to reallocate the funds to another activity per HOME regulations. If not utilized, the funds may be recaptured by HUD. Chappell said this isn't something he normally would support, but they just can't afford not to spend the funds at this point. Bacon Curry moved to recommend the approval of the FY14 Annual Action Plan Amendment #2. Zimmermann Smith seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 9 -0. Discuss FY14 Projects that have not Performed per the Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy Hightshoe explained that the Policy states that if a CDBG recipient hasn't spent at least 50% of its award by March 15, the project must come back to the Commission for review. The commission may either grant an extension or recommend recapture and reallocation of the funds. She said none of the public facilities met the expenditure threshold. She stated that being said, they have all procured a contractor and work has started. MECCA is nearly complete, but not billed yet. Free Medical Clinic started their project early this year, but hasn't billed yet. Mayor's Youth got a slow start due to the occupancy and parking issues, but contractors are hired and work commenced. Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County procured a contractor for the landscaping work and work will be done as weather permits. Hightshoe stated she would be concerned if a recipient hadn't procured a contractor by this time, but the work is proceeding and all of them should be complete or nearly complete by June 30. For smaller projects, the contractors may wait till the end to bill. The Commission agreed to take no action, meaning that the funds will be automatically extended. Discussion of the Community Development Celebration Hightshoe said the City did not have a Community Development Celebration last year. She requested that the commission form a subcommittee to brainstorm ways to advertise the impact of CDBG /HOME funds with or without a celebration as previously held in the past. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION April 17, 2014 PAGE 4 of 5 Bacon Curry suggested something with Public Access TV or channel 4 where they could have a running ad with pictures of prior projects. Could include photos on the buses. Perrson suggested putting projects on the City's website. She said they could also do a press release for each project. Jacobson recommended publicizing good stories as many press releases get buried. Zimmermann Smith suggested involving the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Association. Bacon Curry and Zimmermann Smith agreed to be on the Community Development Celebration Committee. Review Allocation Process — CDBG /HOME and Aid to Agencies Chappell asked the Commission's preference on reviewing both programs or just reviewing one this year. There was agreement that members were not comfortable with the Aid to Agencies process. The scoring criteria for CDBG /HOME applications were discussed, but the consensus was to review just Aid to Agencies. Perrson, Jacobson and Ralston volunteered to serve on a committee to review the Aid to Agencies process by mid - August. Hightshoe gave a brief overview of the history of the Aid to Agencies funding process. Chappell said that perhaps through the Aid to Agencies review they could get some ideas on how to change the CDBG /HOME process and they can plan on doing that next year. Monitoring Reports • FY14 Neighborhood Centers — Playground (Hacker) • FYI Iowa City Housing Authority — TBRA (Hacker) • FYI Habitat for Humanity — Acquisition & Rehab (Matthes) All the monitoring reports were deferred to the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Zimmerman Smith moved to adjourn. Bacon Curry seconded. Motion to adjourn carried 9 -0. Z O U) U) O U H z W 2 IL O J W w z D O U Q -LO O N O Z ri LO U) c-W D�(D oQCL Z 0 m O L) z w° IL0 00 V w jrV V 0 W W N °zM Z ° N Z LU H 0 ° z 0 z cn N ` W N c �: N vii Co aQQz II II II II w, Yx00 x x x x x x x x x M X X X x x X X X N o x x i x x o x x x N x x x i i x i X o x o x r N O x x ; ; ; X ; x x x x x r x x x x x x x o x 0 o x x x o o x x x x x o X X O X X w o O x x x o x x x 0 0 co o x x o o x x x x X x x x x o x x X IZ It LO IT M M U') co c� IT co co LO LO O N O N O N O N O N O N O N r O N r O N r O N r O N r O N r O N r W N e— r 0') r 0) r 0') r CY) r O) 0) CF) 0) CY) CY) CF) CY) W J J W V W Z w W Z H v t/1 a ° Z V W J ' O O N Z Z Ow W w W 0 d C J Y m 2 CO w J a z s m = v x v °° o°c a a _ a z Q n a a N�a cn N ` W N c �: N vii Co aQQz II II II II w, Yx00 IP79 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 17 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Ginalie Swaim, Sarah Clark, Jake Biager, Alicia Trimble, Mary Bennett, Deanna Mire, Mike Olivera, Bob Welch, Jason Harder, Greg Zimmerman, Corinne Joslin, Sally Scott, Tracey Achenbach RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6 -0 (Thomas abstaining) to recommend approval of REZ14- 00004, an application to designate the Goosetown /Horace Mann Conservation District as a conservation overlay (OCD) zone. The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of amending the Comprehensive Plan, Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan with wording suggested by staff regarding affordable housing and the language "within the District should be considered" be changed to "within the District shall be considered ". CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. Rezoning Item REZ14 -00004 Discussion of an application submitted by the Historic Preservation Commission for a rezoning to designate the Goosetown / Horace Mann Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone for properties generally located on Ronalds, Church, Fairchild and Davenport Streets from east of Linn Street to Governor Street and properties generally located on Bloomington, Market and Jefferson Streets between Dodge and Governor Streets. Miklo said it was at the request of the Northside Neighborhood Association that the Historic Preservation Commission examined this area. He read from the Zoning Code as to what the purpose of a conservation district is. He showed where the boundaries of the proposed district will be and said it will exclude for the most part non - residentially zoned properties around Dodge Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2014 Page 2 of 11 and Church Streets. He explained that properties within the district are classified into categories by the Historic Preservation Commission and showed examples of each type: 1. Key Properties — because of history or architecture make the property eligible for being independently listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 2. Contributing Properties — represent a high level of quality in terms of retention of their historic character but aren't significant enough -to be listed on the National Register independently but could be in a district; 3. Contributing Properties to a Conservation Distirct — are historic but have had some remodeling done so they don't rise to the level of being National Register level either independently of in a district, but are still worthy of preservation based on the Conservation Guidelines. 4. Non - Contributing — are non - historic or have been remodeded to the extent that their historic character is not recognizable. Miklo said that roughly 23 -25% of the properties in the district are Non - Contributing, which means there may be opportunities for infill development in the neighborhood and these buildings may be considered for removal on a case by case basis and replaced with buildings more in line with the character of the neighborhood. Miklo said if the district is approved, the goals of stabilization of property values and encouraging property owners to reinvest in their properties would be implemented by requiring design review for any exterior remodeling that requires a building permit or any demolition or new construction in the neighborhood. He said the Historic Preservation Commission has guidelines they use to review each case and depending on the level of significance of the change those changes can be approved within two or three days by staff or, for more extensive or significant remodeling, will be reviewed by the Commission, which generally takes three weeks from time of application. He explained that the standards don't prevent the alteration of buildings but allow them to occur in a way sympathetic to the historic buildings and the neighborhood. He said no property owner in a historic district is mandated to make changes, but if they decide to make changes, they must be according to the guidelines. Miklo said the Planning and Zoning Commission's role is to determine whether the proposed conservation district complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is in compliance with other plans the City has for this area. He said the Comprehensive Plan, the Central District Plan, specifically mention the Goosetown neighborhood as a good candidate for a conservation district. He said a conservation district would also support City Council's Strategic Plan to promote healthy neighborhoods. He explained how the Residential Neighborhood Stabilization Zones in this area have been adopted to help preserve this area. He said the proposed Conservaton District would contribute to this effort. He said based on the goals of the Comprehensive Plan staff finds that this proposed district supports those goals. Freerks asked if this in any way affects the underlying zone. Miklo replied that it does not. Freerks opened public discussion. Ginalie Swaim, speaking as the Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, said that the Commission's unanimous vote at their last meeting to approve this rezoning is evidence that it complies with the requirements for establishing a Conservation District. She gave a brief history of the area and said that many of the qualities that characterize the neighborhood over 150 years are the same ones that they hope to protect and nurture today. She told how the house at 410 N. Lucas is an example of how change can happen to a house to meet current needs but can still be preserved in ways to honor the past. She said the Comprehensive Plan promotes Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2014 Page 3 of 11 diverse housing options, and this neighborhood provides a history of ethnic, economic, and housing stock diversity, as well as an opportunity for affordable housing. Swaim said the Plan and conservation overlay are tools thoughtfully created and applied to protect the viability of older neighborhoods into the future. Sarah Clark said she is representing Mike Wright, Co- coordinator of the Northside Neighborhood Association. She read a letter from him in strongly supporting the rezoning. Jake Biager of 519 N. Johnson St. said she and her husband have been both renters and homeowners in this neighborhood and they are excited by the City's efforts to secure its character and design. Alicia Trimble, Executive Director of Friends of Historic Preservation, said she echoed the thoughts expressed by Ginalie Swaim and Sarah Clark. She said Goosetown is what our future neighborhoods need to look like in that they are walkable to where you need to go. Mary Bennett of 1167 Muscatine Avenue said it's important to keep this zone intact because it's contiguous with Jefferson Street, Brown Street and the Northside Historic Districts. She urges the Commission to approve this application but she hopes that someday it can be expanded to include more of Goosetown. Deanne Mirr of 3411 Ireland Drive said she has concerns about the cost of renovations if this becomes a historic district and worries if run -down student rentals will be sitting side by side with beautifully restored properties, with people fighting all the time because they live beside crap or because they have the snooty neighbors. Mike Olivera of 617 Ronalds Street and owner of Prestige Properties Prairie Sun Building Services said he has been to all the meetings. He said they own about thirteen or fourteen buildings in this area and he said his concerns are that the process invoking this district has good intentions, but the property owners in this district have not been polled or asked if they want to be a conservation district. He said 60% of the this district is rentals and rental property owners have a different investment objective, and by putting this area into a conservation district, there are many houses here that need to be torn down and rebuilt. He said some of the costs of renovation are beyond many peoples' means. He said this proposed district is ill conceived and the Commission needs to give serious thought to this, and maybe the property owners should be polled to see if they really want this, because if the investors decide they are going to do minimal work on their houses, that's not going to help the neighborhood. He said the UniverCity Program is nice but they don't have the resources to buy the number of houses in this area that would even make a dent. He said the area to the north that was made a historic district last year is still in a fight between the renters, apartment owners, good and bad landlords, and the property owners. He reiterated that before the Commission rushes into a decision, maybe the property owners need to be polled, because it could backfire and landlords could open up their housing to subsidized housing or continue renting to college students and do minimum maintenance. He said this area is not going to be good for the community as it goes down because that 60% is a huge factor for this neighborhood and it's not going to change overnight. Bob Welch said that Goosetown is a historic part of this community, and it would be a shame not to preserve it. Sarah Clark said she disagreed with Olivera about how neighborhoods change. She said three of the five houses on the side of the block where she lives on Brown Street had been split into Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2014 Page 4 of 11 duplexes and they were purchased and converted back to single family. She said she was not clear what the reference that Mirr made about neighbors fighting was about because she lives in a very mixed neighborhood. She said a lot or people want to live in the central area and they need something like this historic designation to keep it going so it can be open to everyone. Ginalie Swaim said she wanted to respond to the concern about the cost of working on older homes. She said the Historic Preservation Commission sees applications for quite modest changes. She said salvaged materials and new techniques can make the cost of restoration reasonable. She said the fear of the cost is often voiced, but it doesn't play out very often. Alicia Trimble said the Historic Preservation Guidelines exist not just to make a home look nice, but also because there are certain things you shouldn't do to older homes. She said she knows of three houses that had to be torn down because vinyl siding had been installed and the houses could not breathe through their outside walls, as older houses are meant to. She said one - hundred year old windows can be repaired but vinyl windows last about ten years. She added that the greenest house is the one that's already built. Freerks closed public discussion. Thomas recused himself saying that he lives within 300 feet of the proposed boundary. Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ14- 00004, an application to designate the Goosetown /Horace Mann Conservation District as a conservation overlay (OCD) zone. Theobald seconded. Greenwood Hektoen explained that the procedures for approving this require notice be sent to every property owner in the proposed area, and that happens before the Historic Preservation Commission starts to consider it and there is public hearing at the Council level. Eastham received clarification from Greenwood Hektoen about what the Commission's role was in this application. She said when applications come in to the Historic Preservation Commission is when they get into the details of the renovations and materials, and that is not the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Eastham said regarding a statement made during public discussion about the possibility that property owners might open up their properties for subsidized housing if this area becomes a conservation district that he views that as a positive prospect and hopes it's being done already. He added that he thinks this proposal meets all the criteria that are established in terms of being compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and he's particularly impressed that the School District is improving the local elementary school, and this conservation district is very compatible with that improvement and Council has recently adopted and reaffirmed neighborhood stabilization and improvement in the Strategic Plan and this conservation district goes many steps in that direction. Martin said this fits well with the other plans the City has adopted. She said as an investor she sees property owners as stewards and feels that when you are in these conservation districts it adds to the ability to be a steward. She said designating this as a conservation districts enhances the ability of maintaining the diversity of these neighborhoods. She said a conservation district doesn't mean stopping progress, and she thinks this is a great thing. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2014 Page 5 of 11 Theobald said this follows the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria. She spoke of a neighborhood in Dubuque where many properties are taking on the historic flavor that had existed, and she thinks it's very important to keep and this is a chance to do that. Dyer said she supports this but is disappointed that the proposed conservation district doesn't extend through more of Goosetown. She said it seems to fit in well with the recently upgraded park and preserving Horace Mann School. Swygard said she would agree with what the Commissioners have said. She said it definitely fits in with the City's Comprehensive Plan and preserving this area. Freerks said she agrees that it's in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and she can think of no good reason to deny the recommendation. She said she has lived in a conservation district for quite some time and she has found it not to be a burden. She said she understands peoples' concerns, and she's glad people have come and voiced different sides of this. She said she lives in a very mixed area and the conservation district has only been a good thing. She said nothing has to happen to these properties and when they do, she thinks the right thing happens. She said it would be nice to extend further into Goosetown, and perhaps that's something that could happen in the future. She said she thinks it would be nice to have Horace Mann School as part of the designation and would like to see that happen in the future so a good partnership can occur in the community with the School District. She said she is definitely in favor of this and happy to see it happen. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0 (Thomas abstaining) Annexation / Rezoning Item ANN 14 -00001 /REZ14 -00002 Discussion of an application submitted by Build to Suit for an annexation of 39.6 -acres and rezoning from County Residential (R) zone to Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID -RS) zone located at 4701 Herbert Hoover Highway. Miklo showed maps and images of the property and its location. He said this property is within the city's growth area, it will help serve the city's future demand for housing, it will not create an undue burden on the city, and it is in the interest of the city to control what happens on this property, so it meets the three tests in determining if a property is suitable for annexation. He said for these reasons staff does find that the proposed annexation complies with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of annexation. Miklo said in the future once the developer has an adequate plan to provide infrastructure the City would look at a zoning pattern that would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Miklo said for some time this property will only have street access from Herbert Hoover Highway so staff is proposing as a condition that when development occurs that there be some pedestrian link back to the city. Freerks asked about the environmentally sensitive areas. Miklo said there are two drainage ways or low points, one of which may contain a woodland. He said before the property is developed, staff will have to investigate that. He said staff has seen a rough concept of how this might be developed and those areas were shown as open space and storm water management. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2014 Page 6 of 11 Eastham asked if regarding future cost to the City sewage service to this property is obtained by a lift station or gravity flow. Miklo replied that gravity flow is the preferred way to provide sanitary sewer. He said that would require the cooperation of adjacent property owners. He said a lift station would probably be a temporary situation in this case because the City anticipates this area eventually developing with a trunk line through this area, at which point the lift station could be abandoned and the sewer directed to the trunk line. Eastham said he's very concerned about sidewalk access for this property if it develops before contiguous properties develop. Miklo said the Commission and Council will have the chance to revisit that when the Interim Development ( ID) zoning is removed and changed to another zoning. He said one possibility is to put temporary sidewalks in, which staff feels is an acceptable solution until adjacent properties come into the city. Freerks opened public discussion. Jason Harder of Build to Suit, representing the applicant, responded to Freerks questioning and said they really don't have a time frame. Martin asked why the surrounding properties to the subject property are not being annexed first. Harder said he guessed it's because there are not that many property owners in this area who wish to be annexed. Greg Zimmerman, owner of the two parcels of land directly east to the subject property, said residential development in that area is not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood from Scott Boulevard to the Interstate. He cited a study done thirty years ago by MMS Consultants where they said that if Scott Boulevard was the bypass for the trucks that would make the area from the Interstate to Scott Boulevard unsuitable for residential. He added that he's concerned about the wildlife being disrupted. Corinne Joslin, a long -time resident of 4701 Herbert Hoover Highway, said she lives in the little house on this property and said she's concerned about the amount of traffic. She said she is sympathetic to everyone involved in this process and knew that the city would eventually move out this far. She said she's heard that the developer will tear down the barn where two Great Horned Owls have lived for years. She said the landlords always intended that she and her family live on her property, and they have done many improvements at their own cost. She said the former owners passed away before they put their wisthes in writing. She said she is very invested in the property she lives on and implored the developers to take her property last. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham said he would personally like more time to consider among other things the fact that primary access to this property would be off Herbert Hoover Highway, which is very heavily traveled. Freerks asked if the applicant would be willing to waive the limitation period until the next meeting. Harder asked her why they wanted to do that. Freerks replied that the Commission often takes more than one meeting to make a decision, because sometimes the situation is that they need more time for thought. Harder asked for explanation of the process, which Miklo gave to him. Harder said he had no problem deferring until May 1St Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2014 Page 7 of 11 Freerks said when there are many factors to consider such as sewer lines and traffic, especially with annexations, the Commission likes to take time to make sure it's the right thing to do. She told Harder that he is welcome to submit additional information before the meeting. Eastham moved to defer ANN14- 00001 /REZ14 -00002 to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of May 1't. Dyer seconded. Eastham said he wanted more input on the overall plan for the area between Scott and Taft in terms of access as it's developed over time and how that access will or won't use Herbert Hoover Highway. He said he would benefit from a comparison between that kind of access for a residential area and other residential areas in the city that have been annexed over the last 20 years. Freerks said she's seen many times where you have these unique places and she asked the applicant why not come up with a way to integrate them into his plan. She said it's fashionable to have something special about the place he's developing, so why not be the development next to the barn. She said she thinks that sometimes we don't stretch our minds enough about the ways existing treasures on the corners can be an asset to a place. She suggested that the applicant take some time to discuss the possibilities for these unique features and that could make something really nice happen. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 7 -0. Comprehensive Plan Item Public hearing for discussion of amending the Comprehensive Plan, Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, to include a section on affordable housing. Miklo said staff has provided suggested language that would fit into the context of the Plan and how it works with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan. Freerks opened public discussion. Sally Scott of 205 Black Springs Circle said she was representing the Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition and appreciates that there's been a response to their previous request to include an amendment about affordable housing in the Master Plan for the Riverfront Crossings. She said this area will benefit from public investment and it seems critical that there be the full range of public benefit, including affordable housing. She said they think the language of the amendment should not be limited to "City assisted projects ". She said the other issue they have is that the language regarding development incentives states they "should be considered ", but it's not clear by whom. She said they feel there should be a stronger consideration of affordable housing for all projects and a requirement for City assisted projects. Tracey Achenbach of 727 Rundell and Executive Director of the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County said she supports the suggested language change. She spoke about some of the work her organization is doing to ensure affordable housing in this community. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2014 Page 8 of 11 Bob Welch said he thinks there is a general concern that if there is one area where Iowa City is lacking, it is affordable housing, and a statement like the one being proposed is an indication that the community really wants affordable housing. Freerks closed public hearing. Dyer moved to recommendation adoption of the wording suggested by the staff regarding affordable housing in the Riverfront Crossings Neighborhood. Eastham seconded. Swygard said she has personally benefitted from affordable housing in Iowa City, she lives close to Riverfront Crossings and she wouldn't be in her house now unless it was "affordable." She said affordable housing is lacking in Iowa City, and this offers possibilities to open up further opportunities for other people in similar situations to hers. She said they would be remiss if they didn't address this in a way that will offer more economically diverse housing options in the area and make the city more sustainable. Freerks said she agreed and supports the wording staff has suggested. She said she doesn't think that identifying Neighborhood and Development Services as requested in the letter from Sally Scott is required, as names and places change, which would require a change to the Comprehensive Plan. She said that by saying all projects need to be part of this is inclusionary zoning, which the Council has talked about. She said she's not sure it's the Commission's place to put that piece in, but she urged the public to go to City Council and ask them to put it in. She said she supports working hard to make this area a liveable community for everyone and making affordable housing part of that. Greenwood Hektoen said the rental parameters that staff considers to be workforce housing are $650.00 for a studio; $800 for a one - bedroom; and $1,020 for a two - bedroom. She said for homes to be purchased the standard is in the $150,000 - $200,000 range. Dyer said she had a problem with the wording being so vague and that it doesn't tell her who's going to do anything. She said the Comprehensive Plan seems to support affordable housing much more than is done, and "should be considered" isn't a command in her mind. Miklo explained that the implementers of the Comprehensive Plan are City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and staff, and that's why it does not specifically name the Neighborhood and Development Services Department. Freerks said that Dyer would rather see it mandated in some way and she's not sure they should be mandating it at this level. Dyer asked how affordable housing was instituted in the Peninsula Neighborhood. Miklo said that was a development agreement with the developer. Dyer asked if that would be appropriate in this circumstance. Miklo said he suspects in the Peninsula Plan there is a general statement like this one that lead to specifics. Dyer said it seems that Riverfront Crossings is the same sort of mixed use project instituted by the City and carried out by other people. Freerks said the difference is that the City does not own this property as it did the Peninsula property. Dyer said the need for affordable housing is more now than it was at that time. Eastham said he's not entirely comfortable with the phrase "should be considered" and would Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2014 Page 9 of 11 be happier with "shall be considered ". He said he's not quite as disturbed by the limitation City - assisted projects because he thinks that includes most projects that will be affordable to people with lower incomes. He said he agrees with taking out the name of the department. He said that the Commission even talking about this now is a huge step forward. Thomas said when you have high demand for affordable housing that supports the notion that affordable housing should be included, even going as far as inclusionary zoning. He said he believes this is an opportunity for the Council to consider inclusionary zoning because of the demand this land will generate in terms of development. He said he is okay with the change from "should" to a more emphatic "shall ". He said he feels that Council needs to look at this aggressively in terms of promoting and developing affordable housing. Eastham moved to recommend that the wording suggested by staff be adopted and the language "within the District should be considered" be changed to "within the District shall be considered ". Theobald seconded. Eastham went on the recorde saying that he agrees with Thomas and two other Commissioner's statements to the effect that this is a large area where many homes will be built and they need to make sure that there are homes affordable to people with much less than 60% Area Median Income (AMI) income, and he hopes the Council will take that into consideration when they are considering this amendment and future requests for development. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Code Item Discussion of Design Review for portions of the Riverfront Crossings District. Miklo said staff is proposing that the language imposing design review outside of areas that would initially be rezoned be taken out and have more discussion with the affected property owners and possibly do an actual overlay rezoning or wait until properties are actually rezoned to apply it. Design review would clearly be required for anything that's being rezoned and being given the benefits of the Riverfront Crossings District with this revised language. Freerks opened public discussion. Freerks closed public discussion. Dyer moved to recommend approval of a revision in language regarding design review for portions of the Riverfront Crossings District as outlined in the staff memo. Eastham seconded. Freerks said this makes sense to her, and she wants to make sure that everyone is informed about changes they make. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2014 Page 10 of 11 A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 3, 2014 Eastham moved to approve the minutes Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Election of officers. Swygard nominated Freerks as Chair. A vote was taken and Freerks was elected Chair. Dyer nominated Eastham as Vice - Chair. A vote was taken and Eastham was elected Vice - Chair. Eastham nominated Swygard as Secretary. A vote was taken and Swygard was elected Secretary. Adjournment Eastham moved to adjourn. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. z O V) N 0 U z z N z z z J a 0 v Nw I.I. W 0 z z w a T 0 N (h T 0 N z w W O LL ti ;xXxxxxx X X X X X X X Re "xxxxxXO; N X X x x O x x CO) NXXXXXXX; N XXXXXXX NXXXXXXX; �oXxxxxx; xxxxxlxx T cm xXXXXXX; ; xx O) xxxxxlxx NXXXXXXX; (O co CO I- In CO ltd M T LO LO 0 to LO LO LO LO jXxXOXXX T T � XXxxxxx; w W T z �azW OC -i p Oz �XX�XXXx1 =zz0(L � T ooxxoXxX; �JC6- T Hw�00 F CV) XXOxxxx; w w 011 --1= -� T �0XXXXXX; NXXXXXXX; �w (00mtI mWLOM �Xoo00o000 w w wJo z - azW40z 0u<J. '0� � aoo�� N J LU LU x Oc 7 0 N ai awa = =W z0Wti�V�F -F-� z W w O U. z N X X X X X X X N NXXXXXXX; M �xXXOXXx T �XXXXxxX; XXXXXXX w xxxxxlxx QXxoXX ; xx xxxxxlxx MW (O co CO I- In CO ltd M mm LO LO 0 to LO LO LO LO �-x00000000 W w W z �azW OC -i p Oz =zz0(L � �JC6- w �wcnwQwOW Hw�00 F z o w w 011 --1= -� c Lx) W Ca) CO F+ � C 5 C: C o CO) vUi� -� a Q Q Z n n u n n X O W O w Y IP20 IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DRAFT MONDAY, MARCH 24,2014--5:30 P.M. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST. -TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Bergus, Bram Elias, Nicholas Kilburg, Alexa Homewood, Matt Butler MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Mike Brau, Bob Hardy, Ty Coleman OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Hoyland, Bond Drager, Josh Goding, James Mimms, Hans Hoerschelman SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION PATV will be replacing some carpeting and will be doing some landscaping. A grand "re- opening" event will be held. The production division will be introduced to the community at that event. Drager reported that the library has been recording a "Staff Picks" program for the library youtube channel. The library has launched a blog at blog.icpl.org that contains book recommendations and library events. Hoerschelman said the broadband consumer education committee met on Saturday and discussed some of the aspects of the initiative. Hoerschelman said the committee agreed that short videos should be made of 5 minutes or less covering the topics on the document previously distributed called "Outline of Broadband Education Project ". Discussions with the University of Iowa about their dual role as consumer and provider of broadband services could be constructive. How the University is planning for the future and providing Internet service to students needs to be explored. There may be synergies with the larger community and city. Discussions on planning for the future of broadband with incumbent providers is needed and/or other ways to get to where we would like to be in the near future. The website is under development and includes the text contained in the pamphlet. Information on troubleshooting and more will be added. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Bergus nominated Homewood for chair. Butler seconded the motion. There were no other nominations. Homewood was unanimously elected chair. Bergus nominated Kilburg for vice - chair. Homewood seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations. Kilburg was elected unanimously elected vice - chair. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Homewood moved and Elias seconded a motion to approve the amended February 24, 2014 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS Bergus presented a plaque to Bob Hardy, who is retiring at the end of the month, thanking him for many years of service. Bergus also read the following letter, which will be sent to the City Council. Dear Mayor Hayek and City Councilors, On behalf of the members of the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission and the local cable access television community, I write to share our appreciation of City of Iowa City Cable Administrator Robert "Bob" Hardy, who is retiring after many years of service. Bob helped cultivate public, educational, and government access programming and facilities in Iowa City since its humble beginnings decades ago. Bob was a producer and supporter of early Public Access Television. As manager of the City Channel, Bob shared his gift for telling compelling stories. His staff helped channel this talent into engaging and informative programming shown on local cable TV and the Internet. Bob was also a founding member of the Community Television Group, which granted special equipment funding applications to access providers, such as portable microphones and camcorders for Senior Center Television. As cable television administrator, Bob fielded questions and complaints from consumers about cable television and Internet service in Iowa City. Each month he reported on diverse issues that were resolved by connecting consumers directly with Mediacom staff who could address the concerns. Bob is an active follower of legislative issues affecting citizens' access to media and protection of the First Amendment, and is plugged in to advocacy groups like the Alliance for Community Media and American Community Television. Bob educated the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission on these issues, so we can better inform Iowa City residents. We thank Bob Hardy for his dedication to free access to media for all citizens, and his lengthy service to the City and its constituents. We are pleased to share our gratitude with you and hope you will recognize his commitment, too. Very truly yours, SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES Hardy reported he received no complaints. MEDIACOM REPORT Hardy said he had no contact from Grassley. LOCAL ACCESS CHANNELS REPORTS Goding said the next PATV guidelines workshop would be March 29 at 3 p.m. A group of JCs are expected for that workshop. There will also be a guidelines workshop April 7 at 7 p.m. A video of the guidelines workshop is being developed so clients will be able to view it over the Internet and test out of the information. The next PATV board meeting will be April 16 at 7 p.m. PATV has been hosting several job shadowing students and interns. PATV will be replacing some carpeting and will be doing some landscaping. A grand "re- opening" event will be held. The production division will be introduced to the community at that event. Drager reported that the library has been recording a "Staff Picks" program for the library youtube channel. The library has launched a blog at blog.icpl.org that contains book recommendations and library events. The Project Green series is nearly finished recording for the year. CABLE TV ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Hardy said he has enjoyed his 24 years working for the city and the his time with the Commission. Hardy complimented the Commission on their dedication and service to the community. BROADBAND SURVEY Hoerschelman said the broadband consumer education committee met on Saturday and discussed some of the aspects of the initiative. Hoerschelman said the committee agreed that short videos should be made of 5 minutes or less covering the topics on the document previously distributed called "Outline of Broadband Education Project ". Videos on how to determine one's data cap and explaining the regulatory structure of broadband should also be recorded. In addition to the videos, a means to maintain updated information on broadband plans is needed. Identifying provider personnel that are actually local who can be contacted in cases where subscribers cannot get their problems resolved is also needed. A broadband mystery shopper could be used to gather information on the consumer experience. Collecting the data submitted to users of the website for ongoing analysis would be beneficial. Audits of home wiring by providers or other trained personnel might be provided. Discussions on planning for the future of broadband with incumbent providers is needed and /or other ways to get to where we would like to be in the near future. Developing a consumer profile or model consumer might be helpful. Discussions with the University of Iowa about their dual role as consumer and provider of broadband services could be constructive. How the University is planning for the future and providing Internet service to students needs to be explored. There may be synergies with the larger community and city. Brau said the draft pamphlet has been forwarded to Mediacom and CenturyLink for review. The pamphlet could be distributed in the city water bills. The website is under development and includes the text contained in the pamphlet. Information on troubleshooting and more will be added. Brau noted the Commission had discussed going before the city council to introduce the consumer education initiative and the survey results. The May 6 meeting may be a good date to shoot for. City Channel 4 staff is available to make some of the educational videos. Bergus said any presentation before the city council needs to be scripted and well developed, including having a finished video to show. Bergus offered to coordinate the presentation to city council. ADJOURNMENT Homewood moved and Butler seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brau Cable TV Administrative Aide TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 12 MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD (X) = Present (0) = Absent (O /C) = Absent/Called (Excused) Hoerschelman Ber us Homewood 5/28/11 X X X X x 6/27/11 x o/c x x X 8/27/11 x x x o/c X 9/24/11 X X X X X 10/24/11 X X X X X 11/26/11 X X vacant X X Kilbur 2/25/12 X X x x X Butler 3/26/12 o/c x o x X 4/23/12 X X X X X 5/21/12 X X X X X 6/25/12 X X X X X 7/23/12 x X X X X 8/27/12 x x x x X 9/24/12 X X X X X 10/22/12 X X X X X 11/26/12 X X X X X 12/17/12 X X X X X 1/28/13 X o/c X X X 2/25/13 X X X X X Elias 3/25/13 o/c x o/c x X 4/22/13 x x x x 0 6/3/13 X X X X X 6/24/13 x o/c z o/c X 7/22/13 o/c x x x X 9/23/13 x X X X o/c 10/28/13 X X X X X 12/30/13 O/C X O/C X X 1/27/1 X X X X X 2/24/14 X X X 0 0 3/24/14 X X X X x (X) = Present (0) = Absent (O /C) = Absent/Called (Excused)