Loading...
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