HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-26 Info Packetwar�®p 0
j
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
-tea is
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org February 26, 2015
IPI Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
MISCELLANEOUS
IP2 Article from Mayor Pro tem Mims and Council Member Botchway: Police Officer Discretion
in the Use of Body Worn Cameras
IP3 Article from City Manager: It's Already Over And Uber Has Won
IP4 Copy of email to City Manager: Dancing traffic light
IP5 Copy of email from Harry Olmstead: New Buildings for Older People — NY Times
I136 Memo from Finance Director: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending December
31, 2014
IP7 Memo from Fire Chief: Fire Department Training
I138 Copy of press release: Metronet survey crews to visit Iowa City area beginning March 2
I139 Copy of staff response from Recycling Coordinator to Mary Jeanne Perino Phillips: Food
waste and curbside collection
IP10 Criminal Justice Coordinating minutes —December 3
DRAFT MINUTES
IP11 Citizens Police Review Board: February10
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Date
Monday, March 9, 2015
02-26-15
IP1
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Subject to change February 26, 2015
Time Meeting
5:00 PM City Conference Board Meeting
Work Session Meeting
7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting
Location
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Monday, March 23, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
5:00 PM
Special Formal
Emma J. Harvat Hall
(evaluations Manager, Attorney, Clerk)
Monday, April 20, 2015
4:00 PM
Reception prior to meeting
TBA (Coralville)
4:30 PM
Joint Meeting / Work Session
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, lune 16, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Article from Mayor Pro tem Mims
Council Member
ACLU
Police Officer Discretion in the Use of Body Worn Cameras
and
Bothchway
L02-26-15
IP2
February 2, 2015
By Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project at 12:30pm
In our October 2013 policy white paper on police body cameras, we struggled with how to ensure that
the cameras would serve as an effective oversight mechanism for police while not unduly invading
privacy. We pointed out that purely from an oversight standpoint, putting aside all other
considerations, the ideal policy would be for officers' cameras to run throughout their entire shift,
which would guarantee that an officer could not evade detection while engaging in abuse. But as we
discussed, it's not possible to put aside all other considerations, including the privacy of the public
and of officers.
The recommendation that we settled upon was a mandate that officers record "every interaction with
the public." Importantly, that was paired with and premised upon a regime that we recommended in
which the vast majority of video footage would be locked away, never to see the light of day, with the
only exceptions being where there was an allegation of wrongdoing against an officer, or the video
was evidence of a crime.
We have received a fair amount of questioning and pushback on this recommendation. For example
the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) took explicit exception to our position in their
September 2014 report on body cameras. PERF argued that:
There are certain situations, such as interviews with crime victims and witnesses and informal, non -
law enforcement interactions with members of the community, that call for affording officers some
measure of discretion in determining whether to activate their cameras. There are situations in which
not recording is a reasonable decision. An agency's body -worn camera policy should expressly
describe these situations and provide solid guidance for officers when they exercise discretion not to
record.
For example, officer discretion is needed in sensitive situations, such as encounters with crime
victims or witnesses who are concerned about retaliation if they are seen as cooperating with the
police. In other cases, officer discretion is needed for routine and casual situations—such as officers
on foot or bike patrol who wish to chat with neighborhood residents—and turning on a video camera
could make the encounter seem officious and off-putting....
Many police departments... give officers discretion regarding whether to record interviews with
victims of rape, abuse, or other sensitive crimes. Some departments also extend this discretion to
recording victims of other crimes.
These are fairly compelling arguments. Moving away from a "record all public encounters" policy
might have other advantages as well. When we called for such a policy, it was premised on the idea
that most video would disappear into a black hole, never to be viewed by human eyes. But several
problems with that premise have emerged. First, few police departments so far seem to be adopting
that approach. Second, some states' open -records laws (the state equivalents of the federal FOIA law)
define all video captured by body cams as a "public record" susceptible to public release upon
request. Examples include Washington state and Minnesota. We do think that while broad open -
records laws are crucial, the inclusion of proper privacy protections in those laws is also crucial. That
said, a narrower recording mandate makes those problems much less severe.
The record -all -encounters policy leans heavily toward bolstering oversight; it was based on the
assumption that we will see some police officers working to undermine camera oversight every way
they can. We still think that. However, as I argued here, changing social expectations around video
recording may offer some protection from that kind of manipulation. Simply put, society
increasingly expects that dramatic events will be videotaped; any officer whose camera for some
reason does not capture a shooting or other dramatic contested encounter on video will increasingly
be viewed with incredulity and suspicion. (They should also of course be subject to punishment if it's
shown they did manipulate the camera to avoid oversight.)
Moving away from a record -all -encounters policy also ameliorates many of the potential privacy
problems that such a policy raises. For example:
Mass surveillance. A record -all -encounters policy might not be so problematic in a typical
American automobile -centered town where officers rarely leave their cars except to engage in
enforcement and investigation, but in a place like New York City it would mean unleashing
30,000 camera -equipped officers on the public streets, where an officer on a busy sidewalk
might encounter thousands of people an hour. That's a lot of surveillance. And of course, the
most heavily policed neighborhoods—poor and minority areas—will be the most surveilled in
this way.
Face recognition. By the same measure, we don't want body cameras to mission -creep into
face recognition devices. It is easy to imagine the first time a child abductor is on the loose,
demands will arise to equip those 30,000 NYPD officers and their body cameras with face
recognition, so that the thousands of faces an officer might encounter an hour can be scanned.
And why not add a short list of wanted terrorists? Why not a long list?
And suspected terrorists? And other criminals. And the next thing you know everyone's
location is being tracked as their faces are recognized and recorded, and innocent people who
bear a resemblance to one of the faces in a large database are being constantly hassled by the
police or worse. (Technologically, the addition of real-time face recognition would require the
devices either be made capable of real-time video feeds to a centralized face database, or
periodic local importation of such a database into each device. Today's devices can't do
either, but it's certainly possible to do.)
The recording of First Amendment -protected activity. We don't think the police ought to
be recording peaceful political protesters, for example, using body cameras or any other
camera. Under our policy in the white paper, such recording would take place automatically.
If such videos are not to be locked down, that surveillance is a problem.
If officers are not going to be required to record all public encounters, what should a policy stipulate?
They should require that an officer to activate his or her camera when responding to a call for service
or at the initiation of any other law enforcement or investigative encounter between a police officer
and a member of the public. That would include stops, frisks, searches, arrests, consensual interviews
and searches, enforcement actions of all kinds, and any encounter that becomes in any way hostile or
confrontational. We continue to believe it's crucial that the vast majority of video be locked down and
not used for any purpose other than oversight or evidence.
Our policy white paper was published very early in the public discussion of this technology, and as
we acknowledged at the time, our proposals were necessarily preliminary. With the technology
moving as fast as it was, we felt compelled to weigh in when we did. We will continue to refine our
policy recommendations on this knotty issue as experience and input from various stakeholders
suggests is necessary.
Published on American Civil Liberties Union (https://www.aclu.org)
Source URL: https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-immi rag nts-rights-technolo
liberty-free-speech-national-security/poli
Police Body -Mounted Cameras:
With Right Policies in Place, a Win For All
By Jay Stanley, ACLU Senior Policy Analyst
October, 2013
Introduction'
When a New York judge found that the NYPD's stop and frisk tactics violated the constitutional
rights of New Yorkers, one of the remedies she ordered was for the department to begin testing
wearable police cameras, sparking debate and discussion of the technology there.
These "on -officer recording systems" (also called "body cams" or "cop cams") are small, pager -
sized cameras that clip on to an officer's uniform or sunglasses or are worn as a headset, and
record audio and video of the officer's interactions with the public. We have heard reports of
police body cameras being deployed in numerous cities, and one prominent manufacturer told
NBC that it had sold them to "hundreds of departments."
The ACLU has commented on police body cameras in the media several times over the years
(and in stories surrounding the stop and frisk ruling), but the ACLU's views on this technology
are a little more complicated than can be conveyed through quotes in a news story.
Although we generally take a dim view of the proliferation of surveillance cameras in American
life, police on -body cameras are different because of their potential to serve as a check against
the abuse of power by police officers. Historically, there was no documentary evidence of most
encounters between police officers and the public, and due to the volatile nature of those
encounters, this often resulted in radically divergent accounts of incidents. Cameras have the
potential to be a win-win, helping protect the public against police misconduct, and at the same
time helping protect police against false accusations of abuse.
We're against pervasive government surveillance, but when cameras primarily serve the
function of allowing public monitoring of the government instead of the other way around, we
generally regard that as a good thing. While we have opposed government video surveillance of
public places, for example, we have supported the installation of video cameras on police car
dashboards, in prisons, and during interrogations.
At the same time, body cameras have more of a potential to invade privacy than those
deployments. Police officers enter people's homes and encounter bystanders, suspects, and
victims in a wide variety of sometimes stressful and extreme situations.
For the ACLU, the challenge of on -officer cameras is the tension between their potential to
invade privacy and their strong benefit in promoting police accountability. Overall, we think they
can be a win-win—but only if they are deployed within a framework of strong policies to ensure
1 The author would like to thank Doug Klunder of the ACLU of Washington, who did much of the thinking
behind the analysis set forth in this paper; Scott Greenwood of Ohio; and his colleagues at the national
office, for their valuable feedback and advice.
they protect the public without becoming yet another system for routine surveillance of the
public, and maintain public confidence in the integrity of those privacy protections. Without
such a framework, their accountability benefits would not exceed their privacy risks.
On -officer cameras are a significant technology that implicates important, if sometimes
conflicting, values. We will have to watch carefully to see how they are deployed and what their
effects are over time, but in this paper we outline our current thinking about and
recommendations for the technology. These recommendations are subject to change.
Control over recordings
Perhaps most importantly, policies and technology must be designed to ensure that police
cannot "edit on the fly' — i.e., choose which encounters to record with limitless discretion. If
police are free to turn the cameras on and off as they please, the cameras' role in providing a
check and balance against police power will shrink and they will no longer become a net benefit.
The primary question is how that should be implemented.
Purely from an accountability perspective, the ideal policy for body -worn cameras would be for
continuous recording throughout a police officer's shift, eliminating any possibility that an
officer could evade the recording of abuses committed on duty. Of course, just as body cameras
can invade the privacy of many innocent citizens, continuous deployment would similarly
impinge on police officers when they are sitting in a station house or patrol car shooting the
breeze — getting to know each other as humans, discussing precinct politics, etc. We have some
sympathy for police on this; continuous recording might feel as stressful and oppressive in those
situations as it would for any employee subject to constant recording by their supervisor. True,
police officers with their extraordinary powers are not regular employees, and in theory officers'
privacy, like citizens', could be protected by appropriate policies (as outlined below) that ensure
that 99% of video would be deleted in relatively short order without ever being reviewed. But
on a psychological level, such assurances are rarely enough. There is also the danger that the
technology would be misused by police supervisors against whistleblowers or union activists —
for example, by scrutinizing video records to find minor violations to use against an officer.
If the cameras do not record continuously, that would place them under officer control, which
would create the danger that they could be manipulated by some officers, undermining their
core purpose of detecting police misconduct. This has sometimes been an issue with patrol car
"dashcams" — for example, in the case of two Seattle men who filed a claim for excessive force
and wrongful arrest. Parts of the arrest were captured by a dashcam, but parts that should have
been captured were mysteriously missing. And with body cams, two Oakland police officers
were disciplined after one of the officers' cameras was turned off during an incident.
The balance that needs to be struck is to ensure that officers can't manipulate the video record,
while also ensuring that officers are not subjected to a relentless regime of surveillance without
any opportunity for shelter from constant monitoring.
One possibility is that some form of effective automated trigger could be developed that would
allow for minimization of recording while capturing any fraught encounters — based, for
example, on detection of raised voices, types of movement, etc. When it comes to dashcams,
2
the devices are often configured to record whenever a car's siren or lights are activated, which
provides a rough and somewhat (though not entirely) non -discretionary measure of when a
police officer is engaged in an encounter that is likely to be a problem. That policy is not
applicable to body cams, however, since there is no equivalent to flashing lights. And it's not
clear that any artificial intelligence system in the foreseeable future will be smart enough to
reliably detect encounters that should be recorded. In any case, it is not an option with today's
technology.
If a police department is to place its cameras under officer control, then it must put in place
tightly effective means of limiting officers' ability to choose which encounters to record. That
can only take the form of a department -wide policy that mandates that police turn on recording
during every interaction with the public.
And this requirement must have some teeth associated with it — not only a risk of disciplinary
action but also perhaps an exclusionary rule for any evidence obtained in an unrecorded
encounter (for police who have been issued the cameras, unless there is an exigency to justify
the failure to record). Another means of enforcement might be to stipulate that in any instance
in which an officer wearing a camera is accused of misconduct, a failure to record that incident
would create an evidentiary presumption against the officer.
Limiting the threat to privacy from cop cams
Most of the discussion around police recording has focused on its oversight potential. But that is
only one of the significant interests implicated by recording. Equally important are the privacy
interests and fair trial rights of individuals who are recorded. Ideally there would be a way to
minimize data collection to only what was reasonably needed, but there's currently no
technological way to do so.
Police body cameras mean that many instances of entirely innocent behavior (on the part of
both officers and the public) will be recorded, with significant privacy implications. Perhaps most
troubling is that some recordings will be made inside people's homes, whenever police enter —
including in instances of consensual entry (e.g., responding to a burglary call, voluntarily
participating in an investigation) and such things as domestic violence calls. In the case of
dashcams, we have also seen video of particular incidents released for no important public
reason, and instead serving only to embarrass individuals. Examples have included DUI stops of
celebrities and ordinary individuals whose troubled and/or intoxicated behavior has been widely
circulated and now immortalized online. The potential for such merely embarrassing and
titillating releases of video is significantly increased by body cams.
Therefore it is vital that any deployment of these cameras be accompanied by good privacy
policies so that the benefits of the technology are not outweighed by invasions of privacy. The
core elements of such a policy follow.
Notice to citizens
Most privacy protections will have to come from restrictions on subsequent retention and use of
the recordings. There are, however, a couple of things that can be done at the point of
recording.
3
1) Recording should be limited to uniformed officers and marked vehicles, so people know
what to expect. An exception should be made for SWAT raids and similar planned uses
of force when they involve non -uniformed officers.
2) Officers should be required, wherever practicable, to notify people that they are being
recorded (similar to existing law for dashcams in some states such as Washington). One
possibility departments might consider is for officers to wear an easily visible pin or
sticker saying "lapel camera in operation" or words to that effect.
3) Although if the preceding policies are properly followed it should not be possible, it is
especially important that the cameras not be used to surreptitiously gather intelligence
information based on First Amendment protected speech, associations, or religion.
Recording in the home
Because of the uniquely intrusive nature of police recordings made inside private homes,
officers should be required to be especially sure to provide clear notice of a camera when
entering a home, except in circumstances such as an emergency or a raid. Departments might
also consider a policy under which officers ask residents whether they wish for a camera to be
turned off before they enter a home in non -exigent circumstances. (Citizen requests for cameras
to be turned off should themselves be recorded to document such requests.) Cameras should
never be turned off in SWAT raids and similar police actions.
Retention
Data should be retained no longer than necessary for the purpose for which it was collected. For
the vast majority of police encounters with the public, there is no reason to preserve video
evidence, and those recordings therefore should be deleted relatively quickly.
• Retention periods should be measured in weeks not years, and video should be deleted
after that period unless a recording has been flagged. Once a recording has been
flagged, it would then switch to a longer retention schedule (such as the three-year
period currently in effect in Washington State).
• These policies should be posted online on the department's website, so that people who
have encounters with police know how long they have to file a complaint or request
access to footage.
• Flagging should occur automatically for any incident:
o involving a use of force;
o that leads to detention or arrest; or
o where either a formal or informal complaint has been registered.
• Any subject of a recording should be able to flag a recording, even if not filing a
complaint or opening an investigation.
• The police department (including internal investigations and supervisors) and third
parties should also be able to flag an incident if they have some basis to believe police
misconduct has occurred or have reasonable suspicion that the video contains evidence
of a crime. We do not want the police or gadflies to be able to routinely flag all
recordings in order to circumvent the retention limit.
• If any useful evidence is obtained during an authorized use of a recording (see below),
the recording would then be retained in the same manner as any other evidence
gathered during an investigation.
4
• Back -end systems to manage video data must be configured to retain the data, delete it
after the retention period expires, prevent deletion by individual officers, and provide
an unimpeachable audit trail to protect chain of custody, just as with any evidence.
Use of Recordings
The ACLU supports the use of cop cams for the purpose of police accountability and oversight.
It's vital that this technology not become a backdoor for any kind of systematic surveillance or
tracking of the public. Since the records will be made, police departments need to be subject to
strong rules around how they are used. The use of recordings should be allowed only in internal
and external investigations of misconduct, and where the police have reasonable suspicion that
a recording contains evidence of a crime. Otherwise, there is no reason that stored footage
should even be reviewed by a human being before its retention period ends and it is
permanently deleted.
Subject Access
People recorded by cop cams should have access to, and the right to make copies of, those
recordings, for however long the government maintains copies of them. That should also apply
to disclosure to a third party if the subject consents, or to criminal defense lawyers seeking
relevant evidence.
Public Disclosure
When should the public have access to cop cam videos held by the authorities? Public disclosure
of government records can be a tricky issue pitting two important values against each other: the
need for government oversight and openness, and privacy. Those values must be carefully
balanced by policymakers. One way to do that is to attempt to minimize invasiveness when
possible:
• Public disclosure of any recording should be allowed with the consent of the
subjects, as discussed above.
• Redaction of video records should be used when feasible — blurring or blacking out
of portions of video and/or distortion of audio to obscure the identity of subjects. If
recordings are redacted, they should be discloseable.
• Unredacted, unflagged recordings should not be publicly disclosed without consent
of the subject. These are recordings where there is no indication of police
misconduct or evidence of a crime, so the public oversight value is low. States may
need to examine how such a policy interacts with their state open records laws.
• Flagged recordings are those for which there is the highest likelihood of misconduct,
and thus the ones where public oversight is most needed. Redaction of disclosed
recordings is preferred, but when that is not feasible, unredacted flagged recordings
should be publicly discloseable, because in such cases the need for oversight
outweighs the privacy interests at stake.
Good technological controls
It is important that close attention be paid to the systems that handle the video data generated
by these cameras.
Systems should be architected to ensure that segments of video cannot be destroyed. A
recent case in Maryland illustrates the problem: surveillance video of an incident in
which officers were accused of beating a student disappeared (the incident was also
filmed by a bystander). An officer or department that has engaged in abuse or other
wrongdoing will have a strong incentive to destroy evidence of that wrongdoing, so
technology systems should be designed to prevent any tampering with such video.
• In addition, all access to video records should be automatically recorded with
immutable audit logs.
• Systems should ensure that data retention and destruction schedules are properly
maintained.
• It is also important for systems be architected to ensure that video is only accessed
when permitted according to the policies we've described above, and that rogue copies
cannot be made. Officers should not be able to, for example, pass around video of a
drunk city council member, or video generated by an officer responding to a call in a
topless bar, or video of a citizen providing information on a local street gang.
It is vital that public confidence in the integrity of body camera privacy protections be
maintained. We don't want crime victims to be afraid to call for help because of fears that video
of their officer interactions will become public or reach the wrong party. Confidence can only be
created if good policies are put in place and backed up by good technology.
As the devices are adopted by police forces around the nation, studies should be done to
measure their impact. Only very limited studies have been done so far. Are domestic violence
victims hesitating to call the police for help by the prospect of having a camera -wearing police
officer in their home, or are they otherwise affected? Are privacy abuses of the technology
happening, and if so what kind and how often?
Although fitting police forces with cameras will generate an enormous amount of video footage
and raises many tricky issues, if the recording, retention, access, use, and technology policies
that we outline above are followed, very little of that footage will ever be viewed or retained,
and at the same time those cameras will provide an important protection against police abuse.
We will be monitoring the impact of cameras closely, and if good policies and practices do not
become standard, or the technology has negative side effects we have failed to anticipate, we
will have to reevaluate our position on police body cameras.
2
Article from City Manager
It's Already Over And Uber Has Won - BuzzFeed News
Page 1 of 6
IP3M
News Buzz Life Entertainment Quizzes Videos Morey Q r
It's Already Over And
•. Has Won
The company has vanquished competitors, incumbents, regulators, and critics. All that is left
is to see how far it can go.
4E� Johana Bhuiyan
BuzzFeed News Reporter
posted on F0. 20, 2015. at 8:32 am.
f
Money isn't everything, but it's certainly a useful metric for keeping score, especially when
you're treasuring it in the billions. Which is why it's big news that Utber,just closed
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/its-already-over-and-uber-has-won 2/23/2015
It's Already Over And Uber Has Won - BuzzFeed News
another funding round -- this time it scored another si billion, bringing its total raise to
$4 billion and its overall valuation to $4o billion. That is more than double where it was
just six months ago, making it worth a little bit more than Fiat Chrysler and The Gap
combined. The reason investors are still willing to pile money into an already highly
valued Uber? Because it's increasingly clear that Uber has already won. It has beaten
everyone out there capable of putting tip a real fight. What's left is mostly a matter of how
high it can run up the score.
If you want a sense of how dominant Uber is, just look at the company's coup in Illinois.
I n January 2014, the Illinois House and Senate went after Uber with a series of new rules.
They banned its drivers from airports, and capped how many hours they could sit behind
the wheel each day. Yet instead of backing out of the market, Uber mobilized close to
go,000 customers to petition the governor to veto the rules. I -ie did. And then Uber went
for the throat, releasing contact information for legislators who otherwise might have
tried to override the veto, When a legislator did file a motion to do so, the Illinois
legislature had been sufficiently intimidated by outraged Uber customers that the motion
was promptly denied. One year later, of Jan. 12, 2015, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed
what Uber referred to as "the most progressive ride -sharing legislation in the country."
Uber didn't just win, it ran the field.
The ride -hail industry — in its current form — has only been around for about five years.
In that time, as the industry struggled to gain its footing, ride -hail quickly found a
champion in Uber. Since its inception in Zoog, it has faced off against a slew of
opponents, the most formidable of which has been the taxi industry itself.. Often shielded
by local regulators, big taxi has launched attack after attack on what, today, has become a
ride -hail and tech leviathan.
But, armed with a sophisticated PR strategy and a small army of political operatives on its
payroll, Uber has almost always won. Nothing -- not regulators, not competition, and
certainly not the existing taxi industry — has been able to stop it. It has killed everything
in its path, and it now seems almost certain that Uber will become the dominant player in
an emerging multibillion -dollar, global, ride -hailing sector. (Next up? On -demand
logistics.)
Uber has a tried and true playbook to win over regulators, and
that starts with owning the market.
Uber is on its way to becoming even more embedded into the fabric of society than the
taxi industry it sought to displace. The country's lawmakers are using it. A condominium
complex in San Francisco is now offering unlimited free Uber rides to tenants in lieu of a
parking spot. And as BuzzFeed News reported, Republicans have hailed Uber (not the
industry) as a champion of the free market.
Uber has almost single-handedly managed to convince regulators across the country to
create a new framework for the industry as a whole to operate within legally. It opened the
umbrella that now gives all its competitors shelter from the stonn. The company's
aggressive stance on regulations has paved the way for the entire ride -hail industry in the
Page 2 of 6
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/its-already-over-and-uber-has-won • 2/23/2015
It's Already Over And Uber Has Won - BuzzFeed News
United States. As of Tuesday, there are now 23 jurisdictions that have passed permanent
ride -hail legislation that favors Uber and five others that have implemented short-term
legislation. (Virginia just passed permanent regulations on Tuesday.)
The legal battle that Uber fought on behalf of the ride -hail industry in Illinois is typical of
its fights fought nationwide. Here's how it usually works: Uber rolls out its service without
getting regulatory approval. Regulators fight back, and often issue a cease-and-desist. But
Uber stays put, because it has the money and user support to do so. Sometimes, local
authorities set up sting operations and issue citations and fines against both the drivers
and the company for operating illegally. Uber takes those citations and the associated
penalties in stride, usually offering to handle all legal costs that drivers may encounter,
And almost inevitably, what happens is that it is the local government who bends, not
Uber.
Uber has a tried and true playbook to win over regulators and that starts with owning the
market. Uber is everywhere. It's in 54 countries, serves 170 cities domestically, and
hundreds more internationally. In the U.S. alone, where Uber serves 55% of the
population, there are millions of riders across all those markets, according to Uber.
Those customers have given it some of its best leverage. Uber has managed to cultivate a
sense of activism among riders. In some cases, Uber gives riders who live in areas
surrounding its target markets a taste of its ease and reliability. Passengers can take an
Uber into cities like Portland, Oregon, where it is banned, but they can't hail an Uber
while in the city on their way back to the surrounding neighborhood. And it's all a part of
the company's sophisticated playbook. Uber entered Portland illegally in December after
it infiltrated those markets immediately surrounding the city, suffered through sting
operations and cease -and -desists, mobilized its users, and then in December 2014 Trailed
down a commitment from Portland officials that they would come up with permanent
regulations that would allow Uber to operate in the next three months. (Notably, neither
Lyft or Sidecar have stepped foot in the city as of yet.)
It is Uber, not the ride -hail industry, that is becoming part of
the fabric of society.
In cities like New York, the taxi industry has fought tooth and nail to put a cap on the
supply in order to maintain the value of medallions — making the introduction of
thousands of additional for -hire vehicles on the road a welcomed addition. But even
outside of New York, where the taxi system and public transit is often unreliable, Uber is
the first service to offer these riders an easy way to get around. That newfound ease and
reliability is enough to get citizens to fight for Uber where it is threatened. Again and
again it has turned casual riders into active advocates.
"I think the last two dozen Uber petitions that were filed in response to regulatory battles
in particular markets [garnered] 5oo,000 total petition signatures," Justin Kintz, Uber's
head of public policy for North America, told BuzzFeed News. "That's a level of civic
engagement that few issues have ever created for any sort of political issue, let alone for
one that is being driven by an app -based technology company."
Page 3 of 6
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/its-already-over-and-uber-has-won 2/23/2015
It's Already Over And Uber Has Won - BuzzFeed News
That also explains why people tend to ignore the company's missteps and privacy
violations. It has a killer and convenient product, morals be damned.
And Uber isn't just taking on government. Even when the company fought against
established and powerful insurance companies, Uber bent the establishment to its will
with relative ease (or at least relative speed) and came out triumphant.
Look at Virginia, where Uber was banned. One of the primary issues the company faced
was whether its drivers were properly insured. Personal insurance policies are not
designed to cover commercial services such as ride -hailing. Many companies will go as far
as to cancel the policies of drivers who begin operating for Uber or Lyft. But commercial
insurance is far more expensive than personal policies are, and if the government were to
mandate that all ride -hail drivers have to buy it, that would put a big strain on the supply
of available drivers.
Geico was by far the biggest opponent of providing personal insurance for commercial
services. In November, leaked transcripts of an internal training document showed that
the company was rejecting requests for coverage from ride -hail drivers and as a policy
cancelled the existing coverage of drivers who drove for any of the ride -hail companies.
But in a reversal, just this month Geico rolled out a commercial ride -hail policy. What
changed? Uber approached Geico and convinced it to provide coverage for its drivers,
alleviating some of the concerns that regulators have. On Tuesday, Virginia Governor
Terry McAuliffe signed new permanent ride -hail rules into law, enshrining Uber's
operations.
On the back of Uber, its competitors Lyft and Sidecar and the rest of the ride -hail industry
are winning legitimacy from strictly regulated industries that, just four months ago, stood
in the way of the success. Yet while the rest of the industry stands to benefit greatly from
Uber's fight against taxi regulations, Uber has certainly reaped the most rewards. It is
Uber, not the ride -hail industry, that is beconing a part of the fabric of society. Its very
name is becoming as synonymous with ride -hailing as Google is with search, or Xerox is
with copying papers.
In terms of sheer number of drivers in each market, Uber's supremacy is undeniable. In
Los Angeles and New York, where the city's estimated 13,400 yellow cabs represent 23%
of the country's entire taxi supply, there are a total of 36,000 active drivers. Just in
December, 40,000 new drivers joined the platform and more than 16o,000 drivers
performed four or more trips. And drivers aren't leaving. Though drivers across the
country were up in arms about the series of price cuts Uber implemented throughout the
year, Uber has still managed to maintain a relatively steady retention rate. According to a
driver study the company published early this year, more than half of the drivers who
started in 2013 remained active a year after starting.
Two of the company's largest opponents, the taxi industry and Lyft, are still nowhere near
as big as Uber is. At $11 billion, the country's entire taxi industry is worth far less than
Page 4 of 6
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/its-already-over-and-uber-has-won 2/23/2015
It's Already Over And Uber Has Won - BuzzFeed News
Uber's valuation, according to an IBISWorid report. Though Lyft is reportedly in talks to
raise $250 million, positioning it at a $2 billion valuation, the company (which is in 65
cities in the U.S.) still has quite a way to go before it "catches up to" Uber.
Still, Uber does have a lot more growing and improving to do, mostly for the sake of its
drivers. In addition to price cuts, many drivers complain that Uber does not include a
tipping feature on its app, and in cases where a driver would like to dispute a bad rating or
is otherwise concerned, they have no way of contacting the company without either
physically going into the closest Uber offices or emailing a support staffer. While the
company hasn't seen any significant impact in terms of driver retention as of yet, several
of Uber's competitors are malting a play at attracting Uber's disgruntled drivers. Gett, for
example, is shifting all of its focus to the New York City market and offers its drivers
guaranteed per-ininute fares in addition to z00% of the tip a rider leaves through the in -
app tipping feature.
Meanwhile, both Uber and Lyft are facing lawsuits that are seeking class action status and
could drastically change the respective ride -hail companies' business models. Drivers are
suing the companies for misclassifying them as independent contractors, whereas, they
allege, they should be classified as employees. The case could pose a substantial threat —
Uber could be forced to either scale back its operations or hold off on expansion, instead
using new funding to subsidize salaries and employee benefits for its drivers. Drivers may
also seek damages in the form of expense reimbursement, forcing the company to pay for
things like gas, commercial insurance, and car maintenance.
But Uber may not even need drivers down the road. As part of a partnership with
Carnegie Mellon, Uber and the university are creating a robotics research lab that will
explore the possibility of driverless cars. While Uber drivers Won't have anything to fear
for at least the next five years, they may not be a necessary aspect of the company's long -
tern business model.
It also faces considerable global competition. With fewer missteps and legal challenges, by
this time Uber could have arguably put the domestic market on cruise control and focused
on its international expansion. Large local players have already cornered many of these
markets and understand the nuances of the area — some have even begun discussions of a
global taxi alliance against Uber. Uber's success in many markets in the United States was
due in large part to a first mover's advantage and the balance the company has struck
between the supply of drivers and demand of riders — an advantage the company does
not enjoy internationally.
But here in the United States, Uber's victory over its competitors, the incumbents, and
regulators seems nearly certain. The company is inescapable — it's simply everywhere. Its
customers and, even more so, its investors are passionate about and willing to fight for the
service. Whether it's because of its vast war chest of funding, its deeply connected
network of lobbyists, or a simple fear of being branded as "antiquated" or "anti -
progression," regulators have historically bent to the will of Uber. The taxi industry is in
retreat. And Lyft and the rest of the ride -hail industry could arguably not even exist
without Uber.
Page 5 of 6
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/its-already-over-and-uber-has-won 2/23/2015
It's Already Over And Uber Has Won - BuzzFeed News
There are still obstacles left to overcome, but what was once characterized as an uphill
battle for Uber now appears to be an impending, if not entirely inevitable, victory.
Johana Bhuiyan is a tech reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York. Bhuiyan reports on the
sharing economy with a focus on ridesharing companies.
Contact Johana Bhuiyan atjohana.bhuiyan@buzzfeed.com
Tagged:uber, davld plouffe, gest, ", ridehali, ndeshate, travls kalamck, uber drivers, ober Funding, uber has vroh
Advertise jobs mobile newsletter. US Edition v
About press RSS privacy userterms adChoices Help Contact @ 2015 BuzzFeed, Inc
Page 6 of 6
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/its-already-over-and-uber-has-won 2/23/2015
From: Tom Markus
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 5:19 PM
To: *City Council & All Dept Heads
Subject: FW: Dancing traffic light
From: Judith Pfohl [mailto:judypfohl@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 4:07 PM
To: Judy & Bruce Pfohl
Subject: Fwd: Dancing traffic light
I wish we had these downtown! Might reduce Jay walking too.
Judy
We all hate waiting. That is why many
pedestrians don't have the patience to wait at the
traffic light, preferring to cross whenever they
deem fit. To increase pedestrian safety, an idea
was born: What if we make the red pedestrian
traffic light so entertaining, would be happy
waiting? Here is what happened with that idea.
http://Youtu.be/SB OvRnkeOk
From: Simon Andrew
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:21 PM
To: Tom Markus; Marian Karr
Subject: FW: New Buildings for Older People - NYTimes.com
4 Council, 2 staff. Info packet, please.
From: Simon Andrew
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:12 PM
To: 'Harry Olmstead'; Jim Throgmorton; 'Kingsley Botchway'; Terry Dickens; Susan Mims
Cc: Stefanie Bowers
Subject: RE: New Buildings for Older People - NYTimes.com
Thanks, Harry! We'll investigate.
Best,
Simon
From: Harry Olmstead [mailto:Harry03@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:52 AM
To: Simon Andrew; Jim Throgmorton; Kingsley Botchway; Terry Dickens; Susan Mims
Cc: Stefanie Bowers
Subject: Fwd: New Buildings for Older People - NYTimes.com
This maybe worth your engineering department to further investigate.
HarryO
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: New Buildings for Older People - NYTimes.com
From: "Manternach, Brian C" <brian-manternach@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015, 10:39 AM
To:'Harry Olmstead' <Harry03@AOL.com>
CC:
Hi Harry,
I thought you might find this article one of interest.
Brian
Calling Out America's Terrible Sidewalks with a Magic Cart
From: Wired - 12/04/2013
By: Ted Greenwald
The old way to see if a sidewalk is wheelchair -friendly: Crawl around on your hands and knees to measure
cracks and ramps. The new way: Peter Axelson's three -wheeled cart.
Beneficial Design got a grant to develop technology for assessing sidewalk compliance with the 1990
Americans with Disabilities Act. The result is Prowap (for Public Rights -of -Way Assessment Process). A
worker rolls the vehicle - which comes programmed with federal, state, and local rules - through town, and
sensors note whenever a crucial variable (like a too-steepramp) breaks the rules.
Read the entire article at:
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/ma icg cart/
Links:
Benefical Designs
http://www.beneficialdesigns.co
Public Rights of Way Assessment Process (PROWAP) http://www.beneficialdesigns.com/products/trail-and-
sidewalk-assessment-equipment-software/prowap
Submitted by Peter Axelson
From: Manternach, Brian C
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 7:22 AM
To: 'Harry Olmstead'
Subject: RE: New Buildings for Older People - NYTimes.com
And a happy belated Thanksgiving to you, Harry. Let me know what kind or response you receive and/or if
there are any questions.
Brian
From: Harry Olmstead [mailto:HM03kAOL.com1
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 12:44 PM
To: Manternach, Brian C
Subject: Re: New Buildings for Older People - NYTimes.com
Happy Thanksgiving Brian. I am forwarding this email on to some city council members, as well as the Iowa
City ADA compliance officer Simon Andrew. Also members of the County Liveable Communities Advisory
Committee and Johnson County Task Force on Aging.
On November 5, 2014, at 11:26 AM, "Manternach, Brian C" <brian-mantemachguiowa.edu> wrote:
Hi Harry,
It was a pleasure meeting you as well. Thank you for sharing this article with me. I really enjoyed reading it,
especially when they referred to "Silver Design" and "Silver Architecture". Along those lines, here is
something that is very much aligned with that concept. It is a project scoping and assessment model titled
MAPPS (Measuring Accessibility Points Plan & Standards).
http://www.facilities.uiowa.edu/accessibility/mapps.html It includes an extensive checklist of accessibility
considerations and provides an excellent framework for scoping a project design. It also offers a rating system
to aid understanding the relative extent of universal design.
Wouldn't it be great if local municipalities would adopt or simply consider such requirements for their
facilities?
Please feel free to share your thoughts and any ideas on how to move forward with concepts like this on a local
level.
Brian
Brian Manternach
Facilities Management Accessibility Coordinator
The University of Iowa
Building & Landscape Services
260 University Services Building
Iowa City, IA 52242
Ph. 319-384-0654
From: HarryO3 [mailto:HarryO3kaol.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 9:31 PM
To: Manternach, Brian C
Subject: New Buildings for Older People - NYTimes.com
http•//mobile nyiimes.com/2014/l l/02/opinionlsundaylnew-buildings-for-older-people.html?referrer=
Brian It was a pleasure meeting you at the UI Disabilities Awards on Thursday. I thought that the link to the
article above, may be of some interest to you.
Harry Olmstead.
319-338-2931 home.
319-855-2666 cell
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
Amat�• ',•, Mrs
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 23, 2015
To: City Manager, City Council
From: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director
Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending December 31, 2014
Introduction
LSI
This memorandum contains the quarterly financial analysis for the City's financial position as of
December 31, 2014. The quarterly report includes combined summaries of all fund balances,
revenues, and expenditures followed by individual summaries of the major funds within the City
budget. 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 report as of
December 31 are as follows:
Combined Statements
All Funds Summary (page 6): The ending fund balance for the quarter ending December 31,
2014, was $182,308,034 compared to beginning fund balance of $193,652,775 for all funds. Of
that amount, $77,380,598 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. That leaves a balance of $104,927,436 that is unassigned.
Revenues by Type (page 7-8): FY 2015 total revenues for all budgetary funds are
$64,813,223 compared to revised budget of $175,651,893 and are 36.9% of the revised budget
(found on page 8). Internal service fund revenues are at 57.7% of their revised budget.
Individual funding source highlights are as follows:
• Taxes Levied on Property Taxes: FY 2015 revenues are at 51.9% of the revised budget;
in line with the first half taxes which were due September 30. Major funds that receive
property taxes include the General fund (page 11), Employee Benefits (page 13) and
Debt Service (page 14).
• TIF Revenues: FY 2015 revenues are at 50% of the revised budget. They are received
in the TIF funds on the same schedule as property taxes. TIF funds are not classified as
a major fund.
• Other City Taxes: FY 2015 revenues are at 40.9% of the revised budget. Major funds
that receive other city taxes include the General Fund (page 11), Employee Benefits
Fund (page 13) and Debt Service Fund (page 14). Other City Taxes includes Gas and
Electric Excise Tax, Hotel/Motel Tax, Mobile Home Tax and Utility Franchise Tax.
Revenues are at or slightly above the expected percentages of the revised budget for
this time of year.
• Licenses, Permits & Fees: FY 2015 revenues are at 50.6% of the revised budget. This
revenue is primarily from construction permit and inspection fees in the General Fund
(page 11) and cable franchise fees in the enterprise funds. Revenues for construction
permit and inspection fees are 63.1% of the revised budget. Cable franchise fees are
30.3% of the revised budget. The Cable Television Fund is not a major fund.
Use of Money and Property: FY 2015 revenues are at 33.7% of the revised budget.
Interest income is 17.3% of the revised budget. The interest rates continue to be low.
Interest income is received monthly in some cases and at the end of the investment in
other cases. This affects the percentage of interest income since it is not received
evenly throughout the year. A separate quarterly investment report is prepared by the
Revenue Division. Rents, Royalties & Commissions are 46% of the revised budget. All
of the major funds include this revenue source.
Intergovernmental Revenue: FY 2015 revenues are at 22.3% of the revised budget. The
budget for intergovernmental revenue includes a variety of federal, state and other local
government revenues that are either for operating or capital assistance. It also includes
state backfill for property tax credits and commercial property valuation rollback
changes. Major funds that receive property tax backfill include: General Fund (page 11),
Employee Benefits (page 13) and Debt Service (page 14). Intergovernmental revenue is
a primary revenue source for the Road Use Tax Fund (page 12), the Housing Authority
Fund (page 21), and also the Transit Fund (page 16). Other funds receive
intergovernmental revenue on an inconsistent basis.
o Federal receipts are at 20.7% of the revised budget. Housing Authority receipts
are in-line with the revised budget. CDBG and HOME receipts are 12.5% and
28.5% respectively of the revised budget due to accruals and program income
which must be used before federal funding. Transit assistance is usually
received in the 4`h quarter, and CIP projects are not received on a consistent
basis.
o Property Tax credits and Road Use Tax are in line with the revised budget.
o State 28E Agreements are 91.6% of the revised budget. It includes the annual
reimbursement from the University of Iowa for fire protection services. The
receipt of $1,753,672 is about 0.44% less this year than last year, which equates
to a reduction of $7,669. Factors such as the University share of city-wide
square footage and the cost of Fire operations go into this contract.
Charges for Fees and Services: FY 2015 revenues are at 45.1 % of the revised budget.
All of the major funds include charges for fees and services except for the Employee
Benefits fund, Debt Service fund and the Housing Authority.
o Building & Development fees are 92.5% of the revised budget; however the
revised budget is lower than FY 2014 actual revenues. FY 2015 revenues are
comparable to FY 2014 actual revenues. Plan checking fees, property
maintenance fees and developer fees for sidewalk and paving account for the
majority of the revenue above budget estimates.
o Police Services revenue is 509.5% of the revised budget. Forfeiture proceeds
are budgeted at zero due to the unanticipated nature. Forfeiture revenue totals
$91,405 through the second quarter. Special Police Services revenue is 212.9%
of the revised budget with revenue totaling $64,796.
o Culture & Recreation fees are 36% of the revised budget in the General Fund
(page 11). At the end of the first quarter revenue was 10.8% lower than the prior
year, due in part to construction delays. The revenue position has improved
somewhat and is now 0.5% lower than last year at this time.
o The utility funds include the major funds Wastewater (page 17), Water (page 18),
and Refuse (page 19). Wastewater rates are the same as in FY 2014; however,
consumption is 6.14% less than FY 2014 at this time. Wastewater revenues are
3.69% less than this time last year, and are generally not received in the same
period as the month of service. Water rates were increased by 5% in this fiscal
year; however, consumption is down 9.76% compared to the prior year and
revenues are 2.62% less than this time last year. Refuse is on track at 52.7% of
the revised budget.
Miscellaneous: FY 2015 revenues are at 38.2% of the revised budget. The
miscellaneous revenue category includes fines, contributions and donations, intra -city
charges, and other miscellaneous revenues such as reimbursement of expenses. All of
the major funds include at least one of the above as a revenue source. Miscellaneous
revenue is not received on a consistent basis.
o Code enforcement revenue is at 34.3% of the revised budget and is not received
on a consistent basis.
o Parking fines are at 30.7% of the revised budget and are receipted in the General
Fund (page 11) and the Parking Fund (page 15), based on the type of violation.
Parking fines overall are up 19.5% compared to last year.
o Contributions & Donations are 60.5% of the revised budget. A contribution of
$100,000 was received from the University of Iowa for the UniverCity project in
the General Fund (page 11) that was budgeted as "Intergovernmental' revenue
rather than Contributions and Donations. The budget will be corrected in the
spring amendment. Capital projects also have budgeted revenue of $76,161
which will be received based on actual expenses and timing.
o Other Miscellaneous Revenue is 18.4% of the revised budget. Revenues include
reimbursement of expenses, reimbursement of damages and miscellaneous
other income. Other Public Works capital projects have $1 million budgeted that
will be removed in the spring amendment based on revised project funding. All
major funds receive other miscellaneous revenue. Timing of this revenue is
inconsistent.
Other Financial Sources: FY 2015 revenues are 13.9% of the revised budget. Sources
include debt sales, sale of assets and loans (from external sources). Major funds with
Other Financial Sources include the General Fund (page 11), and the Debt Service Fund
(page 14).
o Sale of assets is 17.9% of the revised budget due to sales in the UniverCity
program within the General Fund (page 11) and sale of land in the Airport Fund.
o Loan revenue is at 55.4% of the revised budget. Initial external loan proceeds
are at 60.8% of the revised budget, related to financing of the UniverCity program
within the General Fund (page 11). External loan repayments are at 41% of the
revised budget. The General Fund (page 11), CDBG, HOME, Debt Service
(page 14), Wastewater, (page 17), and Housing Authority (page 21) receive
external loan repayments.
o Debt sales have not yet occurred for this fiscal year.
Expenditures by State Program by Department (page 9): FY 2015 expenditures for all
budgetary funds are 35.7% of the revised budget, including capital improvement projects.
Exclusive of capital improvement projects FY 2015 expenditures for all budgetary funds are
54% of the revised budget. By Iowa code, the City cannot exceed its budget authority adopted
by City Council in any of the nine budgeted program areas. Internal Service funds are not within
the budgeted program areas and do not fall under this restriction. The Budgetary Expenditures
by Program chart (page 10) presents the actual expenditures for each program area versus its
appropriated level. Note that the Enterprise program area depicted in the graph is for
operations and debt service only; it is exclusive of Enterprise capital projects for operational
monitoring. However; capital projects are part of the Enterprise program for statutory budget
compliance. Governmental Capital Projects are a separate program area for state reporting.
Highlights by program area and by major fund are as follows:
Public Safety: Expenditures are at 48.8% of the revised budget. Major funds include
General (page 11) and Employee Benefits (page 13). Public Safety expenditures within
the Finance department are primarily for administering the accidental disability medical
costs of police and fire personnel who retired due to accidental disability. Year-to-date
expenses in the public safety portion of the Employee Benefits fund are 148.8% of the
revised budget due to accidental disability medical public safety expenses over budget.
These costs vary according to the medical needs of the retirees in the 411 MFPRSI
system from accidental disability.
• Public Works: No variances to report, expenditures are at 47.8% of revised budget.
Major funds include General (page 11) and Road Use Tax (page 12).
• Health and Social Services: No variances to report, expenditures are at 50.2% of the
revised budget. The only major fund reporting Health and Social Services is the General
fund (page 11).
• Culture and Recreation: No variances to report, expenditures are at 47.9% of the
revised budget; in the General fund (page 11).
• Community and Economic Development: Expenditures are at 29.6% of the revised
budget. This area contains a mixture of operating expenses and project oriented
expenses such as UniverCity, CDBG, CDBG Supplemental and the HOME program.
General Fund expenses are 37.9% of the revised budget, low due to the UniverCity
program. The CDBG Supplemental program is at 6.2% of the revised budget of $3.15
million. The Urban Planning division is at 62.3% of the revised budget, and
Neighborhood Services Administration is at 64.2% of the revised budget, indicating that
some budget revisions may be necessary in these areas in this first year of the
Neighborhood and Development Services department. There are no other variances to
report for this program.
General Government: Expenditures are 53.4% of the revised budget. The Finance
department is at 58.1 % due to annual payment of property and liability insurance in the
Tort Liability division and the annual loss reserve payment from the Employee Benefits
fund. The Parks and Recreation Administration division, which includes the Government
Buildings activity, is at 56.3% of the revised budget. This is due to annual payment for
computer services for the City Hall building which occurs at the beginning of the year.
All other department expenditures are less than or equal to 51 % of the revised budget at
this time.
Debt Service (page 14): Expenditures total 42.3% of the revised budget. This
percentage is higher than normal for this time of year due to payment of general
obligation bond principal for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 issues which were called and paid
early in this fiscal year, and will result in interest expense savings.
Governmental Capital Projects: Expenditures are 12.8% of the revised budget.
Expenses do not occur evenly throughout the year and vary according to what phase of
design or construction the projects are in.
Enterprise: Expenses are at 47.8% of the revised budget.
o Housing Authority expenses are 58.8% of the revised budget (page 21). These
expenses are less predictable due to the number of rental assistance payments
and to the non -routine nature of property maintenance expenses.
The Public Works department includes several enterprise funds which combined
are at 57.8% of the revised budget:
• Wastewater (page 17): Expenses are at 65.3% of the revised budget due
to debt service principal payments paid at the beginning of the year.
• Water (page 18): Expenses are at 55.1 % of the revised budget due to
debt service principal payments paid at the beginning of the year.
• Refuse (page 19): Expenses are on target at 47.7% of the revised
budget.
Landfill (page 20): The Landfill fund expenses are on target at 48.5% of
the revised budget.
• Stormwater: The stormwater fund is not a major fund; however expenses
are at 79.2% of the revised budget. Year-to-date expenses remain high
due to 2014 flood purchases of 370 Hesco barriers for $152,440 and
contracted removal of the Hesco barriers at $49,102. Both expenses
have been submitted to Fema and the state for reimbursement.
Transportation Services (pages 15 — 16) includes the Parking and Transit funds
which combined are at 112.4% of the revised budget. The parking fund
defeased the 2009 Parking revenue bonds in November, resulting in a bond
principal payment of $6.2 million in addition to the current year debt schedule.
The budget will be amended for this in the spring amendment. An interfund loan
of $2,495,350 was part of the financing for the defeasance to occur. Non -debt
operations for both parking and transit are less than 45% of the revised budgets
with no anomalies to report.
Enterprise capital projects expense is negative at this time due to the accrual
reversal of contractor retainage in the South Wastewater Expansion project.
Conclusion
Overall, the City's revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year are within budget, except for
the Employee Benefits fund which has incurred above normal medical expenses. Generally
there are no fund balance issues to report other than the following: Parking unrestricted fund
balance has declined by 53% due to the defeasance of the 2009 Parking Revenue Bonds. The
estimated unrestricted fund balance at December 31 is sufficient at 68.6% of the budgeted
expenses, exclusive of debt service. Waste Water Treatment fund balance has decreased due
to an interfund loan of $6 million to the North Wastewater Demolition project, which will be
repaid as state grant proceeds from sales tax revenue become available. The Housing
Authority fund balance has been impacted by changes in the Voucher program which required
that the Housing Authority use their existing Voucher program fund balance prior to drawing
federal grant revenue. Housing Authority fund balance is primarily associated with the Public
Housing program at this time.
Capital improvement projects, grants and economic development capital acquisitions tend to
fluctuate more than operating budgets and often do not compare well against the budget
estimates. There are no major trends to be concerned about at the macro level. 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.
City of Iowa City
All Fund Summary
Fiscal Year 2015
FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2014
Debt Service Fund
Estimated
Unassigned
5'" Debt Service
Fund
6,976,241
308,669
7,326,658
-
Fund
Restricted,
Fund
Permanent Funds
Balance
Transfers
Transfers
Balance
Committed,
Balance
6001 Perpetual Care
7/1/2014
Revenues
In
Expenditures
Out
12/31/2014
Assigned
12/31/2014
Budgetary Funds
General Fund
6,867,952
2,927,936
6,579,917
9,495,859
4,017,292
2,862,655
526,275
2,336,380
10** General Fund
$ 47,793,327
$ 24,241,311
$ 4,391,404
$ 24,951,045
$ 1,727,180 $
49,747,816
$29,508,700
$ 20,239,116
Special Revenue Funds
24,069,885
4,972,561
2,381,581
6,817,909
8,821,205
15,784,912
8,303,528
7,481,384
2100 Community Dev Block Grant
(5,447)
180,328
-
211,221
-
(36,340)
-
(36,340)
2110 HOME
(4,096)
220,154
-
217,806
4,913
(6,661)
-
(6,661)
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
4,539,578
3,235,252
195,442
2,775,228
545,107
4,649,936
-
4,649,936
2300 Other Shared Revenue
63
118,197
-
195,203
-
(76,943)
-
(76,943)
2310 Energy Eff 8 Cons Block Grant
48,924
-
-
-
-
48,924
-
48,924
2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co
170,860
124,004
176,798
290,355
-
181,307
-
181,307
2400 Employee Benefits
1,713,207
5,214,429
-
721,673
4,469,121
1,736,842
-
1,736,842
2510 Peninsula Apartments
91,406
34,865
-
27,266
-
99,004
-
99,004
26" Tax Increment Financing
19,664
326,316
-
18,670
-
327,310
-
327,310
2820 SSMID-Downtown District
-
150,253
-
112,205
-
38,048
-
38,048
Debt Service Fund
5'" Debt Service
8,868,053
6,976,241
308,669
7,326,658
-
8,826,305
-
8,826,305
Permanent Funds
6001 Perpetual Care
115,450
(45)
-
-
-
115,405
-
115,405
Enterprise Funds
710" Parking
6,867,952
2,927,936
6,579,917
9,495,859
4,017,292
2,862,655
526,275
2,336,380
715" Mass Transit
3,965,749
1,647,485
1,485,921
3,055,390
12,991
4,030,774
1,131,918
2,898,856
720* Wastewater
24,069,885
4,972,561
2,381,581
6,817,909
8,821,205
15,784,912
8,303,528
7,481,384
730* Water
11,541,132
3,656,569
1,004,357
4,521,070
1,313,026
10,367,963
3,484,579
6,883,384
7400 Refuse Collection
890,410
1,240,757
-
1,434,142
100,000
597,024
-
597,024
750" Landfill
24,265,434
2,790,275
371,899
2,112,152
3,281,765
22,033,690
20,316,441
1,717,249
7600 Airport
430,344
383,286
34,208
167,048
168,837
511,954
100,000
411,954
7700 Stormwater
1,342,320
453,982
-
558,863
50,000
1,187,439
-
1,187,439
780" Cable Television
1,558,722
204,945
12,500
343,801
40,000
1,392,366
165,104
1,227,262
79" Housing Authority
5,606,540
3,851,095
4,913
4,316,553
22,369
5,123,627
2,834,516
2,289,110
Capital Project Funds
Captial Projects
22,942,340
1,863,025
7,546,764
7,676,275
116,929
24,558,925
-
24,558,925
Total Budgetary Funds
$ 166,831,816 $
64,813,223
$ 24,494,372
$ 77,346,394
$ 24,690,735
$ 154,102,281
$ 66,371,062
$ 87,731,220
Non-Budaetary Funds
Internal Service Funds
810" Equipment
$ 9,869,383 $
3,136,255
$ -
$ 2,705,519
$ -
$ 10,300,119
$ 7,395,089
$ 2,905,031
8200 Risk Management
3,152,696
1,546,924
-
904,542
-
3,795,077
-
3,795,077
830* Information Technology
2,551,542
1,381,108
189,624
926,944
-
3,195,329
-
3,195,329
8400 Cental Services
715,872
106,365
-
119,778
-
702,459
-
702,459
8500 Health lnsuance Reserves
10,396,661
3,734,919
-
4,067,377
-
10,064,203
3,614,448
6,449,755
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves
134,805
188,519
-
174,758
-
148,565
-
148,565
Total Non -Budgetary Funds
$ 26,820,959 $
10,094,089
$ 189,624
$ 8,898,919
$ -
$ 28,205,753
$ 11,009,537
$ 17,196,216
Total All Funds
$193,652,775 $
74,907,312
$24,683,996
$ 86,245,313
$24,690,735
$ 182,308,034
$77,380,598
$104,927,436
6
rl
City of Iowa City
All Funds
Revenues by Type
FY 2015
Through The
Quarter Ended December 31, 2014
2014
2015
2015
2015
2015
Pct of
Actual
Budget
Revised
Year -to -Date
Variance
Revised
Budgetary Fund Revenues
Property Taxes
$ 50,046,477
$ 51,608,730
$ 51,608,730
$ 26,784,186
$(24,824,544)
51.9%
Delinquent Property Taxes
5,101
-
-
1,988
1,988
TIF Revenues
434,670
652,624
652,624
326,316
(326,308)
50.0%
Other City Taxes
3,309,479
2,594,500
2,594,500
1,060,190
(1,534,310)
40.9%
General Use Permits
89,072
74,492
74,492
9,289
(65,203)
12.5%
Food & Liq Licenses
100,437
103,933
103,933
48,755
(55,178)
46.9%
Professional License
16,610
17,955
17,955
6,630
(11,325)
36.9%
Franchise Fees
773,019
679,174
679,174
205,456
(473,718)
30.3%
Misc Permits & Licenses
11,679
9,964
9,964
10,542
578
105.8%
Const Per & Ins Fees
1,427,856
1,356,956
1,356,956
855,569
(501,387)
63.1%
Misc Lic & Permits
27,998
23,053
23,053
11,007
(12,046)
47.7%
Licenses, Permits, & Fees
2,446,671
2,265,527
2,265,527
1,147,249
(1,118,278)
50.6%
Interest Revenues
809,418
871,485
1,038,084
179,213
(858,871)
17.3%
Rents
1,208,668
1,315,989
1,315,989
596,959
(719,030)
45.4%
Royalties & Commissions
81,630
76,317
76,317
43,123
(33,194)
56.5%
Use Of Money And Property
2,099,716
2,263,791
2,430,390
819,296
(1,611,095)
33.7%
Fed lntergovnt Revenue
19,630,929
19,039,798
21,933,873
4,549,632
(17,384,241)
20.7%
Property Tax Credits
72,550
1,083,921
1,083,921
572,111
(511,810)
52.8%
Road Use Tax
6,744,663
6,616,545
6,616,545
3,154,057
(3,462,488)
47.7%
State 28E Agreements
1,810,341
1,914,181
1,914,181
1,753,672
(160,509)
91.6%
Operating Grants
90,067
81,500
81,500
17,743
(63,757)
21.8%
Disaster Assistance
183,941
-
141,615
28,479
(113,136)
20.1%
Other State Grants
13,613,286
11,265,256
23,846,593
1,967,960
(21,878,633)
8.3%
Local 28E Agreements
981,226
983,711
983,711
572,521
(411,190)
58.2%
Intergovernmental
43,127,003
40,984,912
56,601,939
12,616,176
(43,985,763)
22.3%
Building & Devlpmt
501,386
340,829
340,829
315,196
(25,633)
92.5%
Police Services
88,193
30,705
30,705
156,427
125,722
509.5%
Animal Care Services
9,230
11,420
11,420
5,700
(5,720)
49.9%
Fire Services
8,573
10,305
10,305
7,289
(3,016)
70.7%
Transit Fees
1,384,792
1,290,908
1,290,908
661,573
(629,335)
51.2%
Culture & Recreation
768,033
831,155
831,155
299,592
(531,563)
36.0%
Library Charges
46
57
57
21
(36)
37.3%
Misc Charges For Services
47,228
50,569
50,569
33,922
(16,647)
67.1%
Water Charges
8,448,340
9,087,539
9,087,539
3,605,966
(5,481,573)
39.7%
Wastewater Charges
12,555,994
12,889,204
12,889,204
4,839,344
(8,049,860)
37.5%
Refuse Charges
3,446,255
3,395,719
3,395,719
1,788,988
(1,606,731)
52.7%
Landfill Charges
4,967,453
4,733,705
4,733,705
2,170,552
(2,563,153)
45.9%
Stormwater Charges
1,082,733
1,200,000
1,200,000
453,473
(746,527)
37.8%
Parking Charges
5,758,372
5,243,427
5,243,427
3,287,111
(1,956,316)
62.7%
Charges For Fees And Services
39,066,628
39,115,542
39,115,542
17,625,153
(21,490,389)
45.1%
rl
City of Iowa City
All Funds
Revenues by Type
FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2014
$60,000,000
$55,000,000
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
All Funds
Budgetary Revenues by Type
FY2015 Through the Quarter Ended September 30, 2014
2014
2015
2015
i
2015
2015
Pct of
Actual
Budget
Revised
Year -to -Date
Variance
Revised
Code Enforcement
415,839
455,386
455,386
156,319
(299,067)
34.3%
Parking Fines
512,997
975,000
975,000
298,933
(676,068)
30.7%
Library Fines & Fees
175,666
182,418
182,418
77,887
(104,531)
42.7%
Contrib & Donations
729,355
286,139
362,300
219,117
(143,183)
60.5%
Printed Materials
46,507
39,569
39,569
21,219
(18,350)
53.6%
Animal Adoption
9,557
11,264
11,264
8,602
(2,662)
76.4%
Misc Merchandise
55,924
64,174
64,174
41,280
(22,894)
64.3%
Intra -City Charges
2,849,665
2,739,292
2,739,292
1,368,518
(1,370,774)
50.0%
Other Misc Revenue
719,079
1,769,300
1,769,302
326,290
(1,443,012)
18.4%
Special Assessments
979
-
-
248
248
Miscellaneous
5,515,568
6,522,542
6,598,705
2,518,412
(4,080,293)
38.2%
Debt Sales
20,114,973
8,893,180
8,893,180
6,739
(8,886,441)
0.1%
Sale Of Assets
2,701,837
2,086,450
2,136,969
382,735
(1,754,234)
17.9%
Loans
3,312,749
2,553,787
2,753,787
1,524,782
(1,229,005)
55.4%
Other Financial Sources
26,129,559
13,533,417
13,783,936
1,914,256
(11,869,680)
13.9%
Total Budgetary Revenues
$ 172,180,871
$ 159,541,585
$ 175,651,893
$
64,813,223
(110,838,670)
36.9%
Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues
Internal Service Funds
$ 17,136,846
$ 17,500,617
$ 17,500,617
$
10,094,089
(7,406,528)
57.7%
Total Non -Budgetary Revenues
$ 17,136,846
$ 17,500,617
$ 17,500,617
$
10,094,089
(7,406,528)
57.7%
Total Revenues -All Funds
$ 189,317,717
$ 177,042,202
$ 193,152,510
$
74,907,312
(118,245,198)
38.8%
$60,000,000
$55,000,000
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
All Funds
Budgetary Revenues by Type
FY2015 Through the Quarter Ended September 30, 2014
r
i
f
U U
it
0
Qaee¢� cs'Qao�e�
¢r
O
s o°o� ¢+¢s �¢es ¢"A z¢� `¢¢5 ems ¢¢s
L � QaoQ act¢oS¢� \`¢ce \�ooc
taQ za aFoa i4' o�¢ PAZ, h�¢ c�0
JP
Oar Qe ¢
oras ze¢°'s 4 aox
¢y, oo ao aF aF
J`¢oe e�Fo o`r¢
8
z FY 2015 Revised
■ FY 2015 Year -to -Date
8
z FY 2015 Revised
■ FY 2015 Year -to -Date
City of Iowa City
All Funds
Expenditures by State Program by Department
FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2014
2014
2015
2015
Pct of
Actual
Revised
Year -to -Date
2015 Variance
Revised
Budgetary Funds Expenditures
Finance
$ 382,989
$ 252,590
$
381,736
$ 129,146
151.1%
Police
12,248,973
13,079,020
6,105,374
(6,973,647)
46.7%
Fire
7,401,786
7,688,638
3,862,509
(3,826,129)
50.2%
Neighborhood& Dvlpmnt Services
1,521,519
1,542,613
664,722
(877,891)
43.1%
Public Safety
21,555,267
22,562,862
11,014,341
(11,548,521)
48.8%
Parks Maintenance
504,217
501,047
251,365
(249,682)
50.2%
Public Works
5,844,896
7,094,368
3,376,246
(3,718,122)
47.6%
Public Works
6,349,113
7,595,415
3,627,611
(3,967,804)
47.8%
Planning& Community Dvlpmnt
264,333
303,841
152,669
(151,172)
50.2%
Health and Social Services
264,333
303,841
152,669
(151,172)
50.2%
Park and Rec Adminstration
362,159
324,202
460,771
136,569
142.1%
Recreation
2,852,525
3,066,959
1,345,446
(1,721,513)
43.9%
Parks Maintenance
2,429,858
2,521,186
1,166,632
(1,354,554)
46.3%
Cemetery
317,669
348,377
155,452
(192,925)
44.6%
Library
5,877,520
6,038,379
2,834,123
(3,204,256)
46.9%
Senior Center
825,124
936,159
381,481
(554,678)
40.7%
Culture and Recreation
12,664,855
13,235,261
6,343,904
(6,891,357)
47.9%
Parks Maintenance
518,415
693,040
223,015
(470,025)
32.2%
Neighborhood & Dvlpmnt Services
10,460,235
12,940,439
3,815,273
(9,125,166)
29.5%
Community and Economic Dvlpmnt
10,978,650
13,633,479
4,038,289
(9,595,191)
29.6%
City Council
123,298
116,138
55,168
(60,970)
47.5%
City Clerk
533,845
507,040
258,437
(248,603)
51.0%
City Attorney
676,519
713,474
327,645
(385,829)
45.9%
City Manager
1,500,672
1,893,442
868,586
(1,024,856)
45.9%
Finance
3,806,925
4,239,012
2,463,471
(1,775,541)
58.1%
Park and Rec Adminstration
397,884
658,196
370,555
(287,641)
56.3%
General Government
7,039,143
8,127,302
4,343,861
(3,783,440)
53.4%
Debt Service
13,160,156
17,315,399
7,326,658
(9,988,741)
42.3%
Governmental Capital Projects
17,042,914
67,100,753
8,574,192
(58,526,561)
12.8%
Capital Projects
17,042,914
67,100,753
8,574,192
(58,526,561)
12.8%
City Manager
747,541
688,565
343,801
(344,764)
49.9%
Housing Authority
7,614,681
7,343,842
4,316,553
(3,027,289)
58.8%
Public Works
25,328,039
26,702,640
15,444,137
(11,258,503)
57.8%
Transportation Services
10,838,933
11,166,568
12,551,248
1,384,680
112.4%
Airport
363,552
358,380
167,048
(191,332)
46.6%
Enterprise Capital Projects
20,313,054
20,477,181
(897,917)
(21,375,098)
-4.4%
Enterprise
65,205,800
66,737,176
31,924,870
(34,812,306)
47.8%
Total Budgetary Expenditures
$ 154,260,231
$ 216,611,489
$
77,346,394
(139,265,094)
35.7%
Non -Budgetary Funds Expenditures
Finance
$ 11,248,926
$ 12,211,319
$
6,193,400
(6,017,919)
50.7%
Public Works
4,511,328
6,643,635
2,705,519
(3,938,116)
40.7%
Internal Service
15,760,254
18,854,954
8,898,919
(9,956,035)
47.2%
Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures
$ 15,760,254
$ 18,854,954
$
8,898,919
(9,956,035)
47.2%
Total Expenditures - All Funds
$ 170,020,485
$ 235,466,442
$
86,245,313
(149,221,129)
36.6%
9
City of Iowa City
All Funds
Budgetary Expenditures by Program
December 31, 2014
(excluding Capital Projects)
50,000,000
47,500,000
45,000,000
42,500,000
40,000,000
37,500,000 %}-
35,000,000
32,500,000
30,000,000
27,500,000
25,000,000
22,500,000
20,000,000
17,500,000 W FY 2015 Revised
15,000,000 ■ FY 2015 Year -to -Date
12,500,000
10,000,000
7,500,000
5,000,000
2,500,000
SP NA ods .�eZ i>o° 60� ¢cw \L¢ +`y¢
Al
44
ag ac co0 0
¢0
10
City of Iowa City
General Fund (1000 - 1023)
Fund Summary
FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2014
Fund Balance', July 1
Revenues:
Property Taxes
Delinquent Property Taxes
Other City Taxes
Licenses And Permits
Use Of Money And Property
Intergovernmental
Charges For Fees And Services
Miscellaneous
Other Financial Sources
Sub -Total Revenues
Transfers In:
Operating Transfers In
Sub -Total Transfers In
Total Revenues & Transfers In
Expenditures by Department:
City Council
City Clerk
City Attorney
City Manager
Finance
Police
Fire
Parks and Recreation
Library
Senior Center
Neighborhood & Development Services
Public Works
Sub -Total Expenditures
Transfers Out:
Capital Project Fund
GO Bond Abatement
General Levy
Emergency Fund
Transfers Out - Transit Fund
Misc Transfers Out
Sub -Total Transfers Out
2014
2015
2015
2015
2015
Pct of
Actual
Budget
Revised
Year -to -Date
Variance
Revised
$ 44,499,871
$ 20,676,017
$ 47,793,327
$ 47,793,327
$ -
100.0%
$ 28,437,600
$ 29,486,191
$ 29,486,191
$ 15,305,323
$ (14,180,868)
51.9%
2,626
-
-
1,144
1,144
54.5%
2,947,501
2,231,144
2,231,144
846,382
(1,384,762)
37.9%
1,659,843
1,574,249
1,574,249
934,521
(639,728)
59.4%
647,032
753,220
753,220
199,475
(553,745)
26.5%
2,789,683
3,401,207
3,401,207
2,524,440
(876,767)
74.2%
1,357,363
1,268,550
1,268,550
754,513
(514,037)
59.5%
4,502,885
4,666,881
4,666,881
2,213,163
(2,453,718)
47.4%
5,565,082
4,635,094
4,685,613
1,462,348
(3,223,265)
31.2%
47,909,615
48,016,536
48,067,055
24,241,311
(23,825,744)
50.4%
10,870,809 8,782,808 8,782,808 4,391,404 (4,391,404) 50.0%
10,870,809 8,782,808 8,782,808 4,391,404 (4,391,404) 50.0%
$ 58,780,424 $ 56,799,344 $ 56,849,863 $ 28,632,715 $ (28,217,148) 50.4%
$ 123,298
$ 116,138
$ 116,138 $
55,168 $
(60,970)
47.5%
533,845
507,040
507,040
258,437
(248,603)
51.0%
676,519
713,474
713,474
327,645
(385,829)
45.9%
1,500,672
1,755,623
1,893,442
868,586
(1,024,856)
45.9%
3,475,824
3,964,604
3,895,885
2,123,533
(1,772,352)
54.5%
12,248,973
12,819,029
13,079,021
6,105,374
(6,973,647)
46.7%
7,401,786
7,688,638
7,688,638
3,862,509
(3,826,129)
50.2%
7,382,727
8,068,508
8,113,008
3,973,235
(4,139,773)
49.0%
5,877,520
6,038,379
6,038,379
2,834,123
(3,204,256)
46.9%
825,124
898,159
936,159
381,481
(554,678)
40.7%
8,597,166
8,445,094
8,988,403
3,559,937
(5,428,466)
39.6%
1,142,899
1,298,916
1,298,916
601,018
(697,898)
46.3%
49,786,353
52,313,602
53,268,503
24,951,045
(28,317,458)
46.8%
769,848
522,665
522,665
115,004
(407,661)
22.0%
158,624
140,000
140,000
-
(140,000)
0.0%
190,470
190,087
190,087
95,044
(95,043)
50.0%
1,656,058
-
-
-
-
$ 15,608,444
2,858,163
2,971,842
2,971,842
1,485,921
(1,485,921)
50.0%
67,452
62,422
62,422
31,211
(31,211)
50.0%
5,700,615
3,887,016
3,887,016
1,727,180
(2,159,836)
44.4%
Total Expenditures & Transfers Out
$ 55,486,968
$ 56,200,618
$ 57,155,519
26,678,225
(30,477,294)
46.7%
Fund Balance', June 30
$ 47,793,327
$ 21,274,743
$ 47,487,671 $
49,747,816 $
2,260,146
104.8%
Restricted / Committed /Assigned
29,808,720
5,666,299
25,314,110
29,508,700
4,194,590
116.6%
Unassigned Balance
$ 17,984,607
$ 15,608,444
$ 22,173,561 $
20,239,116 $
(1,934,444)
91.3%
City of Iowa City
Road Use Tax (2200)
Fund Summary
FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended December 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
Other Financial Sources
Sale Of Assets
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*, June 30
Restricted / Committed /Assigned
Unassigned Balance
2014
2015
2015
2015
2015
Pct of
Actual
Budget
Revised
Year -to -Date
Variance
Revised
$ 2,841,586
$ 3,291,337
$ 4,539,578
$ 4,539,578
$ -
100.0%
$ 49,057
$ -
$ -
$ 14,187
$ 14,187
4,028,272
6,744,663
6,616,545
6,616,545
3,154,057
(3,462,488)
47.7%
22,735
26,345
26,345
49,309
22,964
187.2%
2,041
3,179
3,179
-
(3,179)
0.0%
35,879
11,691
11,691
16,645
4,954
142.4%
1,054
1,054
6,854,375
6,657,760
6,657,760
3,235,252
(3,422,508)
48.6%
405,477 390,883 390,883 195,442 (195,441) 50.0%
405,477 390,883 390,883 195,442 (195,441) 50.0%
$ 7,259,852 $ 7,048,643 $ 7,048,643 $ 3,430,694 $ (3,617,949) 48.7%
$ 2,095
$ 77,406
$ 77,406
$ 75,000
$ (2,406)
96.9%
859,864
43,653
77,001
77,001
65,147
(11,854)
84.6%
3,695,450
782,966
1,441,637
1,441,637
685,239
(756,398)
47.5%
$
3,873,283
4,028,272
4,028,272
1,949,843
(2,078,429)
48.4%
$ (293,755)
4,701,997
5,624,316
5,624,316
2,775,228
(2,849,088)
49.3%
561,617
298,247
715,000
305,214
715,000
305,214
392,500
152,607
(322,500)
(152,607)
54.9%
50.0%
859,864
1,020,214
1,020,214
545,107
(475,107)
53.4%
$
5,561,861
$
6,644,530
$ 6,644,530
$
3,320,335
$ (3,324,195)
50.0%
$
4,539,578
$
3,695,450
$ 4,943,691
$
4,649,936
(293,755)
94.1%
$
4,539,578
$
3,695,450
$ 4,943,691
$
4,649,936
$ (293,755)
94.1%
12
City of Iowa City
Employee Benefits (2400)
Fund Summary
FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2014
Fund Balance*, July 1
Revenues:
Property Taxes
Delinquent Property Taxes
Other City Taxes
Intergovernmental
Property Tax Credits
State 28E Agreements
Miscellaneous
Other Misc Revenue
Total Revenues
2014
2015
2015
2015
2015
Pct of
Actual
Budget
Revised
Year -to -Date
Variance
Revised
$ 1,791,164
$ 1,806,806
$ 1,713,207
$ 1,713,207
$ -
100.0%
$ 9,356,929
$ 9,088,654
$ 9,088,654
$ 4,717,525
$ (4,371,129)
51.9%
864
-
-
353
353
159,183
153,182
153,182
89,325
(63,857)
58.3%
-
181,337
181,337
91,622
(89,715)
50.5%
281,548
289,994
289,994
315,605
25,611
108.8%
11,341 1,703 1,703 (1,703) 0.0%
$ 9,809,865 $ 9,714,870 $ 9,714,870 $ 5,214,429 $ (4,500,441) 53.7%
Expenditures:
General Government Employee Benefits $ 359,450 $ 343,127 $ 343,127 $ 345,809 $ 2,682 100.8%
Public Safety Employee Benefits 354,640 252,590 252,590 375,865 123,275 148.8%
Sub -Total Expenditures 714,090 595,717 595,717 721,673 125,956 121.1%
Transfers Out:
Empl Benefits Levy to Gen Fund & RUT 9,173,732 8,938,242 8,938,242 4,469,121 (4,469,121) 50.0%
Sub -Total Transfers Out 9,173,732 8,938,242 8,938,242 4,469,121 (4,469,121) 50.0%
Total Expenditures & Transfers Out
Fund Balance*, June 30
Restricted / Committed /Assigned
Unassigned Balance
$ 9,887,822
$ 9,533,959
$
9,533,959
$ 5,190,794
$
(4,343,165)
54.4%
$ 1,713,207
$ 1,987,717
$
1,894,118
$ 1,736,842
$
(157,276)
91.7%
$ 1,713,207 $ 1,987,717 $ 1,894,118 $ 1,736,842 $ (157,276) 91.7%
13
City of Iowa City
Debt Service Fund (5000 - 5999)
Fund Summary
FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2014
Fund Balance*, July 1
Revenues:
Property Taxes
Delinquent Property Taxes
Other City Taxes
Use Of Money And Property
Interest Revenues
Intergovernmental
Property Tax Credits
Other Financial Sources
Loan Repayments
Debt Sales
Sub -Total Revenues
Transfers In
Transfers -In
Sub -Total Transfers In
Total Revenues & Transfers In
Expenditures:
Financial Services & Charges
Issuance Costs
GO Bonds Principal
GO Bonds Interest
Revenue Bonds Principal
Revenue Bonds Interest
Sub -Total Expenditures
2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 Pct of
Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised
$ 5,820,298 $ 5,279,826 $ 8,868,053 $ 8,868,053 $ 3,588,227 100.0%
$ 11,976,629 $ 12,753,095 $ 12,753,095 $ 6,618,760 $ - 51.9%
1,125 - - 492 492
202,795 210,174 210,174 124,482 (85,692) 59.2%
64,998 94,615 94,615 27,025 (67,590) 28.6%
- 255,652 255,652 127,683 (127,969) 49.9%
176,381
2,660,000
183,735
-
183,735
-
77,799
-
(105,936)
-
42.3%
15,081,928
6,515,322
13,497,271
1,125,849
13,497,271
1,125,849
6,976,241
308,669
(6,521,030)
(817,180)
51.7%
27.4%
6,515,322
1,125,849
1,125,849
308,669
(817,180)
27.4%
$ 21,597,250
$14,623,120
$ 14,623,120
$ 7,284,909
$ (7,338,211)
49.8%
$ 545
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
11,962
-
-
-
-
-
11,200,000
11,864,100
15,399,100
6,475,000
(8,924,100)
42.0%
1,872,314
1,840,964
1,840,964
813,990
(1,026,974)
44.2%
75,335
75,335
75,335
37,668
(37,668)
50.0%
13,160,156
13,780,399
17,315,399
7,326,658
(9,988,741)
42.3%
Transfers Out:
Misc Transfers Out
5,389,339
-
-
-
-
Sub -Total Transfers Out
5,389,339
-
-
-
-
Total Expenditures & Transfers Out
$ 18,549,495
$ 13,780,399
$ 17,315,399
$
7,326,658
$
3,535,000
42.3%
Fund Balance*, June 30
$ 8,868,053
$ 6,122,547
$ 6,175,774
$
8,826,305
$
53,227
142.9%
Restricted / Committed /Assigned
662,658
-
662.658
624.991
(37.668)
94.3%
Unassigned Balance
$ 8,205,395
$ 6.122.547
$ 5,513.116
$
8.201.314
$
(609.431)
148.8%
14
City of Iowa City
Parking (7100 - 7102)
Fund Summary
FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2014
Fund Balance*, July 1
Revenues:
Use Of Money And Property
Interest Revenues
Misc Parking Revenue
Charges For Fees And Services
Parking Charges
Miscellaneous
Parking Fines
Other Misc Revenue
Sub -Total Revenues
Transfers In:
Transfer In - Interfund Loan from Landfill Re!
Transfer In - Tax Increment Financing
i) Bond Ordinance Transfer
Sub -Total Transfers In
Total Revenues & Transfers In
Expenditures:
Parking Administration
On Street Operations
Parking Ramp Operations
Parking Debt Service
Sub -Total Expenditures
2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 Pct of
Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised
$ 6,428,562 $ 5,822,487 $ 6,867,952 $ 6,867,952 $ - 100.0%
$ 44,062 $ 47,422 $ 47,422 $ (2,497) $ (49,919) -5.3%
84,472 - - - -
5,013,414 4,608,236 4,608,236 2,778,429 (1,829,807) 60.3%
197,578 475,000 475,000 113,447 (361,553) 23.9%
25,079 36,969 36,969 38,557 1,588 104.3%
5,364,605 5,167,627 5,167,627 2,927,936 $ (2,239,691) 56.7%
2,495,350 2,495,350
18,850 - - -
840,350 843,550 843,550 4,084,567 3,241,017 484.2%
859,200 843,550 843,550 6,579,917 5,736,367 780.0%
$ 6,223,805 $ 6,011,177 $ 6,011,177 $ 9,507,853 $ 3,496,676 158.2%
$ 1,082,938
$ 1,175,094
$ 1,175,094 $
610,112
$ (564,982)
51.9%
741,712
912,967
912,967
340,849
(572,118)
37.3%
1,095,959
1,317,936
1,317,936
571,347
(746,589)
43.4%
838,300
832,250
832,250
7,973,550
7,141,300
958.1%
3,758,909
4,238,247
4,238,247
9,495,859
5,257,612
224.7.
Transfers Out:
Capital Improvement Projects
1,185,156
500,000
500,000
(103,318)
(603,318)
-20.7%
')Debt Service Transfers
840,350
843,550
843,550
4,084,567
3,241,017
484.2%
Interfund Loan Repayment to Landfill
-
-
-
36,043
36,043
Sub -Total Transfers Out
2,025,506
1,343,550
1,343,550
4,017,292
2,673,742
299.0%
Total Expenditures & Transfers Out
$
5,784,415
$
5,581,797
$
5,581,797
$
13,513,151
$ 7,931,354
242.1%
Fund Balance*, June 30
$
6,867,952
$
6,251,867
$
7,297,332
$
2,862,655
$ (4,434,678)
39.2%
Restricted / Committed /Assigned
1,919,908
1,679,996
1,679,996
526,275
(1,153,721)
31.3%
Unassigned Balance
$
4,948,044
$
4,571,871
$
5,617,336
$
2,336,380
$ (3,280,956)
41.6%
IN
City of Iowa City
Transit (7150 - 7151)
Fund Summary
FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2014
Fund Balance*, July 1
Revenues:
Use Of Money And Property
Interest Revenues
Rents
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
Printed Materials
Misc Merchandise
Other Misc Revenue
Sub -Total Revenues
2014
2015
2015
2015
2015
Pct of
Actual
Budget
Revised
Year -to -Date
Variance
Revised
$ 3,859,793
$ 3,501,775
$ 3,965,749
$ 3,965,749
$ -
100.0%
$ 6,952
$ 11,353
$ 11,353
$ (214)
$ (11,567)
-1.9%
128,739
124,530
124,530
76,967
(47,563)
61.8%
1,400,381
1,400,144
1,400,144
-
(1,400,144)
0.0%
975,113
548,941
865,741
399,541
(466,200)
46.2%
37,803
32,844
32,844
17,761
(15,083)
54.1%
1,384,792
1,290,908
1,290,908
661,573
(629,335)
51.2%
410
3,000
3,000
390
(2,610)
13.0%
1,738
1,541
1,541
703
(838)
45.6%
631,383
618,141
618,141
487,822
(130,319)
78.9%
-
-
-
30
30
(69,205)
376
1,361
1,361
786
(575)
57.7%
23,050
-
-
2,127
2,127
4,590,737
4,032,763
4,349,563
1,647,485
(2,702,078)
37.99/.
Transfers In:
Transfer In- Transit Property Tax Levy 2,858,163 2,971,842 2,971,842 1,485,921 (1,485,921) 50.0%
Transfer In - Operations to Bus Reserve (614,007) - - - -
Sub -Total Transfers In 2,244,156 2,971,842 2,971,842 1,485,921 (1,485,921) 50.0%
Total Revenues & Transfers In
Expenditures:
Mass Transit Admin
Mass Transit Operations
Fleet Maintenance
Court St Transportation Center
Bus Replacement Reserve
Sub -Total Expenditures
Transfers Out:
Capital Project Fund
InterFund Loan Repay Landfill
Bus Reserve Transfers Out
Sub -Total Transfers Out
Total Expenditures & Transfers Out
Fund Balance*, June 30
Restricted / Committed /Assigned
Unassigned Balance
$
6,834,893
$ 7,004,605
$
7,321,405
$
3,133,406
$ (4,187,999)
42.8%
$
385,144
$ 446,316
$
446,316
$
275,277
(171,039)
61.7%
4,961,243
4,298,021
4,298,021
1,996,944
(2,301,077)
46.5%
1,570,311
1,651,527
1,651,527
711,371
(940,156)
43.1%
163,326
148,457
148,457
71,796
(76,661)
48.4%
-
-
384,000
-
(384,000)
0.0%
7,080,024
6,544,321
6,928,321
3,055,390
(3,872,931)
44.1%
207,596
54,000
54,000
(15,205)
(69,205)
-28.2%
55,324
56,388
56,388
28,196
(28,192)
50.0%
(614,007)
-
-
-
-
(351,087)
110,388
110,388
12,991
(97,397)
11.8%
$
6,728,937
$ 6,654,709
$
7,038,709
$
3,068,381
$(3,970,328)
43.6%
$
3,965,749
$ 3,851,671
$
4,248,445
$
4,030,774
$ (217,671)
94.9%
1,131,918
1,745,925
1,064,718
1,131,918
67,200
106.3%
$
2,833,831
$ 2,105,746
$
3,183,727
$
2,898,856
$ (284,871)
91.1%
KA
City of Iowa City
Wastewater Treatment (7200 - 7201)
Fund Summary
FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2014
Transfers Out:
2014
2015
2015
2015
2015
Pct of
Capital Project Fund
Actual
Budget
Revised
Year -to -Date
Variance
Revised
Fund Balance', July 1
$ 24,137,050
$ 23,311,727
$ 24,069,885
$ 24,069,885
$ -
100.0%
Revenues:
-
-
6,000,000
6,000,000
-
100.0%
Licenses And Permits
7,575,179
8,459,962
14,459,962
8,821,205
(5,638,757)
61.0%
Misc Permits & Lic
$ 7,484
$ 6,604
$ 6,604
$ 7,422
$ 818
112.4%
Intergovernmental
$ 24,069,885
$ 22,362,456
$ 17,382,212
$ 15,784,912
$ (1,597,300)
90.8%
Disaster Assistance
2,923
-
-
-
-
84.2%
Other State Grants
21,924
-
-
-
$ (40,500)
99.5%
Use Of Money And Property
Interest Revenues
195,639
291,054
457,652
74,594
(383,058)
16.3%
Royalties & Commiss
277
274
274
112
(162)
41.0%
Charges For Fees And Services
Misc Charges For Svc
2,016
360
360
1,194
834
331.7%
Wastewater Charges
12,555,994
12,889,204
12,889,204
4,839,344
(8,049,860)
37.5%
Refuse Charges
1,223
1,026
1,026
544
(482)
53.1%
Miscellaneous
Misc Merchandise
1,375
524
524
-
(524)
0.0%
Other Misc Revenue
65,360
94,567
94,567
49,350
(45,217)
52.2%
Sub -Total Revenues:
12,854,215
13,283,613
13,450,211
4,972,561
(8,477,650)
37.0%
Transfers In:
Interfund Loans
-
-
200,000
-
(200,000)
0.0%
1) Bond Ordinance Trans
4,570,067
4,559,962
4,559,962
2,381,581
(2,178,381)
52.2%
Sub -Total Transfers In
4,570,067
4,559,962
4,759,962
2,381,581
(2,378,381)
50.0%
Total Revenues & Transfers In
$ 17,424,282
$ 17,843,575
$ 18,210,173
$ 7,354,142
$ (10,856,031)
40.4%
Expenditures:
Wastewater Administration
$ 1,616,982
$ 1,634,979
$ 1,644,979
$ 904,444
(740,535)
55.0%
Wastewater Treatment Plant Ops
2,876,190
3,041,683
3,136,683
1,436,353
(1,700,330)
45.8%
Lift Stations
-
361,934
361,934
507
(361,427)
0.1%
Wastewater Collection Systems
754,414
619,388
619,388
423,286
(196,102)
68.3%
Wastewater Debt Service
4,668,682
4,674,900
4,674,900
4,053,319
(621,581)
86.7%
Sub -Total Expenditures
9,916,268
10,332,884
10,437,884
6,817,909
(3,619,975)
65.3%
Transfers Out:
Capital Project Fund
3,005,112
3,900,000
3,900,000
439,624
(3,460,376)
11.3%
1) Debt Service Funding
4,570,067
4,559,962
4,559,962
2,381,581
(2,178,381)
52.2%
Interfund Loans
-
-
6,000,000
6,000,000
-
100.0%
Sub -Total Transfers Out
7,575,179
8,459,962
14,459,962
8,821,205
(5,638,757)
61.0%
Total Expenditures & Transfers Out
$ 17,491,447
$ 18,792,846
$ 24,897,846
$ 15,639,115
$ (9,258,731)
62.8%
Fund Balance', June 30
$ 24,069,885
$ 22,362,456
$ 17,382,212
$ 15,784,912
$ (1,597,300)
90.8%
Restricted / Committed /Assigned
9,975,266
9,860,329
9,860,328
8,303,528
(1,556,800)
84.2%
Unassigned Balance
$ 14,094,619
$ 12,502,127
$ 7,521,884
$ 7,481,384
$ (40,500)
99.5%
17
City of Iowa City
Water (7300 - 7301)
Fund Summary
FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2014
Fund Balance*, July 1
Revenues:
Use Of Money And Property
Interest Revenues
Rents
Royalties & Commiss
Intergovernmental
Other State Grants
Charges For Fees And Services
Water Charges
Miscellaneous
Printed Materials
Misc Merchandise
Intra -City Charges
Other Misc Revenue
Other Financial Sources
Sale Of Assets
Sub -Total Revenues
Transfers In:
'i Bond Ordinance Transfers In
Sub -Total Transfers In
Total Revenues & Transfers In
Expenditures:
Water Administration
Water Treatment Plant Ops
Water Distribution System
Water Customer Service
Water Public Relations
Water Debt Service
Sub -Total Expenditures
2014
2015
2015
2015
2015
Pct of
Actual
Budget
Revised
Year -to -Date
Variance
Revised
$ 12,138,269
$ 10,762,018 $
11,541,132
$ 11,541,132
$ -
100.0%
$ 153,347
$ 144,253 $
144,253
$ 49,535
$ (94,718)
34.3%
750
1,000
1,000
-
(1,000)
0.0%
723
913
913
451
(462)
49.4%
fiG�lrLf,
8,442,090 9,081,670 9,081,670 3,602,990 (5,478,680) 39.7%
13 - - 12 12
8,537 12,350 12,350 2,909 (9,441) 23.6%
2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 - 100.0%
9,068 370 370 (1,642) (2,012) -443.9%
11,055 - - 44 44
8,627,583 9,242,556 9,242,556 3,656,569 (5,585,987) 39.6%
2,010,315
2,008,715
2,008,715
1,004,357
(1,004,358)
50.0%
1,989,276
2,010,315
2,008,715
2,008,715
1,004,357
(1,004,358)
50.0%
1,356,585
$ 10,637,898
$ 11,251,271
$ 11,251,271
$ 4,660,927
$ (6,590,344)
41.4%
1,250,130
$ 1,178,390
$ 1,249,557 $
1,249,557
$ 675,155
(574,402)
54.0%
1,989,276
2,175,052
2,262,052
994,290
(1,267,762)
44.0%
1,410,846
1,356,585
1,377,978
484,997
(892,981)
35.2%
1,109,258
1,234,130
1,250,130
646,208
(603,922)
51.7%
55,724
70,400
70,400
25,261
(45,139)
35.9%
1,984,946
1,989,515
1,989,515
1,695,158
(294,357)
85.2%
7,728,440
8,075,239
8,199,632
4,521,070
(3,678,562)
55.1%
Transfers Out:
Capital Project Fund
1,151,955
1,914,400
1,914,400
-
(1,914,400)
0.0%
'i Debt Service Funding
2,010,315
2,008,715
2,008,715
1,004,357
(1,004,358)
50.0%
GO Bond Abatement
344,325
333,225
333,225
308,669
(24,556)
92.6%
Sub -Total Transfers Out
3,506,595
4,256,340
4,256,340
1,313,026
(2,943,314)
30.8%
Total Expenditures & Transfers Out
$
11,235,035
$ 12,331,579
$ 12,455,972
$
5,834,096
$ (6,621,876)
46.8%
Fund Balance*, June 30
$
11,541,132
$ 9,681,710
$ 10,336,431
$
10,367,963
31,532
100.3%
Restricted/Committed/Assigned
4,175,379
4,194,487
4,194,579
3,484,579
(710,000)
83.1%
Unassigned Balance
$
7,365,753
$ 5,487,223
$ 6,141,852
$
6,883,384
741,532
112.1%
18
City of Iowa City
Refuse Collection (7400)
Fund Summary
FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2014
2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 Pct of
Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised
Fund Balance', July 1 $ 719,427 $ 744,514 $ 890,410 $ 890,410 $ - 100.0%
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:
Capital Project Fund
Sub -Total Transfers Out
Total Expenditures
Fund Balance', June 30
Restricted / Committed /Assigned
Unassigned Balance
$ 6,325 $ 5,500 $ 5,500 $ (150) $ (5,650) -2.7%
1,095 1,131 1,131 (125) (1,256) -11.1%
3,050,265 3,009,096 3,009,096 1,240,984 (1,768,112) 41.2%
74 2,255 2,255 48 (2,207) 2.1%
$ 3,057,759 $ 3,017,982 $ 3,017,982 $ 1,240,757 $(1,777,225) 41.1%
$ 509,622 $
514,763 $
514,763
$ 258,359
(256,404)
50.2%
1,534,142
1,208,826
1,286,089
1,286,089
627,184
(658,905)
48.8%
$ 901,587
326,884
303,344
303,344
159,931
(143,413)
52.7%
688,554
728,641
728,641
318,629
(410,012)
43.7%
$
152,890
173,968
173,968
70,040
(103,928)
40.3%
$ (304,563)
2,886,776
3,006,805
3,006,805
1,434,142
(1,572,663)
47.7%
- - - 100,000 100,000
$
2,886,776
$
3,006,805
$ 3,006,805
$
1,534,142
$ (1,472,663)
51.0%
$
890,410
$
755,691
$ 901,587
$
597,024
$ (304,563)
66.2%
$
890,410
$
755,691
$ 901,587
$
597,024
$ (304,563)
66.2%
101
City of Iowa City
Landfill (7500 - 7504)
Fund Summary
FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2014
Fund Balance*, July 1
Revenues:
Use Of Money And Property
Interest Revenues
Rents
Intergovernmental
Other State Grants
Charges For Fees And Services
Refuse Charges
Landfill Charges
Miscellaneous
Contrib & Donations
Misc Merchandise
Other Misc Revenue
Sub -Total Revenues
2014
2015
2015
2015
2015
Pct of
Actual
Budget
Revised
Year -to -Date
Variance
Revised
$ 24,616,339
$ 24,092,806
$ 24,265,434
$ 24,265,434
$ -
100.0%
$ 49,537
$ 70,894
$ 70,894
$ 29,167
$ (41,727)
41.1%
50,245
50,118
50,118
17,594
(32,524)
35.1%
12,242
-
-
-
-
392,531
383,760
383,760
540,368
156,608
140.8%
4,967,453
4,733,705
4,733,705
2,170,552
(2,563,153)
45.9%
713
-
-
382
382
$
20,219
19,376
19,376
20,839
1,463
107.6%
35,541
30,210
30,210
11,372
(18,838)
37.6%
5,528,481
5,288,063
5,288,063
2,790,275
(2,497,788)
52.8%
Transferin:
Interfund Loans
235,836
88,514
88,514
233,076
144,562
263.3%
Misc Transfers In
6,421,324
747,087
747,087
138,823
(608,264)
18.6%
Sub -Total Transfers In
6,657,160
835,601
835,601
371,899
(463,702)
44.5%
Total Revenues & Transfers In
$
12,185,641
$
6,123,664
$
6,123,664
$
3,162,174
$ (2,961,490)
51.6%
Expenditures:
Landfill Administration
$
736,362
$
667,905
$
664,752
$
351,606
$ (313,146)
52.9%
Landfill Operations
3,486,272
3,608,305
3,588,235
1,697,539
(1,890,696)
47.3%
Solid Waste Surcharge Reserve
91,666
99,379
99,379
63,007
(36,372)
63.4%
Sub -Total Expenditures
4,314,300
4,375,589
4,352,366
2,112,152
(2,240,214)
48.5%
Transfers Out:
Capital Project Funding
1,800,922
650,000
650,000
647,592
(2,408)
99.6%
Misc Transfers Out
6,421,324
747,087
747,087
138,823
(608,264)
18.6%
Interfund Loan
-
-
-
2,495,350
2,495,350
Sub -Total Transfers Out
8,222,246
1,397,087
1,397,087
3,281,765
1,884,678
234.9%
Total Expenditures & Transfers Out
$
12,536,546
$
5,772,676
$
5,749,453
$
5,393,917
$ (355,536)
93.8%
Fund Balance*, June 30
$
24,265,434
$
24,443,794
$
24,639,645
$
22,033,690
$ (2,605,955)
89.4%
Restricted / Committed /Assigned
22,423,720
20,703,026
20,868,669
20,316,441
(552,228)
97.4%
Unassigned Balance
$
1,841,714
$
3,740,768
$
3,770,976
$
1,717,249
$ (2,053,727)
45.5%
Kill
City of Iowa City
Housing Authority (7900 - 7922)
Fund Summary
FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended December 31, 2014
Fund Balance', July 1
Revenues:
Use Of Money And Property
Interest Revenues
Rents
Royalties & Commissions
Intergovernmental
Fed Intergovnt Rev
Miscellaneous
Other Misc Revenue
Other Financial Sources
Loan Repayments
Sale Of Assets
Sub -Total Revenues
2014
2015
2015
2015
2015
Pct of
Actual
Budget
Revised
Year -to -Date
Variance
Revised
$ 6,115,885
$ 6,162,829
$ 5,606,540
$ 5,606,540
$ -
100.0%
$ 11,169
$ 23,025
$ 23,025
$ (2,589)
$ (25,614)
-11.2%
212,816
203,286
203,286
109,881
(93,405)
54.1%
26,487
28,516
28,516
12,970
(15,547)
45.5%
6,720,374
7,101,264
7,101,264
3,708,604
(3,392,660)
52.2%
20,648
16,338
16,338
12,782
(3,556)
78.2%
41,173
21,408
21,408
9,448
(11,960)
44.1%
285,500
-
-
-
-
667,677
7,318,167
7,393,837
7,393,837
3,851,095
(3,542,742)
52.1%
Misc Transfers In
1,158
-
-
4,913
4,913
Sub -Total Transfers In
1,158
-
-
4,913
4,913
Total Revenues & Transfers In
$
7,319,325
$
7,393,837
$
7,393,837
$
3,856,008
$(3,537,829)
52.2%
Expenditures:
Voucher Program
$
6,891,723
$
6,676,165
$
6,676,165
$
4,027,446
$(2,648,719)
60.3%
Public Housing Program
722,958
667,677
667,677
289,108
(378,569)
43.3%
Sub -Total Expenditures
7,614,681
7,343,842
7,343,842
4,316,553
(3,027,289)
58.8%
Transfers Out:
Operating Subsidy - PILOT Gen Fund
18,414
18,727
18,727
9,364
(9,363)
50.0%
Misc Transfers Out - Director Reimb
25,575
26,010
26,010
13,005
(13,005)
50.0%
General Fund - UniverCity program
170,000
-
-
-
-
Sub -Total Transfers Out
213,989
44,737
44,737
22,369
(22,368)
50.0%
Total Expenditures & Transfers Out
$
7,828,670
$
7,388,579
$
7,388,579
$
4,338,922
$ (3,049,657)
58.7%
Fund Balance', June 30
$
5,606,540
$
6,168,087
$
5,611,798
$
5,123,627
$ (488,171)
91.3%
Restricted / Committed /Assigned
2,830,484
2,775,386
2,854,395
2,834,516
(19,878)
99.3%
Unassigned Balance
$
2,776,056
$
3,392,701
$
2,757,403
$
2,289,110
$ (468,293)
83.0%
PAI
PP,
r
•�.„61'3i�vld`
=CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P7
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 25, 2015
TO: Tom Markus, City Manager
FROM: John Grier, Fire Chi
RE: Fire Department Traini g
Since 2002, the ICFD has utilized a portion of the north wastewater treatment facility, located at
1001 S. Clinton Street, as a Training Center. The center has served as the primary facility to
facilitate initial training for new recruits as well as an area to conduct individual and/or multi-
company hands-on training evolutions. Unquestionably, ICFD members are some of the best
trained firefighters in the state and have been supported by a training budget funding attendance
to continuing education opportunities locally, in state and nationally; regardless of the challenges
ahead, it is our intention to maintain an effective, high-quality training program.
The decommissioning and revitalization of the north wastewater treatment facility required the
department to abandon the center in December 2014. In advance of this date, the department
completed a build out at Fire Station 4, relocating the components of the videoconferencing
system and training resources to the station's lower level—this classroom provides the
opportunity to continue to host internal and external training courses. Additionally, with Council
approval, .the department secured rental warehouse space that provides a climate controlled and
secure facility to store vehicles, fire safety house, training props, equipment and supplies.
Finally, the Training Division has met the situation head on by identifying and employing.
alternative delivery methods, acquiring structures to conduct hands-on training, and developing
partnerships with local entities to use their facilities to conduct training evolutions. Absent an
area to regularly conduct live fire drills, the department has sufficient training facilities to
complete training necessary to meet ongoing training requirements.
The Fire Training Facility Relocation project, submitted as part of the Capital Improvement
Program, has been designated an unfunded project. Funds have been designated, however, to
design and construct a large storage building for fire and police use on the public works campus
in CY2016. It is anticipated this building will provide sufficient space to store vehicles,
equipment, supplies and afford the opportunity to again maintain a centralized company training
area. Fortunately, to meet immediate training needs, ICFD has access to the Regional Fire
Rescue Training Facility located in Coralville. The facility, a joint venture between Coralville,
Kirkwood Community College and the State of Iowa, has been in operation since 2007 and
training is coordinated through the Coralville Fire Department Training Division. The facility
includes a burn building, extrication area, training tower, confined space props, flammable liquid
fire props, and a water rescue area. There is no cost to use the facility; however, replacement
costs for prop materials and the amount of flammable liquids used are charged back to users.
The ICFD Training Division maintains a good working relationship with the CFD Training
Division and access to the regional facility for ongoing training is being coordinated and
finalized. While crews will need to travel to Coralville to use the facility, the occurrence of
companies being out of their immediate response district when assigned to training is not a new
phenomenon. Over the years, crews regularly traveled to the centralized Training Center to
participate in training, though, if available, on -duty crews generally covered the open district.
Because of its location, use of the regional facility has the potential to create a greater coverage
February 25, 2015
Page 2
challenge; however, the department will address any challenge through advanced planning and,
when necessary, the use of supplementary personnel to backfill coverage of the city. In no
manner or situation will utilizing the regional training facility be allowed to compromise the
safety of the community or department members. Given the short-term budget outlook, the costs
associated with incurring overtime to ensure personnel are well-trained and the community well -
protected is a sound investment and prudent move.
Moving forward, my recommendations to ensure the training program remains high-quality are:
• Utilize current facilities/city locations for day-to-day training evolutions
• Utilize the regional fire training facility for live fire and advanced training evolutions
o Utilize overtime as needed to backfill coverage of the city
• Ensure training elements are incorporated into proposed public works campus building
o Centralized area for training and storage
• Explore opportunities to incorporate training elements into existing facilities
• Incorporate additional training elements into future facilities
• Continue to explore grant opportunities for funding additional training elements
Undoubtedly, the loss of the centralized Training Center has created both challenges and
opportunities for the department training program and our personnel. The ICFD has a long and
proud history of being change agents and innovators with the tenacity to overcome obstacles; I
am confident that by facing this challenge head on we will overcome it as well.
From: City of Iowa City <webmaster@iowa-city.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:06 PM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: Metronet survey crews to visit Iowa City area beginning March 2
Contact: Tv Coleman
Contact Phone: 319-356-5454
Metronet survey crews to visit Iowa City area beginning March 2
Issued by: Communications Office
Mailing List(s): General City News
Originally Posted 2/26/2015 3:05:30 PM
Beginning Monday, March 2, 2015, survey crews from Metronet Technologies, a fiber optic networking company offering
high-speed Internet, phone, and TV services, will be conducting field engineering and surveying work in Iowa City
neighborhoods.
Metronet crews will be placing door hangers at residences in the areas where they plan to conduct their work. Surveying
may require Metronet employees to enter back or side yards in order to access the utility easements or pole lines.
Employees will carry proper identification and vehicles will display a Metronet sign.
Metronet is headquartered in Evansville, Indiana and has established fiber communications systems in 19 Indiana
communities since 2005. The company is seeking to expand in the Midwest. More information on the company can be
found at http://www.metronetinc.com/about. For questions regarding Metronet, call 812-213-1313.
For more information about Iowa City Cable TV, contact Media Production Services Coordinator Ty Coleman at 319-356-
5454 or ty-colemanno iowa-citv.org.
View this article on the ICGov Web Site: http://www.icqov.org/apps/news/?newslD=10319
This media release was sent to: Marian-karr(a)iowa-citv.org
Do not reply directly to this a-maill 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 lobs pane for employment opportunities.
• View more news from the City of Iowa Citv.
Original correspondence // 3f(3) of 2/23 agenda
Marian Karr
IP9
From:
Marian Karr
Sent:
Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:59 AM
To:
Marian Karr
Subject:
FW: food waste and curbside collection
From: Jennifer Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 2:18 PM
To: 'maty j-phillips@uiowa.edu'
Cc: Geoff Fruin
Subject: food waste and curbside collection
Hi Ms. Phillips,
I'm responding to the note and article you left with the City of Iowa City clerk on February 9. The topic of food waste
came up at the City Council Work Session last night and Mayor Hayek asked that I respond. Thanks for your interest in
the topic!
About 15% of what goes into the Iowa City Landfill is food waste and we've been working with commercial entities to
divert food waste over the past eight years. Last summer, landfill and recycling center staff conducted a two-part pilot
project to start to reduce residential food waste. One portion was about helping households reduce wasted food
though an EPA program called Food: Too Good to Waste. We're rolling that out to all community members in the
coming weeks; you can read more about it at www.icgov.org/foodwaste if you like.
The other portion was a food waste collection trial at the curb in conjunction with the existing yard waste pick-up
program. The materials went to the landfill's commercial compost facility; in total, we diverted about five pounds per
household per week over the six-week pilot. We're analyzing the trial results to determine if it makes environmental
and economic sense to make this a permanent program for those who have City of Iowa City curbside yard waste
service.
We have a couple of other large projects it the works right now but I hope to be able to get back to this project later this
summer or early this fall. Please feel free to check back for an update! And if you come across any other communities
adding the service, please feel free to let me know. It's always helpful to see what others are doing!
Thank you,
Jen
JeK,K ferJordaw
Recycling Coordinator
City of Iowa City
319-887-6160
Jennifer iordan(aiowa-city.org
Upcoming environmental events:
www.icgov.or-q/esrc
JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
MEETING
MINUTES • DECEMBER 3, 2014
Conference Rooms 203 BIC Committee Meeting 4:30 PM
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES BUILDING
855 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
PHONE: 319-356-6000
www.JOHNSON-COUNTY.com
www.JOHNSON000NTYIA.IQM2.com
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING
A. CALL TO ORDER: 4:33 PM
Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members present: Supervisor Pat Harney,
Supervisor Terrence Neuzil, and Supervisor Rod Sullivan, Iowa City Crime Prevention
Officer Jorey Bailey, Coralville Chief of Police Barry Bedford, MECCA Director Ron Berg,
Iowa City Public Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden, County Attorney Janet
Lyness, Bar Association Representative James McCarragher, County Sheriff Lonny
Pulkrabek, Judge Douglas Russell, Citizen Representative Professor Emeritus John Stratton,
and Consultation of Religious Communities Representative Dorothy Whiston;
Absent: Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen, Iowa City City Council
Member Kingsley Botchway II, Supervisor John Etheredge, Coralville Resident Karen
Fesler, Iowa City Resident Simone Frierson, Bar Association Representative Thomas
Maxwell, University of Iowa Student Representative Evan McCarthy, North Liberty City
Council Member David Moore, State Public Defender's Managing Attorney Peter Persaud,
Supervisor Janelle Rettig, and Solon Resident Diane Werzer,
Staff present: Board of Supervisors' Executive Assistant Andy Johnson and Deputy
Auditor Nancy Tomkovicz.
B. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
1. Options for addressing Courthouse space, safety, and security needs
A technical failure occurred during the first 15 minutes of the meeting.
The audio portion of this meeting begins at 4:45 p.m.
Sixth Judicial Judge Doug Russell presented the following requests from Chief Judge
Patrick Grady for Courthouse improvements and greater access to justice:
1. Create a secured/monitored entrance on the south side of the existing courthouse.
This is an essential need. It would require demolition of the employee break room,
some loss of parking and possible difficulty in conduction court in 1-A during
construction. However, this is necessary regardless of whether additional court
space is allocated.
Johnson County Iowa Page 1
Minutes Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee December 3, 2014
2. Move Juvenile Court to the Health and Human Services Building (HHS). This
would require the construction of a court room on the 3rd floor of that building and
offices for a judge and court reporter. This would also require space for one or two
clerk of court employees, two assistant county attorneys, one secretary, a holding
area, conference area and one deputy sheriff for security. It is a natural fit since the
DHS offices and JCO offices are already in the building. It would be disruptive to the
two DAJs who rotate in and out of juvenile court and their court reporters, but may
be a hardship we will have to absorb. It would open up one court room in the
Courthouse.
3. Move magistrate court to the HHS. This would require construction of one or two
courtrooms, a magistrate's office and a space for a court attendant /scheduler. It
would also require that three clerk staff be located there as well as space for
mediation prior to small claims hearings. A deputy would also be required for
security. The public would be disadvantaged, at least in the short run, by the
confusion as to where they are supposed to go for court. Based on the Linn County
experience during recovery from the 2008 flood, this was not a major impediment,
especially with an after-hours phone announcement about the location of magistrate
court.
4. Move the County Attorney's Office out of the Courthouse to office space nearby.
This would open up space that could be converted into courtroom space and
conference rooms. This would allow all Sixth District Court Services to remain under
one roof.
Board members discussed the probability and costs of the suggested improvements
requested by Chief Judge Grady, and considered a temporary structure outside the
Courthouse as a stopgap. Any temporary measures that involve the third floor of the
HHS will not be implemented until at least a year from now.
Assistant County Attorney Beth England asked about the time frame to install
security measures for Courthouse staff inside the Courthouse. England emphasized
that something has to be done now. Harney said whatever they are going to do now
will provide minimum security due to fire codes. Neuzil said the bond referendum
did not pass so he does not know when security can be addressed. Sullivan said that
Julyl, 2015 is the earliest the Board can do anything.
Neumann Monson Architects Principal Kim McDonald asked about the possibility of
utilizing space adjacent to the Courthouse. County Attorney Janet Lyness said they
are still exploring the U.S. Post Office, the University of Iowa School of Music, and
MidWestOne Bank buildings.
Neuzil summarized that the committee will plan security improvements to meet
immediate needs and that taxes will increase to pay for this need.
Bar Association Representative Jim McCarragher asked if there is unspent money left
over in the current budget that had been set aside for other expenses that could be
earmarked for security upgrades.
Johnson County Iowa Page 2
Minutes Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee December 3, 2014
Neuzil said at the February 4th CJCC meeting, committee members should be
prepared to finalize a plan of action regarding security measures and they will also
discuss space needs.
2. Update on plans for repair and maintenance projects at the jail and options for
addressing future needs
Neuzil said the County is currently upgrading the locking system at the Jail and
repairing the Jail elevator. Facility Manager Eldon Slaughter commented further on
the upgrades. County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said the County has a plan to keep the
Jail open and operating with a limited number of inmates. Many inmates will be
transported to and held in the Muscatine County Jail.
3. Update and recommendations from the Adult Disproportionate Minority Contact
Subcommittee
Board of Supervisors' Executive Assistant Andy Johnson distributed a memorandum
about the Adult Criminal Justice System Disproportionate Minority Contact Gap
Analysis Plan from the National Council on Crime & Delinquency, (NCCD). The
content of the memorandum is as follows:
Objective I
NCCD will perform systematic literature and best practices review to identify
national trends and best practices regarding minority contact in adult criminal
justice systems. (January 2015)
Objective 2
NCCD will review existing Johnson County data reports, information, and practices
relating to marijuana and disorderly interference arrests and subsequent adult
criminal justice system penetration based on race. (April 2015)
Objective 3
NCCD will develop a plan to analyze DMC relative to marijuana and disorderly
interference arrests and subsequent adult criminal justice system penetration based
on race, and provide recommendations to monitor ongoing minority contact related
to these two arrest types. (July 2015)
The literature and best practices review will entail gathering studies and expert
insight through: 1) NCCD subject matter and internal research expertise; and 2) a
comprehensive search of published and unpublished, publicly available research
literature in relevant electronic databases and websites. The essential components of
this review process are the assessment of available current DMC standards for
criminal justice -involved adults in frequency and type and recommendations for
reducing disparities. The review process will apply a set of standards for evaluating
their impacts and evidence bases and for ensuring that each source is represented
accurately.
NCCD will work in collaboration with the Johnson County Criminal Justice
Coordinating Committee (CJCC) to identify relevant information that is currently
collected on marijuana and disorderly interference arrests and resulting system
Johnson County Iowa Page 3
Minutes Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee December 3, 2014
penetration and that can be used in the DMC analysis plan, as well as gaps that exist
and that can be addressed via interventions and system corrections.
The resulting report, which will include a review of the literature and best practices,
will be shared with the CJCC and identified trends and best practices will be used to
guide the review of existing data reports, information, and practices related to
marijuana and disorderly interference arrests and resulting system penetration based
on race in Johnson County.
The final outcome will be the informed development of a DMC gap analysis plan to
analyze the extent to which minorities are overrepresented in Johnson County's adult
criminal justice system due to marijuana and disorderly interference arrests.
Recommendations will be given on the collection and analysis of data on the volume
of occurrence of DMC at major decision points in the adult criminal justice system,
as well as the establishment of an ongoing monitoring system to track future
occurrences of DMC within the system. NCCD staff plan to travel onsite for kick-off
planning and final presentation meetings, and will also be available for additional
meetings as needed.
The proposed schedule involves conducting the bulk of the work from December 2014
to June 2015, and conducting an onsite meeting and report finalization in November
2014 and July 2015.It may be necessary to revise the schedule based on the
availability of the CJCC or other challenges that present when attempting to access
existing data, information, and practices.
The cost of this effort is $29,710. This includes travel for two onsite meetings in Iowa
City, Iowa, to discuss initial plans, findings, implications, and next steps.
Consultation of Religious Communities Representative Dorothy Whiston said
national experts have commented on the usefulness of this study. The NCCD can
conduct it for just under $30,000. Lyness said she has included this as a decision
package in the County Attorney's FYI budget which she will present to the Board
next week.
Whiston said she thinks she and Lyness have a misunderstanding about the timeline.
The subcommittee's expectation was to begin this study now, in the current fiscal
year; waiting six months to address disparity in the criminal justice system would be a
shame. Sullivan said no matter what they decide, nothing will fall into place for
another six months anyway.
Committee members discussed possible resources to fund the study.
Sean Curtin commented on the timing and funding for this study, and also on Johnson
County's arrest rates. McCarragher and Russell asked Curtain to produce data to
substantiate his claims.
Carberry asked what resources are available for him to study the pertinent statistics
on Johnson County arrests. He asked if someone could direct him to data. Whiston
and Sullivan said they could give Carberry some information but no one resource will
Johnson County Iowa Page 4
Minutes Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee December 3, 2014
provide all the data which is why they want to conduct this study. Sullivan
recommended that local law enforcement establish uniform data collection indexes so
they can study the issue county wide and see where the disparity exists.
Neuzil suggested the Board of Supervisor reevaluate its role on the CJCC.
4. 3289 : Reports and updates from subcommittees- There were no subcommittee
reports
5. Structure, purpose, and focus of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee and
subcommittees including meeting schedule for 2015
Neuzil posed the question of how often the committee should continue to meet and
who should be present at meetings. He proposed quarterly meetings.
Russell said the urgency of the racial disparity issue begs this CJCC meet regularly.
Russell said he would like the Supervisors to remain a part of this committee and to
meet regularly. Whiston said she would like the committee to meet regularly also.
The CJCC members decided to next meet in February 2015.
Whiston noted there is a new committee in Johnson County and she thinks it is called
the council of government bodies promoting racial justice or equity and she wants
Johnson County leaders to be aware of it and its actions.
6. Additional comments from Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee members
Pulkrabek said he supports a simple misdemeanor level for possession of one ounce
or less of marijuana. Sullivan said yesterday the Board met with area legislators
and discussed this as one of the Board's legislative priorities. Whiston said marijuana
isn't the main issue. Sullivan said he is committed to effecting changes but there is
only so much the Board of Supervisors can do.
Pulkrabek said that when law enforcement brings arrestees to the Jail, deputies must
hold those individuals; the Sheriffs deputies do not have the authority to turn anyone
away. They must hold whoever is brought to them.
The Facilities, Treatment and Alternatives, and the DMC subcommittees should meet
during the next two months before the next scheduled CJCC meeting on February 4,
2016.
C. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Martha Hample commented on why people cast protest votes.
Carberry asked for more information on DMC statistics.
D. ADJOURNED AT 5:54 PM
Attest: Travis Weipert, Auditor
Recorded by Deputy Auditor Nancy Tomkovicz
Johnson County Iowa Page 5
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD DRAFT
MINUTES — February 10, 2015 LIP11
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 5:31 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Fidencio Martinez, Mazahir Salih, (5:38 P.M.), Joseph Treloar
MEMBERS ABSENT: Royceann Porter
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Lieutenant Troy Kelsay of the ICPD; Marian Karr, City Clerk
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #14-10
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Martinez, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or
amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 12/03/14
• Minutes of the meeting on 12/08/14
• Minutes of the meeting on 12/29/14
• ICPD Department Memo #15-01 (November 2014 Use of Force Review)
• ICPD Use of Force Report — November 2014
• ICPD Department Memo #15-04 (December 2014 Use of Force Review)
• ICPD Use of Force Report — December 2014
• ICPD Memorandum (Quarterly Summary Report IAIR/CPRB, 4rd Quarter 2014)
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent.
OLD BUSINESS
Discussion of proposed CPRB name change by Charter Review Commission — Karr reported
at the Charter Review meeting that morning they voted to approve the name change from
"citizen" to "community", and requested the CPRB provide a response to the name change.
Karr outlined the process after the Charter Review Commission makes the recommendation to
Council. Jensen stated that she liked "community" better than the earlier suggestion of
"resident" but had concerns that "community" implied community policing. Treloar liked
"community" because it sounds like an extension of the community policing process which he
is an advocate of. Salih and Martinez agreed to the change.
Motion by Salih, seconded by Martinez, supporting the suggestion to change the name from
Citizen Police Review Board to Community Police Review Board and directing the City Clerk to
report back to the Charter Review Commission. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
Karr also extended the invitation to the Charter Review Forum on February 24th at 6:30pm in
Emma J. Harvat Hall for anyone who is interested.
CPRB
February 10, 2015
Page 2
NEW BUSINESS
Community Forum — The Board discussed dates, time, and location for the next annual
community forum. They liked that the Library was centrally located and close to bus services.
It was agreed that the forum would be held at the Iowa City Public Library in Room A on April
28th at 6:00 PM. Topics/presentations for the forum were considered and will be discussed
further at the next meeting. Tuttle is going to check on the status of the CPRB video for a
possible use at the forum.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None.
BOARD INFORMATION
Jensen would like to see two items placed on the next meeting agenda. The first is
Responsibilities of Board Members and the second is Video review process.
STAFF INFORMATION
Ford reminded the Board of their obligation as Board members to maintain confidentiality.
Anything related to a complaint such as reports, audio or video are confidential and should not
be discussed outside of executive session. Even after a complaint is finished members cannot
discuss the name of the complainant, the officer, or any details. The only thing public is the
report that submitted to City Council.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Salih, seconded by Martinez 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 6:01 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 6:06 P.M.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Martinez to dismiss CPRB Complaint #14-10 and forward the
Public Report to City Council.
Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
CPRB
February 10, 2015
Page 3
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• March 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• April 14, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• April 28, 2015, 6:00 PM, , IC Library, Room A, Community Forum
• May 12, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• June 9, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Salih to add the April 28th Community Forum to the Calendar.
Motion carried, 4/0, Porter Absent.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by Salih.
Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
Meeting adjourned at 6:08 P.M.
y
�'
-off
0
0
�
0="
1
CD
y
a
a. 9
m
a°,
aY
w
N O
w CD
:t
O
N
H+
W
r+
A
H+
yC
5C
>C
>C
w
o
if
00
yC
>C
>C
yC
w
k
X
O
5C
>C
0
N N
CPRB REPORT OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL
Re: Investigation of Complaint CPRB #14-10
Complaint CPRB #14-10, filed December 23, 2014, was summarily
dismissed as required by the city Code, Section 8-8-3 E, requiring that only those
complaints which do not involve the conduct of an Iowa City sworn police officer
may be subject to summary dismissal by the board.
DATED: February 10, 2015