Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-27 Info Packeta► CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET �ftA IT CITY OF IOWA CITY August 27, 2015 www.icgov.org IPI Council Tentative Meeting Schedule SEPTEMBER 1 WORK SESSION IP2 Work Session Agenda IP3 Memo from Neighborhood Services Dir.: Riverfront Crossing Inclusionary Housing (IH) Ordinance IP4 Memo from Development Services Coordinator and Associate Planner: Small House / small lot development to meet affordable housing goals IP5 Pending Work Session Topics MISCELLANEOUS IP6 Email from Chris Ciastro: Iowa City Noon Rotary Blood Drive IP7 Email from Library Dir.: Invitation to Library Special Events I138 Copy of letter from Assistant Transportation Planner to Sandusky Drive Resident: Traffic Calming in Sandusky Drive IP9 Corridor Business Journal email: 2015 Commercial Real Estate Luncheon IP10 Memo from Finance Dir.: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending June 30, 2015 IP11 Civil Services Entrance Examination —Special Projects Assistant— Cable TV DRAFT MINUTES IP12 Human Rights Commission: August 18 CITY OF IOWA CITY Date Tuesday, September 1, 2015 Tuesday, September 15, 2015 08-27-15 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule SP1 Subject to change August 27, 2015 Time Meeting 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting 7:00 PM Formal Meeting 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Location Emma J. Harvat Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, October 6, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session -Meeting - - - - Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 20, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, November 10, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Monday, November 30, 2015 1-6:30 PM Work Session Meeting Ashton House Strategic Planning and Orientation Tuesday, December 15, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Formal Meeting 2016 Meeting Schedule TBA u � i Jpk r 1 ''a W CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org City Council Work Session Agenda Tuesday, September 1, 2015 Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall 410 E. Washington Street 5:00 PM ■ Questions from Council re Agenda Items ■ Review recommendations from the ad-hoc Riverfront Crossings inclusionary housing work committee [IP # 3 Info Packet of 8/27 info packet] ■ Staff follow-up presentation on regulations impacting lot and housing unit sizes [IP # 4 Info Packet of 8/27 info packet] ■ Information Packet Discussion [August 20, 27] ■ Council Time / Meeting Schedule ■ Pending Work Session Topics [IP # 5 Info Packet of 8/27 info packet] ■ Upcoming Community Events / Council Invitations CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: August 25, 2015 To: Tom Markus, City Man From: Douglas Boothroy, Director odf&t%!r7'elopmenI Tervices Re: Riverfront Crossing Inclusionary Hou�itg (IH) Ordinance Introduction: At the January 6, 2015 City Council meeting, Council directed the staff to convene an ad-hoc work committee to study and develop the fundamental principles that would be the basis for an IH requirement for the Riverfront Crossings area. This direction was consistent with the discussion and recommendations found in the December 15th, 2014 Staff memo (see attached). The ad-hoc work committee has completed its work and unanimously recommends that Council proceed with the development and adoption of an IH ordinance based on the recommendations outlined below. Background: In designing IH requirements for the Riverfront Crossings area, it's important to note that a number of City studies document that the lack of affordable housing is a growing community issue. The 2013 Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and the Riverfront Crossings Plan both support measures to increase the supply of affordable housing and recognize the public benefit of mixed income neighborhoods. The 2016-2020 City STEPS, 2014 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, and the 2014 Metropolitan Planning Organization's update of the 2007 Housing Market Analysis all suggest policy and program initiatives to increase the supply of affordable housing; use of IH requirements are identified as one such approach. Committee Process: Over the past six months, the ad-hoc work committee (composed of developers, a banker, and affordable housing advocates) held a series of meetings to consider the possibility of requiring affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings in exchange for zoning to a Riverfront Crossings designation (includes density bonuses and mixed use options), and/or use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for a development. Early in their deliberations, the committee agreed that, if an IH regulation was established, it should: be designed to increase production of a relatively permanent supply of affordable housing; be achievable; and, ensure that the amount of below market -rate housing leveraged results with no net cost to a developer. Committee members agreed that if IH requirements are to be effective, they must be workable and make sense to the development community. - - - - Using these parameters, the committee reached unanimous agreement on the following fundamental principles upon which an IH regulation for the Riverfront Crossings area should be based. 08-27-15 IP3 August 25, 2015 Page 2 Recommended Fundamental Principles of an Inclusionary Housing Regulation PRINCIPLE #1 — Provision of inclusionary housing should be mandatory, not voluntary. Inclusionary Housing is mandatory: • When the City participates financially (e.g. TIF) in a development that includes residential units regardless of zoning designation. • When property is zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation. Comment These mandatory requirements guarantee that affordable housing is created with new residential development. The affordable housing requirement applies only when the City participates financially and/or when a property is zoned to a Riverfront Crossings designation (allows higher densities and mixed uses). PRINCIPLE #2 — A percentage of units in a development should be set aside for housing that is affordable for an established period of time. Set-aside percentage and term of affordability: • When the City participates financially in a development, 15% of the residential units must be affordable for a minimum term of 20 years, or the life of the TIF, or term of developer's agreement, whichever is longer. • When the City is not participating financially in a development, 10% of the residential units must be affordable for a minimum term of 10 years. Comment Set-aside percentage is the requirement that a portion (percentage) of the total number of residential units be affordable. The set-aside strongly impacts development revenues possible financial viability of a project. Set-aside percentages generally range from 10 to 20 percent in 1H ordinances. The committee recommends a 15% set-aside if the City provides financing and a 10% set-aside if no public financing is involved. Term of affordability is the length of time residential units must stay affordable. Affordability terms range from 10 to 99 years in 1H ordinances. To protect the public's investment in affordable housing, the committee recommends a minimum of 20 year term of affordability when TIF is used. PRINCIPLE # 3 — Project size should be considered and a threshold established for a set-aside requirement. Development size threshold: • Developments that include 10 or more residential units are subject to the set-aside requirement. August 25, 2015 Page 3 Comment Threshold size is the number of units that "trigger" the affordable housing set-aside requirement. The 10 -unit threshold will require most new developments to include affordable housing while also recognizing that an inclusionary housing requirement for small projects is often not practical or financially feasible. PRINCIPLE #4 — Requirements should be appropriate for the type of development (rental vs. owner -occupied housing). Type of development: • Rental projects are required to provide affordable units within the development unless the developer qualifies for a hardship exemption to provide a 'fee -in -lieu'. Owner -occupied projects may choose to pay a 'fee -in -lieu' for their affordable housing obligation, or may offer affordable for -sale units to non -profits for management and re- sale to income -qualifying owners. Proceeds from the 'fee -in -lieu' fund may be used for down payment assistance for income -qualifying households purchasing owner -occupied units. Comment Affordable rental housing is the community's greatest housing need. Affordable rental units must be developed on-site unless the development qualifies for a hardship exemption to provide a `fee -in -lieu' (see below). To create economically integrated neighborhoods, affordable housing units must be built within each development. This on-site requirement prevents affordable housing from being clustered and prevents income -based concentrations within the Riverfront Crossings area. Developments designed for owner -occupied units are allowed to provide either a 'fee -in - lieu' or provide units on-site. This flexibility is provided because it is more difficult for low income families to qualify for mortgages. If the City participates financially, owner -occupied units could be required to be on-site through the developer's agreement. PRINCIPLE #5 — Alternatives to the on-site affordable housing set-aside should be provided. Alternatives: `Fee -in -lieu' contributions. These contributions may include money, land or other in-kind contributions. Rental projects may appeal on site requirement in exchange for a `fee -in - lieu' option. This may be provided off-site but only within the Riverfront Crossings Area. Comment A `fee -in -lieu' contribution allows a developer to make a cash payment instead of constructing the required affordable housing units. The fee is to be based on the financial clap between market rate units and affordable units. These payments are deposited into an affordable housing fund or managed by the City to fund/assist other affordable housing opportunities. Fee -in -lieu provisions are common in IH ordinances to provide flexibility and to acknowledge that affordable housing may not be practical ( e.g. a development loses money as an unavoidable consequence of the IH requirement). Fees allow for the creation August 25, 2015 Page 4 of an affordable housing fund to provide housing in other locations, fund non -profits, provide down -payment assistance for home ownership, or other similar types of affordable housing funding. PRINCIPLE #6 — Funds created from `fee -in -lieu' contributions should be used to create an Affordable Housing Fund for the sole purpose of supporting affordable housing in the Riverfront Crossings area. Use of funds: • Funds can only be utilized for affordable housing located within the Riverfront Crossings Area. • Funds may be used for down payment assistance for owner -occupied households. Down payment assistance made available for income -qualifying households must be repaid upon resale of the unit. Down payment assistance may then be recycled to another income -qualifying household. Owner is able to keep any equity over and above the down payment assistance. • Funds may be used to provide grants/low interest and/or forgivable loans to local non- profit affordable housing agencies (e.g. Fellowship, Trust Fund, Habitat, other) for affordable housing development. Oversight of funds: • A third party agency should manage the Affordable Housing Fund. A third party(e.g. the Housing Trust Fund or similar agency) has the expertise and staff to administer this fund without having to add a City staff. The City may provide criteria by which the funds may be used and request annual reports on use of the funds. Comment City legal staff advise that fees acquired as part of the development process in Riverfront Crossings must be used solely for affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings. PRINCIPLE #7 — Affordable housing should be provided to households of a qualifying income level. Income Target: • Renters: Not to exceed 60% of Area Median Income (AMI). With a TIF project, the City may negotiate affordability level (i.e. some units at a lower percentage than 60% AMI). • Owners: Not to exceed 110% AMI. With a TIF project, the City may negotiate affordability level (i.e. some units at a lower percentage than 110% AMI). • Elderly/Disabled: Developments designed and utilized for elderly/disabled are not required to provide an affordable housing set-aside. August 25, 2015 Page 5 Comment The AMI for a 3 person household is $74,100. Affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings is being defined at 60% AMI for rental housing ($44,460 for 3 person household and is the funding level for federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects) and 110% AMI for owner occupied units ($81,510 for 3 person household). The greatest need is for affordable rental housing because almost 2/3 of all renters in the community are cost -burdened (i.e. pay more than 30% of adjusted income for rent). Recommendations: 1. City Council direct staff to develop an Inclusionary Housing ordinance for consideration, applicable only to the Riverfront Crossings area, and that the ordinance be based on seven fundamental design principles recommended by the ad-hoc work committee. 2. City Council amend the Affordable Housing Location Model. This amendment is necessary if the IH regulations are to be effective in increasing supply of affordable housing in the Riverfront Crossings area. Attached to this document is a memo of explanation from Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood Service Coordinator. 3. City Council direct staff to provide to Council a periodic review of the IH requirement's impact in the Riverfront Crossings area. Conclusion: The development of a workable Inclusionary Housing requirement in the Riverfront Crossings area would be a significant achievement, for which the committee's recommendations are a ground breaking first step. On behalf of the City Council and staff, I wish to thank the members of the ad-hoc work committee who generously volunteered their time and expertise. This diverse group of citizens worked together in a positive, solutions -focused manner to study, deliberate, find common ground, and build consensus. This is a very complex set of issues, requiring a balance of aspirations and practicality. I commend the committee for reaching consensus and developing a set of recommendations that are unanimously supported. Thank you to the members of the ad-hoc inclusionary housing work committee: Tracey Achenbach, Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County Maryann Dennis, Housing Fellowship Chad Keune, Homebuilders Association President, 2014 Brad Langguth, Hills Bank and Trust Scott McDonough, Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity Chair, 2015 Sally Scott, Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition Glenn Siders, Siders Development Attachments: August 25th, 2015 Tracy Hightshoe Affordable Housing Location Model memo December 15th, 2014 Riverfront Crossings and Inclusionary Housing memo CITY OF IOWA CITY �r 2gIllA �►. MEMORANDUM Date: August 24, 2015 To: Thomas M. Markus, City Manager From: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Re: Riverfront Crossings — Inclusionary Housing and The Affordable Housing Location Model Introduction: The City has made plans to develop a new economically vital, mixed-use, mixed -income, pedestrian oriented, sustainable neighborhood close to downtown in the Riverfront Crossings area. One of the guiding principles for the Riverfront Crossings area is to promote equitable, affordable housing. To encourage affordable housing close to downtown and the University campus, the City may utilize various financial incentives and policies to increase affordable housing opportunities such as tax increment financing (TIF) and inclusionary housing (IH) requirements. History/Background: In 2011, the City Council approved an 'Affordable Housing Location Model' to address three goals: 1) the City does not want to further burden neighborhoods and elementary schools that already have issues related to a concentration of poverty; 2) the City desires to have diverse neighborhoods in terms of a range of incomes; and 3) low income students, indeed all students, do better when there is a mix of income levels. This model does not allow the City to assist affordable rental housing units with CDBG, HOME and discretionary City funds, including TIF, if the location is in close proximity to other City assisted affordable rental housing, and other factors, based on the 'Affordable Housing Location Model.' This model conflicts with the goal of Inclusionary Housing, where each development is required and/or incented to have a certain percentage of affordable rental and/or owner housing regardless of proximity to another residential development with affordable housing. Under the proposed IH requirements, each residential development would be required to provide low income housing and TIF financing will need to be considered. While the existing Affordable Housing Location Model takes into consideration the density of any proposed public assisted rental development, it does not consider the density of the surrounding neighborhood. For example, if the City uses TIF to incent ten affordable rental housing units in a 100 unit development, this would mean that the City could not use any City incentive to encourage additional affordable rental housing for at least a 400 feet radius around the project site. If an IH regulation was adopted the City would require each development regardless of proximity, to include a designated number of affordable housing units Therefore our current Affordable Housing Location Model would severely limit the effectiveness of any IH requirement and City's ability to increase affordable rental housing opportunities throughout Riverfront Crossings. Recommendation: The goal of developing Riverfront Crossings into a diverse, mixed -income neighborhood housing area through Inclusionary Housing requirements is made much more difficult, and may not be feasible, unless the Affordable Housing Location Model is amended. Therefore, staff recommends amending the Affordable Housing Location Model to exempt low income housing that is financed with TIF, General Obligation bonds, and/or other City General funds. The Model would still apply to all CDBG, HOME and any state or federal incentive that requires financial assistance from the City. r CITY OF IOWA CITY CI% �TY _ MEMORANDUM CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Date: December 15, 2014 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Douglas Boothroy, Director Neighborhood and Development Services Re: Riverfront Crossings and Inclusionary Housing At the -time it adopted the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code, the City Council requested that staff meet with stakeholders (i.e. developers, affordable housing advocates, etc.) to determine whether or not the Riverfront Crossings Code should be amended to require affordable housing as an integral part of any new residential development. The current Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code does not require the inclusion of affordable housing. It does, however, provide development incentives (e.g. density bonuses) for affordable housing. Background The fundamental purpose of an inclusionary housing upzoning requirement is to provide a minimum percentage of affordable housing units as an integral part of new residential development. To achieve this goal, incentives are commonly provided to the developer for the inclusion of affordable housing. Inclusionary housing policy is one tool cities have used to: 1) increase production of affordable housing; 2) establish a relatively permanent stock of affordable housing units; and, 3) promote mixed income neighborhoods. As a `stand-alone' strategy, inclusionary housing policy is not a panacea for attaining a community's housing aspirations or solving a community's housing challenges. It does not guarantee the production of affordable housing units or the location of affordable housing units in a given school attendance area. Because inclusionary housing promotes affordable housing in new residential development, affordable housing units are produced only to the extent that overall development proceeds. However, such policy can be useful when employed as one component of a broader and more comprehensive strategic approach. For example, one such policy that requires 'scattered site' housing is the 2011 Affordable Housing Location Model, which requires publically-funded affordable housing to be located in neighborhoods and elementary school attendance areas which do not have a concentration of affordable housing. A description of the Affordable Housing Location Model, in addition to other existing Policies, Codes and Programs which in combination form a comprehensive approach to encourage development and preservation of affordable housing, is attached. Inclusionary housing policies have been found to be most effective when they are: • Mandatory; • combined with meaningful developer incentives; and • required in areas of the community that have the potential for substantial new residential growth (such as Riverfront Crossings). Developer incentives/benefits have been found to be most effective when they: • are meaningful; • are achievable; • offset the profits lost on below -market -rate affordable units; and 0 do not impact the price and supply of market -rate units. December 18, 2014 Page 2 Inclusionary housing works only when the policy provisions make sense — financially and otherwise — to the development community. Developer involvement is essential to the process of creating a practical, workable inclusionary housing policy. Absent this involvement, barriers to implementation and enforcement are more likely to occur. Benefits The City's recent adoption of the Riverfront Crossings Plan and Form -Based Code has created a "Neighborhood of Opportunity" in Riverfront Crossings. All parties (private and public) will benefit from these City actions, even without inclusionary affordable housing. However, because Riverfront Crossings upzonings provide a significant increase in the development capacity of this area, a favorable inclusionary housing environment, unique to this time and place, has been created. The potential now exists for the public benefit of mixed income housing to become a reality in this area. Landowners and developers in Riverfront Crossings will benefit from density increases, building and site design flexibility, mixed uses, and options for financial support (such as Tax Increment Financing - TIF). Furthermore, they will benefit from significant public infrastructure investment, including the creation of a major riverfront park amenity for the area. The community will benefit from Riverfront Crossings through the creation of an economically vital, mixed income, mixed use, pedestrian friendly, sustainable neighborhood located near downtown. A case can be made that affordable housing will further enhance the public benefit and that by requiring inclusionary housing, the City is engaging in a mutually beneficial reciprocal exchange with landowners/developers. The Riverfront Crossings land use changes and upzonings, as well as other public initiatives, will increase land value and redevelopment opportunities. Because this increase in land value and development capacity is directly attributable to the City's actions, consideration should be given to recapturing a portion of the increased value/development capacity to benefit the public. When a landowner/developer benefits from public action (such as upzoning, infrastructure upgrades, density bonuses, etc.), it is reasonable to expect that public benefits (such as affordable housing) are extended to the community, as well. Affordable housing is identified as a goal in several of the City's guiding documents: Riverfront Crossings Plan, Form -Based Code, City's Strategic Plan, City STEPS, and other policies and programs noted in the attachments. Requiring inclusionary affordable housing to be tied to upzonings and/or TIF financial assistance should be considered a quid pro quo for recapturing some of the public benefits/value assigned to the land in Riverfront Crossings. Initial Stakeholder Input Staff has held meetings with various stakeholders to discuss the possibility of requiring affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings in exchange for upzoning and/or use of TIF financing. The stakeholders included the Chamber's Local Government Committee and representatives of for-profit developers, the Homebuilders Association, non-profit developers, and affordable housing advocates. Stakeholder discussions were positive and productive. Participants agreed on two general principles. First, that any time the City participates financially in a residential development project, a minimum of at least 10% of the units must be affordable/workforce housing. Second, that if inclusionary housing were to be required in Iowa City, it should be limited to Riverfront Crossings because of the significant land use changes and development capacity provided by the City. The for-profit developers were not convinced that the upzonings and other beneficial incentives would offset the cost of providing below -market -rate housing. In their view, any inclusionary housing program must be designed so that the incentives/benefits offset the costs associated with both construction and subsequent rental or sale income of the affordable units. They December 18, 2014 Page 3 indicated they may be able to support inclusionary housing requirements if the amount of housing leveraged and the incentives provided result in no net cost to the developer. Stakeholders generally agreed that if inclusionary housing can work in Iowa City, Riverfront Crossings is the "neighborhood of opportunity" for its success. All participants expressed interest in maintaining stakeholder involvement in future discussions. The following participants volunteered to work with staff as members of an ad-hoc work committee. Tracy Achenbach, Housing Trust Maryann Dennis, Housing Fellowship Chad Keune, Homebuilder Association President, 2014 Brad Langguth, Hills Bank & Trust Scott McDonough, Iowa Valley Habitat Chair, 2015 Sally Scott, Affordable Housing Coalition Glenn Siders, Siders Development Recommendations Recommendation #1: (effective immediately) Any time the City participates financially in a residential development project, a minimum of 10% of the units must be designated for affordable housing. In the case of an all -student -housing project, the City may consider a fee in lieu of the provision of affordable housing. Recommendation #2: Staff should convene an ad-hoc work committee to study and develop, for City Council consideration, a proposed inclusionary housing upzoning requirement for the Riverfront Crossings area. This committee will include individuals who have a broad range of housing expertise and experience, including the volunteers listed above. The committee would be expected to complete its work in 3-4 months. Caveat: The design and ultimate adoption of an inclusionary housing requirement for Riverfront Crossings will be a challenge for all involved. As you know, over the past twenty years, inclusionary housing has been discussed and recommended, but it has failed to see any political traction. Further study of this issue will be worth the investment of committee and City Council time only if there is genuine interest in pursuing an inclusionary housing requirement. Out of respect for potential committee members' time and goodwill, it is critical that a majority of Council be willing to give serious consideration to the recommendations of an ad-hoc committee. ATTACHMENTS 1. Existing Policies, Codes and Programs that encourage affordable housing 2. Table I: Housing Choice and Veterans' Supportive Services Voucher Utilization 3. Table II: Inventory of Subsidized Housing, Johnson County, IA 4. 2011 resolution approving the Affordable Housing Location Model December 18, 2014 Page 4 EXISTING POLICIES, CODES AND PROGRAMS THAT ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING Iowa City has addressed affordable housing with a myriad of policies, codes and programs which have combined to encourage affordable housing and a diversity of housing in our neighborhoods. Policies that have been adopted in documents such as the Comprehensive Plan provide the basis for Zoning Code and other code provisions, and the basis for a variety of programs which help support affordable housing, both renter and owner -occupied. POLICIES 2013 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan supports housing diversity in neighborhoods, and encourages the development of smaller lots that conserve land and allow for more affordable housing options. The Comprehensive Plan also explicitly supports programs and funding for housing maintenance and rehabilitation. These goals are carried over from the 1997 Comprehensive Plan, and similar goals are identified in the City's District Plans (which are subsets of the Comprehensive Plan). As far back as the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, support for density bonuses to encourage provision of affordable housing was identified as a goal. 2014 Strategic Plan The Strategic Plan states that the City should define and address affordable housing options in the community, should avoid proliferation of low income housing concentrations, and should pursue strategies to facilitate mixed income neighborhoods. As a Healthy Neighborhoods strategy, the Strategic Plan emphasizes evaluating programs and methods to promote affordable housing. 2004-05 Scattered Site Housing Taskforce This City -sponsored taskforce made several recommendations including a scattered -site policy to ensure distribution of assisted housing, and to avoid the concentration of assisted housing. The Taskforce was formed after the City Council received a letter from the School Board "requesting that the Council in its policy considerations carefully review locations of future affordable housing." This scattered -site policy eventually resulted in the creation of the Geographic Information System (GIS) map -based strategy (2011 Affordable Housing Location Model) which uses geographic criteria to help determine appropriate locations of City -funded affordable housing. 2007 and 2014 Affordable Housing Market Analysis The 2007 Affordable Housing Market Analysis was a consultant -led study of demographics, housing costs, and cost burden information for the metropolitan area. It included recommendations for increasing the supply of affordable housing. In 2014, the MPO of Johnson County updated much of the information with available data. 2008-09 MPO Affordable Housing Taskforce In 2008-09 the MPO of Johnson County (MPOJC) sponsored a taskforce including representatives from Iowa City and other MPOJC-member entities. This taskforce made recommendations to the MPO Board, which were copied to each of the MPOJC-member entities. December 18, 2014 Page 5 CODES Codes, or regulations, are requirements adopted through a legislative process through which Iowa City is provided with the tools to encourage (through the use of incentives) or require (through regulations) affordable and/or diverse housing in new development. 2005 Zoning Code The Zoning Code has been amended over the years several times, most significantly in 2005, to encourage more affordable housing, and diversity of housing in neighborhoods. These amendments have included allowing mixed-use (residential) development in more commercial zones, to allow duplexes on corner lots in single family zones, to allow smaller lot sizes in single family zones, to allow mixed-use and mixed housing types in planned developments, to allow accessory apartments, and to exempt up to 30% of dwelling units in the CB -10 and CB -5 zones from parking requirements provided those units are part of an affordable housing program. In combination, these zoning code provisions have resulted in a more significant mix of housing types, sizes, and locations than was previously possible. The recent Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code allows a building height increase if 15% of units are for affordable or workforce housing, tying an increase in density to provision of affordable housing. 2002 Aging in Place and Universal Design Requirement In 2002, Iowa City Amended the International Residential Code to require Universal design in residential construction using public funds. All dwellings funded with public funds are required to be constructed using Universal Design techniques, which allows for `Aging in Place' and for these dwellings to serve a greater cross-section of the population. 2011 Affordable Housing Location Model In 2011, Iowa City adopted use of the Affordable Housing Location Model, a map -based model used to encourage 'scattered -site' affordable housing. The model is used for affordable rental housing projects funded with CDBG, HOME and City funds to not allow additional publically- funded affordable housing in neighborhoods which are considered 'over -burdened;' and to encourage affordable housing in other neighborhoods. Two of the three stated goals for this model are that "the City does not want to further burden neighborhoods and elementary schools that already have issues related to a concentration of poverty;" and the "City desires to have diverse neighborhoods in terms of a range of income levels." In developing the criteria for the model, the City asked ICCSD what data/factors were important. The District stated that three factors were important including Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) rates, mobility, and test scores. The City took the District's input and made it part of the model. Many cities have contacted Iowa City about use of the model, and the Kirwan Institute for the study of Race and Ethnicity at The Ohio State University has told staff the City's Model could be used as a national model on de -concentration. To our knowledge, Iowa City is the only City in Iowa which uses such a model. The resolution approving use of the Affordable Housing Location Model is attached. December 18, 2014 Page 6 HOUSING PROGRAMS Iowa City participates in a multitude of housing programs which collectively have a significant impact on affordable and workforce housing. These programs range from federally -funded programs which Iowa City participates in through the Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) to state and locally -funded programs. 81 Public Housing Units Iowa City currently owns 81 public housing units, which are managed by the Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA). The Public Housing Program started in 1982, and Iowa City has owned and managed public housing units since that time. 1,272 Vouchers ICHA administers 1,215 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) and 57 Veterans Affairs Services Housing (VASH) Vouchers. As of December 16, 2014, 1,260 of these vouchers are being utilized in the ICHA jurisdiction (see Table I for voucher locations, by City). In 2014, ICHA paid out $6.1 million in payments (federal funds) through the voucher programs. It is worth noting that the voucher programs are clearly `scattered -site' in that the household is able to seek housing from any landlord, in any City/neighborhood. ICHA has administered some form of rental assistance program since 1969. 1,462 Subsidized Housing Units There is an inventory of 1,462 subsidized affordable housing units in Johnson County (see Table II for locations, by City). The majority of subsidized units are in Iowa City. Of the subsidized units, 779 are designated for seniors and/or persons with disabilities. These projects are subsidized by a variety of funding sources. GRIP Housing Rehabilitation Program The General Rehabilitation and Improvement Program (GRIP) is a low-interest loan program targeted to low and moderate income households using local funds. Loans are provided to homeowners who need to make repairs to their homes, which allows for preservation of owner - occupied housing stock. In FY14, Iowa City utilized $206,473 through the GRIP* Program. Other CDBG/HOME projects In the last completed year (FY14), Iowa City utilized $650,299 on 21 HOME housing projects. Projects included: • Tenant -based rental assistance • Owner -occupied housing rehabilitation* • Rental rehabilitation (HACAP and Housing Fellowship) • Acquisition of rental units for frail seniors and persons with disabilities • Operating expenses for the Housing Fellowship to maintain and manage their affordable rental housing In FY14, Iowa City utilized $273,712 on CDBG* housing rehabilitation projects for income - qualifying owner -occupied homes, and $10,000 for rehabilitation of two Habitat for Humanity homes. * In total, the GRIP/CDBG/HOME housing rehabilitation programs have assisted 115 homeowners in the past three years. December 18, 2014 Page 7 38 UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Homes The UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership is a program to acquire rental homes, renovate them, and sell them as owner -occupied housing. To date, 38 homes have been renovated and sold. 141 Single Family New Construction Homes The State's Single Family New Construction Program resulted in 141 homes being constructed and sold in Iowa City to income -qualifying households. Homeownership Programs The homeownership programs administered by the ICHA include the Housing Choice Voucher Ownership Program, the Tenant -to -Ownership Program, and the Affordable Dream Homeownership Program. Eighty-nine (89) families moved into homeownership through these programs. In addition sixty-three (63) 63 graduates of the Family Self -Sufficiency program (FSS) moved on to home ownership, forty-seven 47 of them independent of any other Housing Authority Program December 18, 2014 Page 8 Table I: Housing Choice (HCV) & Veterans' Supportive Services (VASH) Voucher Utilization Iowa City Housing Authority Jurisdiction (as of 12/16/14) Households Households Number % With Minors With Minors Iowa City, IA 864 69% 325 38% Coralville, IA 207 17% 95 46% North Liberty, IA 134 10% 68 51% Solon, IA 16 1% 1 6% Oxford, IA 11 1% 4 36% Tiffin, IA 7 1% 4 57% Lone Tree, IA 5 0% 2 40% Hills, IA 5 0% 3 60% Riverside, IA 4 0% 2 50% Wellman, IA 3 0% 0 0% Amana, IA 1 0% 0 0% North English, IA 1 0% 0 0% West Liberty, IA 1 0% 0 0% Williamsburg, IA 1 0% 0 0% TOTAL 1260 100% 1 504 December 18, 2014 Page 9 Table II: Inventory of Subsidized Affordable Housing, Johnson County, IA Effective November 5, 2014 Iowa City Location # of Units Aniston Village Iowa City 22 Berry Court Iowa City 14 Builders of Hope Iowa City 7 Citizen Building Iowa City 18 Concord Terrace Iowa City 30 Corridor Woods Iowa City 8 Emerson Point Iowa City 54 Hawkeye Community Action Program Scattered Sites (Iowa City) 51 ISIS Scattered Sites (Iowa City) 10 Lexington Place Iowa City 30 MECCA Iowa City 12 Melrose Ridge Iowa City 15 Peninsula Iowa City 10 Pheasant Ridge Market Rate Iowa City 17 Regency Heights (1010) Iowa City 36 Regency Heights (1060) Iowa City 38 Successful Living Scattered Sites (Iowa City) 18 System Unlimited Group Homes Iowa City 18 The Housing Fellowship Scattered Sites (Iowa City) 93 Whispering Garden Iowa City 12 Autumn Park Apartments Iowa City 64 Capitol House Iowa City 81 City of Iowa City Public Housing Scattered Sites (Iowa City) 81 Ecumenical Towers Iowa City 81 Pheasant Ridge Apartments Project Based Iowa City 231 System Unlimited Group Homes Iowa City 48 Subtotal 1099 North Libert Savannah Village North Liberty 28 Corridor Woods North Liberty 14 Country Living Apartments North Liberty 16 Farkus Apartments North Liberty 4 Jefferson Point North Liberty 60 North Front North Liberty 24 North Liberty Living Center North Liberty 80 North Liberty Park North Liberty 24 Penn Oaks North Liberty 36 Subtotal 286 Coralville Coral Village Coralville 57 Subtotal 57 Solon Solon Community Housing Solon 20 Subtotal 20 TOTAL JOHNSON COUNTY 1462 December 18, 2014 Page 10 Prepwod by: Je DwW*on. PCA, 410 E Wa tan St., Iowa ,1A 32240 (319) 356-6232 • to • ,.. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBO� and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)♦; tolowwr-income residents with housing, )obs and swices: WHEREAS, the City Council has iderOted three specific goals and concerns regarding ft location of affordabie housing in Iowa City: one • •.c:. cs. that does not want to further burden n:,i• " • •- ":esti. Districtand elementary schools that already have issues related to a concentration of poverty: WHEREAS. a second ooal/concern Is the City desires to have diverse neighborhoods in terms t on •, • • housing WHEREAS, the ICCSD SuperinterKlent told City staff that low income students, Indeed all on threa factors it views as significant In assessing wtiether there is such a mrA, mobility. test results, and tree/roduced lunch percentage; WHEREAS, in order to address these three goals/concerns. seven factors were Identified, Induding three factors• de by • one « • distance to e)dsdng subsidized and assisted housing (namely, eft*nnA rnn , shelter and svbfic houskw, uryfts�, locations excludirr projects developed for the elderty and persons with disabilities; ♦- Assessor'sWHEREAS, a second factor Is the medan household income based on U.S. Census data; City Office; WHEREAS, a fourth factor is mobility daft represented by the rate of annual turnover at each elementary school provided by - factor is the elementarij s0ooli'mic -v-,��,,formance as indicated by Iowa factorTest of Basic Skills (ITS$) scores as provided by the 1CCSD; • reduced lunchMNentage at each elernentary schos� as provided by h t December 18, 2014 Page 11 WHEREAS, with the exception crimedonsity,each of the data goaWconcerns identified by E. _ .O. jod +a thus the factors should be weighted based on their relative significance; most weight: WHEREAS, In order to scatter affordable housing and avoid concentrations of assisted rental city block. from. subsidized and assisted rental housing; WHEREAS, rnobaty should be weighted the highest of #* three ICCSO factors because ICCSD administrators emphasized that it was the most important of the three factors, weighting sthe factorsshould beasfollows: t' distance•existirgassisted rental housing, 20% - elementary school mobility rate, 10% - median household Income, 10% - change in residential sale prim, 10% - crime density, 5% - elementary school ITSS performance, and 5% - "mantary school free arid reduced lunch rate; he rel etionificance of each as Ideritified by the City CoLocil and the Iowa City Community School District administration: and factorsWHEREAS, the seven 1 their respective!Council's three • a : •• WHEREAS, tmkV Geographic Information System (GIS) software. the City was divided into 80 foot by 80 W squares, or pboels. •i forsaid factors were then weightedand dd ♦ together to create•. 1tscoreit each squm throughout scoreWHEREAS, a threshold score should be determined. below which funding should not be 07 ertfitiod "Affordable Housing Location Model," and each sqwre with a score below the Vireshold is a location ` ere funding sr u!notbe i the afta&ed HousingLocationModer furthers+' +i ' #+ becauseWHEREAS, ft City should not restrict the WAOon of funding for owner-oocupied housing of positive effectof !. -! on • b lis December 18, 2014 Page 12 WHEREAS, the City should no resbict the location of funding for rehabilitating existing MnW housing because providing funds wig revitalize, stabilize and Improve existing affordable rental housing and MI not increase the number of rental units; and WHEREAS, the City should rot restrict lhe location of fut-drig for prolects for the elderly and persons with ftabilities because these units have W39 or no Impact on the schools. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED EVY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA. THAT: 1, The attached AftordsMa Housing Location Model is hereby approved and ado0ed for we in all programs and projeds funded with CDBG. HOW, and discretionary City funds as follows: 1111111111111111111 P1111 pill I e �! t) The model is not applicable to pm)ects to rehabilitate existing rental housing or owner - occupied housing - 657 MAYOR �✓ Approved by ATTEST: CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office 08-27-15 CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P4 MEMORANDUM Date: August 27, 2015 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: John Yapp, Development Services Coor ator 7r�'� Karen Howard, Associate Planner Re: Small house / small lot development meet affordable housing goals Introduction Earlier this summer, in response to the April 13, 2015 memo from Council members Botchway, Payne and Throgmorton (see attached), staff discussed with the City Council existing provisions in the Zoning Code to allow smaller lots and by extension smaller house development. This memo is to outline these existing provisions, and to provide suggestions for additional actions, which may be pursued to encourage smaller dwelling units and more mixed housing types in largely single family neighborhoods. Background / Existing Provisions Traditional Single Family Neighborhoods: In 2005, as part of an overhaul of the Zoning Code, a series of changes were implemented to allow smaller single family lots and to make it easier to mix duplexes and attached single family dwellings within single family neighborhoods. Regarding smaller lots, the City added a density bonus option in single family zones that does not require a rezoning. The idea behind these bonus provisions is that significantly smaller and narrower lots are possible if vehicular access is provided from a rear alley or lane. Reducing the lot size and width not only reduces the per unit land cost it also reduces the cost of extending infrastructure because more homes can be served per linear foot of water, sewer, electric lines, etc. Requiring rear alley access for these narrower lots means that the same residential character can be maintained in small lot neighborhoods as in neighborhoods with larger lots, i.e. there is room for sidewalks, street trees, front yards and front entries. Comparison of Single Family Lots to Small Lot Option Zone Standard Lot Size Standard Lot Width Small Lot Option Lot Size Small Lot Option Lot Width RS -5 8,000 SF 60 ft 6,000 SF 50 ft RS -8 5,000 SF 45 ft 4,000 SF 40 ft RS -12 5,000 SF 45 ft 3,000 SF 30 ft Another change implemented in 2005 was to allow duplexes and zero -lot line dwellings in the Low Density Single Family (RS -5) Zone by right on corner lots. The design consideration is to require that each unit (including the garage and driveway) face a different street. This strategy helps maintain a single-family appearance in the neighborhood while allowing diversity in housing types and affordability within the neighborhood. While the City has implemented these provisions, many developers do not take advantage of the corner duplex/zero lot line option due to a desire to construct traditional single family homes. In fact, some private subdivision covenants prohibit more than one unit per lot in order to prohibit duplexes, accessory dwelling units and other more affordable housing options, despite what the City's zoning allows. Planned Developments: As in many communities, the "planned development" is the alternative process Iowa City uses to allow for non-traditional residential arrangements. The planned August 27, 2015 Page 2 development process allows greater flexibility in the arrangement and mix of housing types and even allows modifications to underlying zoning standards to facilitate efficient land use with smaller utility and street networks without compromising a quality living environment. Like most communities, Iowa City administers the planned development process as a rezoning, which often involves waiving / modifying certain zoning and subdivision standards in order to achieve a desired result such as clustering lots and dwellings to preserve open space, or to provide a different living and ownership arrangement. The adopted planned development serves as the 'zoning code' for the project. An example of a planned development is the co -housing project that was recently approved on Miller Avenue — this development will result in preservation of open space, smaller dwellings, a common house/community building and shared ownership of property as opposed to individual lot ownership. Another unique example of a planned development is the Peninsula Neighborhood, which incorporates a variety of housing types, a small commercial area, and shared open spaces, all constructed according to a master plan for the property. The Peninsula is quite a bit different than other planned developments in Iowa City in that it is regulated through a form -based zoning code and associated regulating plan. There are numerous planned developments throughout Iowa City that are developed as condominium regimes with the land owned in common and the units, which are often a mix of duplex, townhouse, and multi -family dwellings sold as individual condominiums. The planned development process, when it is successful, provides predictability for how a property will develop over time. The process does have some trade-offs, however, from the developer's perspective. While the process offers greater flexibility to cluster development, mix housing types, and to reduce infrastructure costs per unit, the process requires creation of fairly detailed design plans and engineering expense early in the approval process, with uncertainty whether or not the project will be approved through the legislative process. A recent example of a planned development that failed to pass was the Allen Homes proposal to cluster density into a multi -family structure to preserve open space on the east side of First Ave, north of Hickory Trail. This property is now being developed as a traditional single family subdivision with an undoubtedly higher per unit infrastructure and unit cost and very little open space preserved. In response to requests from developers for an alternative small lot zone that would allow duplexes, townhouses and smaller single family home lots without the need for a planned development rezoning, the City made significant changes to the high density single family residential zone (RS -12) during the 2005 zoning code overhaul. This zoning designation currently allows all of these housing types by right on lots as small as 3000 square feet. While there have been a few RS -12 subdivisions since then, homebuilders have continued to favor the more traditional RS -8 and RS -5 zoning with detached single family homes. For duplexes and townhouses, developers have continued to favor the planned development option, perhaps due to the ability to cluster units and achieve greater cost savings installing the necessary infrastructure. Response to April 13 memo In reviewing the points made in the April 13 memo from Council members Botchway, Payne and Throgmorton, staff finds that many of the suggestions have already been implemented, but have identified a few avenues for continued improvement: Enable the private market to produce small residential structures ranging from 600 to 17000 SF: There are no zoning or building code restrictions that would prevent the construction of homes in this size range. The size of structures and their amenity levels are market-driven. Large and/or more expensive homes can be built on fairly small lots, so small lot sizes are not a guarantee that affordable homes will be built. In some cases, private subdivision covenants may preclude smaller homes by specifying a minimum house size, although we do not know the extent to which such covenants are being used in the Iowa City area. August 27, 2015 Page 3 Revise the Zoning Code to enable construction of such structures on small lots: As stated above, the Zoning Code allows for lot sizes as low as 3000 square feet for a single family home. Further clustering can be achieved through the planned development process. There may be opportunities to allow small house developments through adoption of a "cottage cluster' ordinance as described in the solutions section below. We also note that in recent years more cities have moved in the direction of adopting form -based codes that dictate specific street, block, and lot layouts; requirements for neighborhood parks; as well as standards for building and parking placement and design. This kind of "front-end" regulatory work can be used to create a greater mix of housing types and sizes and affordability ranges within the same neighborhood. Form -based zoning was discussed in 2005, but the City opted to go with a hybrid approach, incorporating some form -based standards into the existing zoning district framework, including the corner lot duplex standards, townhouse standards, and the multi -family, neighborhood commercial, and central business site development standards. • Revise the Subdivision Code to permit reductions in the extent and cost of infrastructure: As part of Subdivision Code update in 2008, the City reduced the street width standard for local residential streets from 28 feet to 26 feet wide. The minimum pavement width for low volume loop and cul-de-sac streets is 22 feet. Staff does not recommend further reduction in street width standards for public streets, due to the need to accommodate not only vehicular and bicycle traffic, but also on -street parking, maintenance vehicles, refuse pick-up, snow plowing, etc. The City has permitted private streets that serve individual developments as narrow as 20 -feet wide (which is the minimum width required for fire and emergency vehicle access). With the update to the Subdivision Code, minimum sidewalk width was increased from 4 feet to 5 feet in width — the recommended width under ADA guidance. Given Iowa City's Complete Streets Policy, staff cautions against reducing sidewalk widths. As noted above, per unit cost of infrastructure is largely determined by lot size and width. Research conducted during the 2005 zoning code rewrite project revealed that with the adopted changes, Iowa City has some of the smallest/narrowest single family lot sizes allowed and few cities allow duplexes and attached single family (townhouses) within single family zones. The planned development process allows even greater flexibility to cluster development allowing developers to respond to site conditions to achieve efficiencies in extension of infrastructure. See Solutions Section below for some ideas on how infrastructure costs might be further reduced through adoption of a cottage cluster ordinance. • Revise the Zoning Code to ensure that neighborhoods containing such small residential structures are well-designed: As discussed above, allowing greater housing density and mix requires careful site and building design to ensure that the resulting neighborhood has the same quality living environment that larger lot developments enjoy, including room for sidewalks, street trees, and accessible open space (particular if private yards are small or non-existent). It is possible to mix multi -unit buildings with single family homes if the height, footprint and design are of a similar scale and detail. Simply lowering the lot sizes and street standards without regard to these factors is likely to result in low quality neighborhoods that will not stand the test of time. • Identify privately owned land in Iowa City that would be suitable for redevelopment as low-cost neighborhoods with small houses: Undeveloped areas of the South District, far east -side and far -west side all have potential areas. Much of the undeveloped area on the north side of the City has too much topographic relief to be conducive for small -lot development unless achieved through creative use of the planned development and sensitive areas ordinance. • Inventory publicly -owned land in Iowa City that might be redeveloped as low-cost neighborhoods with small houses: Staff is not aware of any City -owned land that is not already designated for another purpose, such as a park or open space. The County Poor Farm is mentioned in the April 13 memo as a possibility — development of the Poor August 27, 2015 Page 4 Farm is under the control of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, and will require some investment (streets and utilities extensions) to make it developable. Discussion of Solutions Eliminate the minimum 2 -acre size requirement for planned developments: Eliminating the minimum 2 -acre size for planned developments would be an avenue to encourage creative solutions for infill lots, as well as smaller developments within green -field areas. The planned development process ensures public notification and review through the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to ensure adjacent residents are given the opportunity to provide input. 2. Adopt new zoning or subdivision standards for "cottage courts/clusters": Some cities have adopted zoning standards to allow a small group of cottages (600-1200 sq. ft. in size) to be clustered around a shared courtyard or green within single family zones. Since the units are smaller (typically 1 or 2 -bedroom units) and have a smaller footprint than a typical single family home, the ordinance allows 2 or 3 cottages on the amount of land that would typically be required for a standard single family house. To ensure quality living environment, the ordinance typically includes design standards for the site and for the cottages that are administered through an administrative design review process rather than through a planned development or rezoning process. Alternatively, sometimes these types of ordinances are incorporated into the subdivision code, with similar standards stated above, but are approved through a subdivision process, which would involve review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, but not to the level of a planned development. The City of Dubuque has a cottage -design subdivision ordinance with minimum lot sizes of 2,500 square feet, an 18 -foot height limit for structures, 10 -foot front and rear yards, dwelling size standards of 800 sq. ft. for 1 - story units and 1,200 sq. ft. for 2 -story units, and a requirement for a shared courtyard (minimum 400 sq. ft. per cottage). Staff will provide images of cottage clusters at your September 1 work session. 3. Adopt a form -based zoning code and regulating plan citywide: Both the Peninsula and the Riverfront Crossings District have form -based zoning codes that regulate more closely the placement of dwellings, parking, and open space, and the types and form of buildings. The regulating plans that are adopted as an integral part of the form -based code can be used to dictate a greater mix of housing types and sizes within a neighborhood, but in a manner that ensures a quality living environment. For example, small multi -family buildings (3 to 6 -unit buildings) can be built with a similar height and footprint as a large single family home, so can be integrated more easily into the same block with duplexes, townhouses, and single family homes. Small neighborhood parks are required within a certain walking distance of all homes and neighborhood -serving commercial uses can also be called out in the regulating plan. Adoption of such ordinances for other parts of the city or city-wide would be a considerable undertaking (and would be a longer term goal), although many cities have been moving in that direction with good results. Conclusion: Staff will be prepared to discuss these options at the September 1 work session. If there is consensus to proceed with any of the recommendations, staff will add them to our work list. If the Council wishes to purse the third option listed above regarding adoption of a form -based zoning code, the services of an experienced consultant may be required due to limited staff resources. IP3 To: City Council and City Manager From: Michelle Payne, Jim Throgmorton, and Kingsley Botchway Subject: Affordable housing initiative Date: April 13, 2015 Over the past couple months the three of us (Michelle, Jim, and Kingsley) have been discussing possible ways of enabling the private market to increase the supply of market rate housing that lower-income households can afford to buy or rent. These discussions have led us to think there is merit in proposing a strategy that would include the following elements: • Enabling the private market to produce small residential structures ranging from 600 to 1,000 sq. ft.; • Revising the Zoning Code to enable construction of such structures on small lots; • Revising the Subdivision Code to permit reductions in the extent and cost of infrastructure (especially by reducing the width of roadways and sidewalks) within subdivisions predominantly consisting of small houses; • Revising the Zoning Code to ensure that neighborhoods containing such small residential structures are well designed. For this, we find inspiration in model neighborhoods that follow the "Pocket Neighborhood" concept: http://pocket- neighborhoods.net/examples.html, and in the energy-efficient design of Habitat for Humanity's Eco Village in River Falls, Wisconsin: b=:Hscvhabitat.or eco -village/. It might be wise to develop a form based code for such low cost neighborhoods. • Identifying privately owned land in Iowa City that would be suitable for redevelopment as low-cost neighborhoods with small houses. We have potential locations in mind, and we would be pleased to specify them in an appropriate forum. • Instructing City staff to identify which of those privately owned parcels could possibly be purchased by the City for redevelopment. Such property could be purchased with G. O. bonds, an RFP would be prepared and distributed to private developers, and the land could be developed in accord with guidelines in the RFP. These sites would have to be located within easy walking distance (not more than 5 minutes) of regularly scheduled bus lines. • Inventorying publicly owned land in Iowa City that might also be redeveloped as low cost neighborhoods with small houses. The County's "Poor Farm" might be one possibility; • Following up on the Board of Supervisors' potential willingness to use some portion of the County's G. O. bonding capacity to support affordable housing, and exploring ways to leverage that G. O. bonding with private lending; With these ideas in mind, we ask the Council to schedule a work session on this proposal and to assign it a high priority on our pending list of work session topics. We fully recognize that the staff would need to do some groundwork prior to holding this work session. We also recognize that many different stakeholders have considerable interest in the topic, and that a substantial amount of discussion must take place before the Council takes any formal action. APR 14 2015 City Clerk iov/a City, low, � r CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS August 27, 2015 Pendiniz Topics to be Scheduled 1. Discuss city related marijuana policies and potential legislative advocacy positions 2. Review of the Sensitive Areas ordinance 3. Discuss formation of staff /citizen climate adaptation advisory group 4. Discuss transit route planning framework 5. Review University of Iowa enrollment and housing projections 6. Review sale of alcohol to minors regulations 7. Review sidewalk repair program 8. Downtown streetscape project update From: Chris Ciasto <CCiasto@mvrbc.org> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 1:13 PM To: Council Subject: Iowa City Noon Rotary Blood Drive Hi Everyone, I wanted to extend an invitation to all of the Iowa City Council members to come out and save some lives at our upcoming Rotary blood drive. We will be hosting our drive on Tuesday 9/1 at the Iowa City Public Library in Meeting Room A from 10:30 am until 1:30 pm. If you would like to schedule an appointment to donate blood please email me back or give me a call at 563-349-1608. Have a great weekend! Hope to hear from all of you! Chris Ciasto Sent from my iPhone From: Susan Craig <susan-craig@icpl.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 201510:17 AM To: Council Subject: Invitation to Library Special Events I want to issue a personal invitation to you for several upcoming events that the Library has been working on. First, we are getting close to kicking off nine months of special musical related program to welcome the UI School of Music to downtown Iowa City. We have our calendar for Season One (Sept -Dec) set. It includes events for all ages and interests, kicking off with a Musical Revue at the Englert Theatre at 2:00 on Sunday, September 20. This is the only event with a cost -- $10 per person (5 and under free). All of the talent is donated so the proceeds can be used to support other programs. You can purchase tickets at the Library or at the Englert. See a full schedule at: http://www.icpl.org/mitw. The schedule for Season Two (Jan -May) will be out in early December. Later in September we have planned a book discussion of this year's One Community One Book selection, Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson. The book focuses primarily on the work of the Equal Justice Initiative, co-founded by the author. He has worked for many years to free people from wrongful or excessive punishment, arguing five times before the Supreme Court. I have also extended a special invitation to the members of the Iowa City Human Rights Commission to attend this event. Our book discussion will be 7:00 pm, Wednesday, September 30, in Meeting Room A at the Library. It will be led by Emily Hughes, Associate Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs and Professor and Bouma Fellow of Law, University of Iowa College of Law, and Adrien Wing, Bessie Dutton Murray Professor of law, University of Iowa College of Law. Bryan Stevenson will be speaking as a headliner for the Iowa City UNESCO City of Literature's Book Festival at 2:00 on Sunday, October 4, at the IMU Main Lounge. I have heard him speak, and he is inspiring. We will conclude our programming on Wednesday, October 7th, 7:OOpm with a showing of the documentary, The House I Live In, a film about the War on Drugs. I hope you can join us! Susan Craig Library Director 319-356-5241 www.icpl.org s`� IOWA CITY !` � PUBLIC LIBRARY Iowa City is a UNESCO City of Literature ft CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org August 21, 2015 Re: Traffic calming on Sandusky Drive Dear Sandusky Drive Resident: Transportation planners with the City of Iowa City have been working with your neighborhood to develop a traffic calming project to address neighborhood concerns about traffic speeds along a portion of Sandusky Drive between Keokuk and Broadway Streets. A survey of the affected residents of Sandusky Drive was mailed on July 30 with responses due by August 14. The City's adopted Traffic Calming program requires that at least 60% of responding households must indicate support for the proposed traffic calming project. Our office received thirteen survey responses with 92% of respondents (12 of 13) indicating they wish to proceed with installation of speed humps; therefore the proposal will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration on October 6. During the month of September we will allow a period for public comment. Signs will be posted along the affected portion of Sandusky to inform the neighborhood of this proposal, and the public will have an opportunity to provide input. All written comments are shared with City Council. If approved by Council, speed humps will be installed during the warm weather months—most likely in Spring 2016. One year after speed humps are installed, we will perform a follow-up traffic study and resurvey the neighborhood. This is to determine whether speed humps have been effective in slowing traffic and to gauge whether the neighborhood wishes to retain them permanently. If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at 356-5239 or sarah-walz@iowa- city.org. Sincerely, Sarah Walz Assistant Transportation Planner cc: Tom Markus Jon Resler Troy Kelsay Geoff Fruin Doug Boothroy Ron Knoche Kent Ralston Jason Havel Marcia Bollinger J ,1 C10G\I IRAN la,tfic 3 Pne,O,l.-rive AdI5tresporlsr. letter d_�,,'x 1 08-27-15 J. Marian Karr IP9 From: Corridor Business Journal <cbjevents@corridorbusiness.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 1:08 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: 2015 Commercial Real Estate Luncheon CB) ®®© ja [i L..> 'Commercial Real Estat? Panelists include: Join us Sept. 15 at the DoubleTree by Hilton for a look into the Commercial Real Estate market to learn about the latest commercial developments in the region. The 2015 program includes: I. Building Wealth through Commercial Real Estate Investments - An Analysis, Dave Drown of GibbsLambDrown II. City Managers Commercial Real Estate Panel Discussion, Moderated by Casey Cook of Cook Appraisal, LLC Click HERE to register online or contact Ashley Levitt at (319) 887-2251, ext. 311, or ashleyacorridorbusiness.com. Registration Fee: Individual: $50 Table of 10: $500 Upcoming Events Presenting Sponsor Forty Under 40 Northwestern Mutual' Power Breakfast Series *NEW Workforce Awards Forward email This email was sent to marian-karr@iowa-city.org by cbievents(i ,corridorbusiness.com Click here to select the CBJ email(s) you wish to receive I To unsubscribe to ALL CBJ emails, click here. Privacy Policy Corridor Business Journal 1 845 Quarry Rd., Ste. 125 1 Coralville I IA 152241 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: August 27, 2015 To: City Manager, City Council From: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending June 30, 2015 Introduction This memorandum contains the quarterly financial analysis for the City's financial position as of June 30, 2015. This is a preliminary reporting of the June 30, 2015 status, since official results will not be available until the FY 2015 comprehensive annual report is finalized. 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 June 30 are as follows: Combined Statements All Funds Summary (page 6): The ending fund balance for the quarter ending June 30, 2015 was $186,462,762 compared to the beginning fund balance of $193,652,774 for all funds. Of that amount, $81,858,211 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 $104,604,551 that is unassigned. Revenues by Type (page 7-8): FY 2015 total revenues for all budgetary funds are $144,621,371 compared to the revised budget of $163,871,013 and are 88.3% of the revised budget (found on page 8). Internal service fund revenues are at 99.8% of their revised budget. Individual funding source highlights are as follows: • Taxes Levied on Property Taxes: FY 2015 revenues are at 99.4% of the revised budget. 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 98% 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 92.6% 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. Gas and Electric Excise Tax and Mobile Home taxes are received around the same time as property taxes. Both have received at least the budgeted amount, with Gas and Electric Excise tax being slightly more at 108.3% of the revised budget. Hotel/Motel Tax is 91% of the revised budget with three of four quarterly payments received. The fourth quarter payment will be received in September but accrued back to this fiscal year since it represents hotel/motel revenues received by the hotels in March throug4 June.- Utility Franchise Tax has also received three of four payments. It is at 79.6% of the revised budget at this time but will reach the revised budget amount based on subsequent receipts. • Licenses, Permits & Fees: FY 2015 revenues are at 105% 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 113.2% of the revised budget. Cable franchise fees are 84.8% of the revised budget with three of four quarters revenue received. The Cable Television Fund is not a major fund. • Use of Money and Property: FY 2015 revenues are at 82.9% of the revised budget. Interest income is 60.4% of the revised budget. Additional revenue will be accrued as part of the fiscal year-end process. The interest rates continue to be low. A separate quarterly investment report is prepared by the Revenue Division which provides more in- depth analysis. Rents are at 98.3% of the revised budget. Royalties & Commissions are 138.2% of the revised budget. All of the major funds include Use of Money and Property as a revenue source • Intergovernmental Revenue: FY 2015 revenues are at 65.9% 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 70.9% of the revised budget. Timing of this revenue varies according to the expenditure activity. CDBG and HOME receipts are 39.1% and 46.1% respectively of the revised budget due to accruals and program income which must be used before federal funding. Transit assistance is 102.8% of the revised budget. Housing Authority revenue is 107.3% of the revised budget. Grant funding for CIP projects is usually received on a reimbursement basis and is dependent on the related project schedule. $4.9 million of the $5.02 million variance in federal receipts is due to timing of capital improvement projects. o Property Tax credits are 104.7% of the revised budget. o Road Use Tax is at 98.7% of the revised budget and will have additional revenue accrued to it from subsequent receipts. o State 28E Agreements are 96.7% 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 $7,669 less than last year. Factors such as the University share of city-wide square footage and the net cost of Fire operations go into this contract. o Other State Grants is 40.5% of the revised budget. The variance again is due to capital improvement projects timing and to the end of the CDBG Supplemental Residential program for single family new construction disaster recovery. • Charges for Fees and Services: FY 2015 revenues are at 98.3% 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 203.7% of the revised budget. This includes $240,570 in unbudgeted revenues for Developer Fees for sidewalk and paving within Capital Improvement Projects. All other building and development fees are 133.1% of the revised budget. K Police Services revenue is 446.3% of the revised budget. Forfeiture proceeds are budgeted at zero due to their unanticipated nature. Forfeiture revenue totals $143,520 for the year. Special Police Services revenue is 161% of the revised budget with revenue totaling $80,525. Culture & Recreation fees are 89.3% of the revised budget in the General Fund (page 11). Estimated revenues are overstated due to the combining of Annual Pass and Punch Pass fees into the Admissions category. FY 2015 overall revenue is 1% less than FY 2014 revenue with the exception of Special Events revenue. Special Events revenue is the creation of one-time programs funded by donors during the year. FY 2015 Special Events revenue is $22,314 compared to $41,444 in FY 2014 and $31,886 in FY 2013. The utility funds include the major funds Wastewater (page 17), Water (page 18), and Refuse (page 19). Wastewater, Water and Stormwater revenues are at 881% 878% and 89.1% of the revised budget respectively. Additional revenues will be posted for these in the FY 2015 annual audit accrual process. Refuse fees are 109.3% of the revised budget. Landfill Charges for Services are 98.4% of the revised budget. Parking charges are 124.5% of the revised budget with hourly parking at 119.6% of the revised budget and permit parking at 135.4% of the revised budget. The availability of debit and credit card payments for parking fees has increased the usage. Miscellaneous: FY 2015 revenues are at 89.4% 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 66.8% of the revised budget and 26.8% less than FY 2014. o Parking fines are 63% 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 19.8% compared to last year which totaled $512,997. o Contributions & Donations are 56.4% of the revised budget. Contribution revenue is related to the Animal Shelter, Recreation, Library, Senior Center, UniverCity Housing (from U of 1), and the Animal Shelter replacement project. Contributions in the General Fund are 89.5% of revised budget. There has been no contribution revenue received in capital improvement projects this year; which brings the overall budget to actual percentage down to 56.4%. The FY 2015 scheduled contribution from the foundation towards the Animal Shelter replacement project was received in July, 2015 and is an FY 2016 receipt rather than FY 2015. o Other Miscellaneous Revenue is 117.9% of the revised budget. Revenues include reimbursement of expenses, reimbursement of damages and miscellaneous other income. All major funds receive other miscellaneous revenue. This revenue is not received on a consistent basis. Other Financial Sources: FY 2015 revenues are 87.7% 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), Debt Service (page 14), Wastewater (page 17) and Housing Authority (page 21). o Sale of assets is 78.9% of the revised budget. This is primarily due to actual sales of $1.31 million from the UniverCity program versus $2.06 million budgeted within the General Fund (page 11). This revenue represents the sale of UniverCity properties back into the community. Airport property was sold totaling $930,843. Sale of equipment and autos totals $72,597 compared to revised budget of $79,519. Note that autos in this section are for the Police and Fire departments. All other departments' vehicular rolling stock inventory is owned by the Equipment Division internal service fund and any disposal of those assets is recorded in the internal service fund. Loan revenue is at 91.6% of the revised budget. The General Fund (page 11), CDBG, HOME, Debt Service (page 14), Wastewater, (page 17), and Housing Authority (page 21) receive loan revenue. Debt sales totaling $7.87 million are 89.4% of the revised budget. Expenditures by State Program by Department (page 9): FY 2015 expenditures for all budgetary funds are 77.7% of the revised budget, including capital improvement projects. Exclusive of capital improvement projects FY 2015 expenditures for all budgetary funds are 92.3% 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. 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 95% 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. • Public Works: No variances to report, expenditures are 94.1 % 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 98.7% of the revised budget. The only major fund reporting Health and Social Services is the General fund (page 11). • Culture and Recreation: Expenditures are 95% of the revised budget. Parks and Rec Administration is 101.5% of the revised budget due to costs associated with land acquisition. All expenditures are in the General fund (page 11). • Community and Economic Development: Expenditures are at 54.2% of the revised budget. Expenditures in this area were $6.375 million less than budget due to the following: The UniverCity acquisition and rehabilitation program expenditures are 59.5% of the revised budget with $2.024 million less in expenditures for acquisition and related debt repayment. CDBG Supplemental is 4.1 % of the revised budget. The Residential Program for Single Family New Construction — Disaster Recovery ended this year. Actual expenditures for the year total $129,831 with an unexpended budget of $3.02 million. Revenues in Intergovernmental "Other State Grants" are also less than budget due to the end of the program. CDBG is 63%, HOME is 65.2%, MPOJC is 77.7% and Central Business District (CBD) is 54.3% of the revised budgets. General Government: Expenditures are 92.8% of the revised budget. Major funds include General (page 11) and Employee Benefits (page 13). General Fund expenditures are 91.8% of revised budget with no variances to report. Employee Benefits is 114.6% of the revised budget due to workers compensation expense and professional services. • Debt Service (page 14): No variances to report, expenditures are 99.4% of revised budget. Governmental Capital Projects: Expenditures are 51.9% 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 79.6% of the revised budget including related capital improvement projects. Exclusive of the capital improvement projects expenses are 97.5% of the revised budget. Housing Authority expenses are 105% of the revised budget (page 21). Payments to landlords were 109.6% of the revised budget. The Public Works department includes several enterprise funds which combined are at 96.3% of the revised budget: • Wastewater (page 17): Expenses are at 99.4% of the revised budget. • Water (page 18): Expenses are at 92.7% of the revised budget. • `Refuse (page 19): Expenses are 97.2% of the revised budget. • Stormwater (no page): The stormwater fund is not a major fund and therefore not shown individually within this report. Expenses are 90.5% of the revised budget. • `Landfill (page 20): Expenses are at 96.4% of the revised budget. `This activity will become part of the Transportation & Resource Management Department in FY 2016. Transportation Services (pages 15 — 16) includes the Parking and Transit funds which combined are at 96.2% of the revised budget with no anomalies to report. Enterprise capital projects are at 25% 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. Conclusion This is a preliminary summary of the City's financial activity through June 30, 2015. There will be additional revenue and expenses accrued in this fiscal year as part of the preparation of the City's audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Overall, the City's revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year are within budget other than the exceptions noted above. 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 other than interest income, which continues to be low. Fund balances are stable or had planned decreases for specific issues, such as in Parking for defeasance of the 2009 Parking Revenue Bonds and in Wastewater, due to an interfund loan of $6 million to the North Wastewater Demolition project. In addition, unexpended budget authority may be carried forward each year by a formal budget amendment. Appropriations carried forward were included in the FY 2016 budget amendment which was approved at City Council's August 18, 2015 meeting. The Finance Department believes in an open and transparent system, and any of the information presented in this report is available in greater detail upon request. City of Iowa City All Fund Summary FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 Budgetary Funds General Fund 10" General Fund Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant 2110 HOME 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 2300 Other Shared Revenue 2310 Energy Eff & Cons Block Grant 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co 2400 Employee Benefits 2510 Peninsula Apartments 26" Tax Increment Financing 2820 SSMID-Downtown District Debt Service Fund 5, Debt Service Permanent Funds 6001 Perpetual Care Enterprise Funds 710` Parking 715` Mass Transit 720` Wastewater 730* Water 7400 Refuse Collecfion 750` Landfill 7600 Airport 7700 Stonnwater 780` Cable Television 79" Housing Authority Capital Project Funds Capfial Projects Total Budgetary Funds Non -Budgetary Funds Capital Project Funds Internal Service Projects $ 47,793,327 $ 45,909,716 $10,316,349 $ 48,787,298 $ 6,254,221 $ 48,977,873 $29,726,250 $ 19,251,622 (5,447) Estimated - Unassigned Fund Fund Restricted, Fund Balance Transfers Transfers Balance Committed, Balance 7/1/2014 Revenues In Expenditures Out 6/30/2015 Assigned 6/30/2015 Budgetary Funds General Fund 10" General Fund Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grant 2110 HOME 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 2300 Other Shared Revenue 2310 Energy Eff & Cons Block Grant 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co 2400 Employee Benefits 2510 Peninsula Apartments 26" Tax Increment Financing 2820 SSMID-Downtown District Debt Service Fund 5, Debt Service Permanent Funds 6001 Perpetual Care Enterprise Funds 710` Parking 715` Mass Transit 720` Wastewater 730* Water 7400 Refuse Collecfion 750` Landfill 7600 Airport 7700 Stonnwater 780` Cable Television 79" Housing Authority Capital Project Funds Capfial Projects Total Budgetary Funds Non -Budgetary Funds Capital Project Funds Internal Service Projects $ 47,793,327 $ 45,909,716 $10,316,349 $ 48,787,298 $ 6,254,221 $ 48,977,873 $29,726,250 $ 19,251,622 (5,447) 683,423 - 535,736 - 142,240 - 142,240 (4,096) 533,378 - 387,656 8,760 132,866 - 132,865 4,539,578 6,660,938 390,414 5,532,004 1,252,149 4,806,777 - 4,806,777 63 128,586 - 129,830 - (1,181) - (1,180) 48,924 1,169 - - - 50,093 - 50,093 170,860 272,843 340,979 541,504 - 243,178 - 243,178 1,713,207 9,746,180 - 982,179 8,926,508 1,550,700 - 1,550,700 91,406 73,697 - 60,113 - 104,990 - 104,990 19,664 639,409 108 18,670 640,511 - - - - 296,141 - 296,141 - - - - 8,868,053 13,584,407 1,134,225 17,208,782 - 6,377,903 667,748 5,710,155 115,450 86 115,536 115,536 6,867,952 5,886,826 6,439,225 11,166,934 3,984,729 4,042,340 385,583 3,656,757 3,965,749 4,609,142 2,972,534 6,520,947 39,471 4,987,007 1,131,918 3,855,089 24,069,885 11,688,178 5,166,363 10,378,824 11,655,986 18,889,616 9,860,329 9,029,287 11,541,132 8,108,364 2,008,715 7,598,765 2,323,218 11,736,228 4,194,579 7,541,649 890,410 2,966,317 - 2,921,747 100,000 834,980 - 834,980 24,265,434 5,591,758 1,297,867 4,554,472 2,869,937 23,730,650 21,342,617 2,388,033 430,344 1,283,098 68,415 363,686 803,962 614,209 100,000 514,209 1,342,320 1,113,959 - 973,144 50,000 1,433,135 - 1,433,135 1,558,721 576,867 25,000 686,178 80,000 1,394,410 171,354 1,223,056 5,606,540 8,064,004 8,760 7,709,498 64,737 5,905,069 2,945,146 2,959,923 22,704,601 16,202,885 9,189,548 26,000,653 493,935 21,602,446 - 21,602,447 $166,594,077 $144,621,371 $39,358,502 $ 153,354,761 $39,548,124 $157,671,065 $70,525,524 $ 87,145,541 $ 237,739 $ 100,760 $ 189,624 $ 62,526 $ - $ 465,597 $ - $ 465,596 Internal Service Funds 810* Equipment 9,869,383 6,213,715 - 5,110,311 - 10,972,787 7,718,239 3,254,549 8200 Risk Management 3,152,696 1,565,078 - 1,398,488 - 3,319,286 - 3,319,286 830` Infonnafion Technology 2,551,541 1,755,878 - 1,706,250 - 2,601,169 - 2,601,170 8400 Central Services 715,872 242,840 - 308,139 - 650,573 - 650,573 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 10,396,661 7,477,329 - 7,234,083 - 10,639,907 3,614,448 7,025,459 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 134,805 361,891 - 354,318 - 142,378 - 142,377 Total Non -Budgetary Funds $ 27,058,697 $ 17,717,491 $ 189,624 $ 16,174,115 $ $ 28,791,697 $11,332,687 $ 17,459,010 Total All Funds $193,652,774 $162,338,862 $39,548,126 $ 169,528,876 $39,548,124 $186,462,762 $81,858,211 $104,604,551 11 City of Iowa City All Funds Revenues by Type FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 rl 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 $ 51,292,123 $ (316,607) 99.4% Delinquent Property Taxes 5,101 - - 3,367 3,367 TIF Revenues 434,670 652,624 652,624 639,409 (13,215) 98.0% Other City Taxes 3,309,479 2,594,500 2,594,500 2,401,405 (193,095) 92.6% General Use Permits 89,072 74,492 74,492 103,958 29,466 139.6% Food & Liq Licenses 100,437 103,933 103,933 105,974 2,041 102.0% Professional License 16,610 17,955 17,955 18,704 749 104.2% Franchise Fees 773,019 679,174 679,174 576,005 (103,169) 84.8% Misc Permits & Licenses 11,679 9,964 9,964 13,881 3,917 139.3% Const Per & Ins Fees 1,427,856 1,356,956 1,356,956 1,536,068 179,112 113.2% Misc Lic&Permits 27,998 23,053 23,053 24,233 1,180 105.1% Licenses, Permits, & Fees 2,446,671 2,265,527 2,265,527 2,378,823 113,296 105.0% Interest Revenues 809,418 871,485 1,086,674 656,371 (430,303) 60.4% Rents 1,208,668 1,315,989 1,315,989 1,294,257 (21,732) 98.3% Royalties & Commissions 81,630 76,317 76,317 105,454 29,137 138.2% Use Of Money And Property 2,099,716 2,263,791 2,478,980 2,056,082 (422,898) 82.9% Fed lntergovnt Revenue 19,630,929 19,039,798 17,234,270 12,217,807 (5,016,463) 70.9% Property Tax Credits 72,550 1,083,921 1,083,921 1,135,396 51,475 104.7% Road Use Tax 6,744,663 6,616,545 6,616,545 6,532,880 (83,665) 98.7% State 28E Agreements 1,810,341 1,914,181 1,814,181 1,753,672 (60,509) 96.7% Operating Grants 90,067 81,500 81,500 84,126 2,626 103.2% Disaster Assistance 183,941 - 167,205 28,479 (138,726) 17.0% Other State Grants 13,613,286 11,265,256 17,013,870 6,896,073 (10,117,797) 40.5% Local 28E Agreements 981,226 983,711 983,711 989,787 6,076 100.6% Intergovernmental 43,127,003 40,984,912 44,995,203 29,638,220 (15,356,983) 65.9% Building & Devlpmt 501,386 340,829 340,829 694,113 353,284 203.7% Police Services 88,193 30,705 50,270 224,330 174,060 446.3% Animal Care Services 9,230 11,420 11,420 9,945 (1,475) 87.1% Fire Services 8,573 10,305 10,305 11,404 1,099 110.7% Transit Fees 1,384,792 1,290,908 1,290,908 1,399,980 109,072 108.4% Culture & Recreation 768,033 831,155 831,155 741,894 (89,261) 89.3% Library Charges 46 57 57 39 (18) 68.4% Misc Charges For Services 47,228 50,569 50,569 67,073 16,504 132.6% Water Charges 8,448,340 9,087,539 9,087,539 7,980,538 (1,107,001) 87.8% Wastewater Charges 12,555,994 12,889,204 12,889,204 11,361,220 (1,527,984) 88.1% Refuse Charges 3,446,255 3,395,719 3,395,719 3,712,283 316,564 109.3% Landfill Charges 4,967,453 4,733,705 4,733,705 4,658,138 (75,567) 98.4% Stormwater Charges 1,082,733 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,069,578 (130,422) 89.1% Parking Charges 5,758,372 5,243,427 5,243,427 6,528,605 1,285,178 124.5% Charges For Fees And Services $ 39,066,628 $ 39,775,542 $ 39,135,107 $ 38,459,140 $ (675,967) 98.3% Code Enforcement $ 415,839 $ 455,386 $ 455,386 $ 304,279 $ (151,107) 66.8% Parking Fines 512,997 975,000 975,000 614,368 (360,632) 63.0% Library Fines & Fees 175,666 182,418 182,418 166,785 (15,633) 91.4% Contrib & Donations 729,355 286,139 616,331 347,781 (268,550) 56.4% Printed Materials 46,507 39,569 39,569 49,104 9,535 124.1% Animal Adoption 9,557 11,264 11,264 12,912 1,648 114.6% Misc Merchandise 55,924 64,174 64,174 66,802 2,628 104.1% Intra -City Charges 2,849,665 2,739,292 2,739,292 2,760,448 21,156 100.8% rl City of Iowa City All Funds Revenues by Type FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 Other Misc Revenue Special Assessments Miscellaneous Debt Sales Sale Of Assets Loans Other Financial Sources Total Budgetary Revenues Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues Internal Service Funds Total Non -Budgetary Revenues Total Revenues -All Funds $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 5- 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised 719,079 1,769,300 769,302 906,880 137,578 117.9% 979 - - 332 332 5,515,568 6,522,542 5,852,736 5,229,691 (623,045) 89.4% 20,114,973 8,893,180 8,797,457 7,866,773 (930,684) 89.4% 2,701,837 2,086,450 2,936,362 2,316,495 (619,867) 78.9% 3,312,749 2,553,787 2,553,787 2,339,843 (213,944) 91.6% 26,129,559 13,533,417 14,287,606 12,523,111 (1,764,495) 87.7% $ 172,180,871 $ 159,541,585 $ 163,871,013 $ 144,621,371 $(19,249,642) 88.3% $ 17,136,846 $ 17,500,617 $ 17,750,226 $ 17,717,491 $ (32,735) 99.8% $ 17,136,846 $ 17,500,617 $ 17,750,226 $ 17,717,491 $ (32,735) 99.8% $ 189,317,717 $ 177,042,202 $ 181,621,239 $ 162,338,862 $(19,282,377) 89.4% All Funds Budgetary Revenues by Type FY2015 Through the Quarter Ended March 31, 2015 <a+¢5 4a+¢a ¢cJ¢b <a+¢5 �a¢6 Q¢ ¢c,�a� y�`y4r Pc ¢ b ,¢ac , aa racy. +`a\�a ca\5o $o sP ac Q 801 8 -J. 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 June 30, 2015 2014 2015 2015 Pct of Actual Revised Year -to -Date 2015 Variance Revised Budgetary Funds Expenditures Finance $ 382,989 $ 652,590 $ 602,134 $ (50,456) 92.3% Police 12,248,973 13,216,780 12,339,127 (877,653) 93.4% Fire 7,401,786 7,875,910 7,590,314 (285,596) 96.4% Neighborhood& Dvlpmnt Services 1,521,519 1,267,962 1,334,786 66,824 105.3% Public Safety 21,555,267 23,013,243 21,866,361 (1,146,882) 95.0% Parks Maintenance 504,217 501,047 484,548 (16,499) 96.7% Public Works 5,844,896 7,099,917 6,666,131 (433,786) 93.9% Public Works 6,349,113 7,600,964 7,150,679 (450,285) 94.1% Planning & Community Dvlpmnt 264,333 323,841 319,723 (4,118) 98.7% Health and Social Services 264,333 323,841 319,723 (4,118) 98.7% Park and Rec Adminstration 362,159 618,390 627,934 9,544 101.5% Recreation 2,852,525 3,066,959 2,872,907 (194,052) 93.7% Parks Maintenance 2,429,858 2,521,186 2,306,852 (214,334) 91.5% Cemetery 317,669 350,406 318,799 (31,607) 91.0% Library 5,877,520 6,038,379 5,898,709 (139,670) 97.7% Senior Center 825,124 936,159 830,074 (106,085) 88.7% Culture and Recreation 12,664,855 13,531,478 12,855,275 (676,203) 95.0% Parks Maintenance 518,415 693,040 375,944 (317,096) 54.2% Neighborhood & Dvlpmnt Services 10,460,235 13,219,099 7,160,413 (6,058,686) 54.2% Community and Economic Dvlpmnt 10,978,650 13,912,139 7,536,357 (6,375,782) 54.2% City Council 123,298 116,138 97,064 (19,074) 83.6% City Clerk 533,845 516,040 517,504 1,464 100.3% City Attorney 676,519 713,474 688,901 (24,573) 96.6% City Manager 1,500,672 1,906,742 1,802,879 (103,863) 94.6% Finance 3,806,925 4,219,012 3,842,839 (376,173) 91.1% Park and Rec Adminstration 397,884 658,196 593,549 (64,647) 90.2% General Government 7,039,143 8,129,602 7,542,736 (586,866) 92.8% Debt Service 13,160,156 17,315,399 17,208,782 (106,617) 99.4% Capital Projects 17,042,914 41,516,396 21,554,244 (19,962,152) 51.9% City Manager 747,541 699,327 686,178 (13,149) 98.1% Housing Authority 7,614,681 7,343,842 7,709,498 365,656 105.0% Public Works 25,328,039 27,442,441 26,426,952 (1,015,489) 96.3% Transportation Services 10,838,933 18,379,709 17,687,881 (691,828) 96.2% Airport 363,552 358,380 363,686 5,306 101.5% Enterprise Capital Projects 20,313,054 17,816,676 4,446,409 (13,370,267) 25.0% Enterprise 65,205,800 72,040,376 57,320,604 (14,719,772) 79.6% Total Budgetary Expenditures $ 154,260,231 $ 197,383,438 $ 153,354,761 $ (44,028,677) 77.7% Non -Budgetary Funds Expenditures Capital Projects -Internal Service 60,266 527,279 62,526 (464,753) 11.9% Finance $ 11,188,660 $ 12,033,594 $ 11,001,278 $ (1,032,316) 91.4% Public Works 4,511,328 6,643,635 5,110,311 (1,533,324) 76.9% Internal Service 15,699,988 18,677,228 16,111,589 (2,565,640) 86.3% Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures $ 15,760,254 $ 19,204,507 $ 16,174,115 $ (3,030,392) 84.2% Total Expenditures -All Funds $ 170,020,485 $ 216,587,945 $ 169,528,876 $ (47,059,069) 78.3% 9 77,500,000 75,000,000 72,500,000 70,000,000 67,500,000 65,000,000 62,500,000 60,000,000 57,500,000 55,000,000 52,500,000 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 15,000,000 12,500,000 10,000,000 7,500,000 5,000,000 2,500,000 City of Iowa City All Funds Budgetary Expenditures by Program June 30, 2015 tie'sKV oi�S &es iT°r corL erw -``¢ eke i`sa 41 4iea O��Q zir� w5a� Qto� ��Q aPa �`4 ep �p ca\ ice ac'o ar ro a� �Q \crao r��Jae ca�4o Yore a L a CP V FY 2015 Revised ■ FY 2015 Year -to -Date i[0 City of Iowa City General Fund (1000 - 1023) Fund Summary FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 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% 1,755,623 $ 28,437,600 $ 29,486,191 $ 29,486,191 $ 29,304,052 $ (182,139) 99.4% 3,875,885 2,626 - - 1,937 1,937 13,216,781 12,339,127 2,947,501 2,231,144 2,231,144 2,012,733 (218,411) 90.2% (285,595) 1,659,843 1,574,249 1,574,249 1,790,507 216,258 113.7% 90.1% 647,032 753,220 753,220 583,336 (169,884) 77.4% 825,124 2,789,683 3,401,207 3,301,207 3,515,875 214,669 106.5% 8,445,094 1,357,363 1,268,550 1,288,115 1,506,791 218,676 117.0% 1,298,916 4,502,885 4,666,881 4,904,686 4,431,255 (473,431) 90.3% 48,787,298 5,565,082 4,635,094 4,685,613 2,763,230 (1,922,383) 59.0% 47,909,615 48,016,536 48,224,424 45,909,716 (2,314,708) 95.2% 10,870,809 8,782,808 10,170,248 10,316,349 146,101 101.4% 10,870,809 8,782,808 10,170,248 10,316,349 146,101 101.4% $ 58,780,424 $ 56,799,344 $ 58,394,672 $ 56,226,065 $ (2,168,607) 96.3% $ 123,298 $ 116,138 $ 116,138 $ 97,064 $ (19,074) 83.6% 533,845 507,040 516,039 517,504 1,465 100.3% 676,519 713,474 713,474 688,901 (24,573) 96.6% 1,500,672 1,755,623 1,906,742 1,802,879 (103,863) 94.6% 3,475,824 3,964,604 3,875,885 3,462,793 (413,092) 89.3% 12,248,973 12,819,029 13,216,781 12,339,127 (877,654) 93.4% 7,401,786 7,688,638 7,875,910 7,590,315 (285,595) 96.4% 7,382,727 8,068,508 8,409,223 7,580,533 (828,690) 90.1% 5,877,520 6,038,379 6,038,379 5,898,709 (139,670) 97.7% 825,124 898,159 936,159 830,074 (106,085) 88.7% 8,597,166 8,445,094 9,154,345 6,845,272 (2,309,073) 74.8% 1,142,899 1,298,916 1,298,916 1,134,127 (164,789) 87.3% 49,786,353 52,313,602 54,057,991 48,787,298 (5,270,693) 90.2% 769,848 522,665 4,217,623 1,312,115 (2,905,508) 31.1% 158,624 140,000 140,000 195,537 55,537 139.7% 190,470 190,087 190,087 187,489 (2,598) 98.6% 1,656,058 - 1,338,516 1,338,516 - 26,481,490 2,858,163 2,971,842 2,971,842 2,972,534 692 100.0% 67,452 62,422 62,422 248,030 185,608 397.3% 5,700,615 3,887,016 8,920,490 6,254,221 (2,666,269) 70.1% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 55,486,968 $ 56,200,618 $ 62,978,481 $ 55,041,520 (7,936,961) 87.4% Fund Balance', June 30 $ 47,793,327 $ 21,274,743 $ 43,209,518 $ 48,977,872 $ 5,768,354 113.3% Restricted / Committed /Assigned 29,808,720 5,666,299 26,481,490 29,726,250 3,244,760 112.3% Unassigned Balance $ 17,984,607 $ 15,608,444 $ 16,728,028 $ 19,251,622 $ 2,523,594 115.1% 11 City of Iowa City Road Use Tax (2200) Fund Summary FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 Fund Balance*, July 1 Revenues: Intergovernmental Fed Intergovnt Rev 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% $ - $ - $ - $ 11,143 $ 11,143 49,057 - 21,192 14,187 (7,005) 6,744,663 6,616,545 6,616,545 6,532,880 (83,665) 98.7% 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 52,364 40,673 447.9% 1,055 1,055 6,854,375 6,657,760 6,678,952 6,660,938 (18,014) 99.7% 405,477 390,883 390,883 390,414 (469) 99.9% 405,477 390,883 390,883 390,414 (469) 99.9% $ 7,259,852 $ 7,048,643 $ 7,069,835 $ 7,051,352 $ (18,483) 99.7% $ 2,095 $ 77,406 $ 77,406 $ 77,691 $ 285 100.4% 43,653 77,001 77,001 74,162 (2,839) 96.3% 782,966 1,441,637 1,458,637 1,400,817 (57,820) 96.0% 3,873,283 4,028,272 4,187,957 3,979,334 (208,623) 95.0% 4,701,997 5,624,316 5,801,001 5,532,004 (268,997) 95.4% 561,617 715,000 950,000 956,954 6,954 100.7% 298,247 305,214 305,214 295,195 (10,019) 96.7% 859,864 1,020,214 1,255,214 1,252,149 (3,065) 99.8% $ 5,561,861 $ 6,644,530 $ 7,056,215 $ 6,784,153 $ (272,062) 96.1% $ 4,539,578 $ 3,695,450 $ 4,553,197 $ 4,806,777 $ 253,579 105.6% $ 4,539,578 $ 3,695,450 $ 4,553,197 $ 4,806,777 $ 253,579 105.6% 12 City of Iowa City Employee Benefits (2400) Fund Summary FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 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 $ 9,032,526 $ (56,128) 99.4% 864 - - 597 597 159,183 153,182 153,182 162,380 9,198 106.0% - 181,337 181,337 183,244 1,907 101.1% 281,548 289,994 289,994 315,605 25,611 108.8% 11,341 1,703 1,703 51,828 50,125 3043.3% $ 9,809,865 $ 9,714,870 $ 9,714,870 $ 9,746,180 $ 31,310 100.3% Expenditures: General Government Employee Benefits $ 359,450 $ 343,127 $ 343,127 $ 393,169 $ 50,042 114.6% Public Safety Employee Benefits 354,640 252,590 652,590 589,010 (63,580) 90.3% Sub -Total Expenditures 714,090 595,717 995,717 982,179 (13,538) 98.6% Transfers Out: Empl Benefits Levy to Gen Fund & RUT 9,173,732 8,938,242 8,938,242 8,926,508 (11,734) 99.9% Sub -Total Transfers Out 9,173,732 8,938,242 8,938,242 8,926,508 (11,734) 99.9% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out Fund Balance*, June 30 Restricted / Committed /Assigned Unassigned Balance $ 9,887,822 $ 9,533,959 $ 9,933,959 $ 9,908,687 $ (25,272) 99.7% $ 1,713,207 $ 1,987,717 $ 1,494,118 $ 1,550,700 $ 56,582 103.8% $ 1,713,207 $ 1,987,717 $ 1,494,118 $ 1,550,700 $ 56,582 103.8% 13 City of Iowa City Debt Service Fund (5000 - 5999) Fund Summary FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 Fund Balance*, July 1 Revenues: Property Taxes Delinquent Property Taxes Other City Taxes Use Of Money And Property Interest Revenues Intergovernmental Property Tax Credits Charges For Fees And Services Building & Development Miscellaneous Contrib & Donations Other Financial Sources Loan Repayments Debt Sales Sub -Total Revenues Transfers In 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 $ 12,674,755 $ (78,340) 99.4% 1,125 - - 833 833 202,795 210,174 210,174 226,291 16,117 107.7% 64,998 94,615 94,615 58,211 (36,404) 61.5% - 255,652 255,652 255,366 (286) 99.9% - - - 190,785 190,785 176,381 183,735 183,735 178,166 (5,569) 97.0% 2,660,000 - - - - 15,081,928 13,497,271 13,497,271 13,584,407 87,136 100.6% Transfers -In 6,515,322 1,125,849 1,125,849 1,134,225 8,376 100.7% Sub -Total Transfers In 6,515,322 1,125,849 1,125,849 1,134,225 8,376 100.7% Total Revenues & Transfers In $ 21,597,250 $14,623,120 $ 14,623,120 $ 14,718,632 $ 95,512 100.7% Expenditures: Financial Services & Charges $ 545 $ - $ - $ - $ - Issuance Costs 11,962 - - - - GO Bonds Principal 11,200,000 11,864,100 15,399,100 15,525,000 125,900 100.8% GO Bonds Interest 1,872,314 1,840,964 1,840,964 1,608,447 (232,517) 87.4% Revenue Bonds Interest 75,335 75,335 75,335 75,335 - 100.0% Sub -Total Expenditures 13,160,156 13,780,399 17,315,399 17,208,782 (106,617) 99.4% 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 $ 17,208,782 $ (106,617) 99.4% Fund Balance*, June 30 $ 8,868,053 $ 6,122,547 $ 6,175,774 $ 6,377,903 $ 202,129 103.3% Restricted/Committed/Assigned 662,658 662,658 662,658 667,748 5,090 100.8% Unassigned Balance $ 8,205,395 $ 5.459.889 $ 5.513.116 $ 5.710.155 $ 197.039 103.6% 14 City of Iowa City Parking (7100 - 7102) Fund Summary FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 Fund Balance*, July 1 Revenues: Use Of Money And Property Interest Revenues Misc Parking Revenue Charges For Fees And Services Refuse Charges 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 Transfers Out: Capital Improvement Projects ')Debt Service Transfers Interfund Loan Repayment to Landfill Sub -Total Transfers Out Total Expenditures & Transfers Out Fund Balance*, June 30 Change in Accounting Method Adjusted Fund Balance*, June 30 Restricted / Committed /Assigned Unassigned Balance 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 $ 22,396 $ (25,026) 47.2% 84,472 - - - - 5,013,414 4,608,236 4,608,236 5,532,996 924,760 120.1% 197,578 475,000 475,000 248,841 (226,159) 52.4% 25,079 36,969 36,969 82,593 45,624 223.4% 5,364,605 5,167,627 5,167,627 5,886,826 $ 719,199 113.9% - 2,495,350 2,495,350 - 18,850 - - - 840,350 843,550 3,943,876 3,943,875 (1) 100.0% 859,200 843,550 6,439,226 6,439,225 (1) 100.0% $ 6,223,805 $ 6,011,177 $ 11,606,853 $ 12,326,051 $ 719,198 106.2% $ 1,082,938 $ 1,175,094 $ 1,175,094 $ 1,200,187 $ 25,093 102.1% 840,350 741,712 912,967 936,217 808,248 (127,969) 86.3% - 1,095,959 1,317,936 1,366,527 1,184,949 (181,578) 86.7% 3,984,272 838,300 832,250 7,973,550 7,973,550 (0) 100.0% $ 15,151,663 $ 3,758,909 4,238,247 11,451,388 11,166,934 (284,454) 97.5% 1,185,156 500,000 (103,775) (103,318) 457 99.6% 840,350 843,550 3,943,875 3,943,875 (0) 100.0% - - 144,172 144,172 - 2,025,506 1,343,550 3,984,272 3,984,729 457 100.0% $ 5,784,415 $ 5,581,797 $ 15,435,660 $ 15,151,663 $ (283,997) 98.2% $ 6,867,952 $ 6,251,867 $ 3,039,145 $ 4,042,340 $ 1,003,195 133.0% 6,867,952 6,251,867 3,039,145 4,042,340 1,003,195 133.0% 1,919,908 1,679,996 385,584 385,583 (1) 100.0% $ 4,948,044 $ 4,571,871 $ 2,653,561 $ 3,656,757 $ 1,003,196 137.8% 15 City of Iowa City Transit (7150 - 7151) Fund Summary FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 Fund Balance*, July 1 Revenues: Use Of Money And Property Interest Revenues Rents Parking Ramp Revenue Intergovernmental Fed Intergovnt Rev Other State Grants Local 28E Agreements Charges For Fees And Services Transit Fees Misc Charges For Svc Refuse Charges Parking Charges Miscellaneous 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 $ 4,088 $ (7,265) 36.0% 128,739 124,530 124,530 131,943 7,413 106.0% 1,400,381 1,400,144 1,400,144 1,439,334 39,190 102.8% 975,113 548,941 865,741 642,210 (223,531) 74.2% 37,803 32,844 32,844 32,562 (282) 99.1% 1,384,792 1,290,908 1,290,908 1,397,660 106,752 108.3% 410 3,000 3,000 2,665 (335) 88.8% 1,738 1,541 1,541 810 (731) 52.6% 631,383 618,141 618,141 951,568 333,427 153.9% - - - 30 30 376 1,361 1,361 1,098 (263) 80.7% 23,050 - - 5,174 5,174 4,590,737 4,032,763 4,349,563 4,609,142 259,579 106.0% Transfers In: Transfer In- Transit Property Tax Levy 2,858,163 2,971,842 2,971,842 2,972,534 692 100.0% Transfer In - Operations to Bus Reserve (614,007) - 136,000 - (136,000) Sub -Total Transfers In 2,244,156 2,971,842 3,107,842 2,972,534 (135,308) 95.6% 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 $ 7,457,405 $ 7,581,676 $ 124,271 101.7% $ 385,144 $ 446,316 $ 446,316 $ 436,567 (9,749) 97.8% 4,961,243 4,298,021 4,298,021 4,527,757 229,736 105.3% 1,570,311 1,651,527 1,651,527 1,415,242 (236,285) 85.7% 163,326 148,457 148,457 141,381 (7,076) 95.2% - - 384,000 - (384,000) 0.0% 7,080,024 6,544,321 6,928,321 6,520,947 (407,374) 94.1% 207,596 54,000 54,000 (16,917) (70,917) -31.3% 55,324 56,388 56,388 56,388 - 100.0% (614,007) - 136,000 - (136,000) (351,087) 110,388 246,388 39,471 (206,917) 16.0% $ 6,728,937 $ 6,654,709 $ 7,174,709 $ 6,560,418 $ (614,291) 91.4% $ 3,965,749 $ 3,851,671 $ 4,248,445 $ 4,987,007 $ 738,562 117.4% 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 $ 3,855,089 $ 671,362 121.'/ City of Iowa City Wastewater Treatment (7200 - 7201) Fund Summary FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 Fund Balance', July 1 Revenues: Licenses And Permits Misc Permits & Lic Intergovernmental Disaster Assistance Other State Grants Use Of Money And Property Interest Revenues Royalties & Commiss Charges For Fees And Services Misc Charges For Svc Wastewater Charges Refuse Charges Miscellaneous Misc Merchandise Other Misc Revenue Other Financial Sources Sale Of Assets Sub -Total Revenues: Transfers In: Interfund Loans i) Bond Ordinance Trans Misc Transfers In Sub -Total Transfers In Total Revenues & Transfers In Expenditures: Wastewater Administration Wastewater Treatment Plant Ops Lift Stations Wastewater Collection Systems Wastewater Debt Service Sub -Total Expenditures Transfers Out: Capital Project Fund i) Debt Service Funding Interfund Loans Misc Transfers Out Operating Subsidy 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 $ 24,137,050 $ 23,311,727 $ 24,069,885 $ 24,069,885 $ - 100.0% $ 7,484 $ 6,604 $ 6,604 $ 8,012 $ 1,408 121.3% 2,923 - - 6,502 6,502 100.0% 21,924 - - - - 99.4% 195,639 291,054 457,652 218,313 (239,339) 47.7% 277 274 274 208 (66) 75.9% 2,016 360 360 1,410 1,050 391.7% 12,555,994 12,889,204 12,889,204 11,361,220 (1,527,984) 88.1% 1,223 1,026 1,026 719 (307) 70.1% 1,375 524 524 4,148 3,624 791.6% 65,360 94,567 94,567 86,459 (8,108) 91.4% - - - 1,187 1,187 12,854,215 13,283,613 13,450,211 11,688,178 (1,762,033) 86.9% - - 200,000 200,000 - 100.0% 4,570,067 4,559,962 4,559,962 4,763,163 203,201 104.5% - - - 203,200 203,200 103.3% 4,570,067 4,559,962 4,759,962 5,166,363 406,401 108.5% $ 17,424,282 $ 17,843,575 $ 18,210,173 $ 16,854,541 $ (1,355,632) 92.6% $ 1,616,982 $ 1,634,979 $ 1,644,979 $ 1,621,333 $ (23,646) 98.6% 2,876,190 3,041,683 3,136,683 3,240,178 103,495 103.3% - 361,934 361,934 6,419 (355,515) 1.8% 754,414 619,388 619,388 835,994 216,606 135.0% 4,668,682 4,674,900 4,674,900 4,674,900 - 100.0% 9,916,268 10,332,884 10,437,884 10,378,824 (59,060) 99.4% 3,005,112 3,900,000 3,389,624 689,624 (2,700,000) 20.3% 4,570,067 4,559,962 4,559,962 4,763,162 203,200 104.5% - - 6,000,000 6,000,000 - 100.0% - - - 203,200 7,575,179 8,459,962 13,949,586 11,655,986 (2,293,600) 83.6% $ 17,491,447 $ 18,792,846 $ 24,387,470 $ 22,034,810 $ (2,352,660) 90.4% $ 24,069,885 $ 22,362,456 $ 17,892,588 $ 18,889,616 $ 997,028 105.6% 9,975,266 9,860,329 9,860,328 9,860,329 1 100.0% $ 14,094,619 $ 12,502,127 $ 8,032,260 $ 9,029,287 $ 997,027 112.4% 17 City of Iowa City Water (7300 - 7301) Fund Summary FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 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 $ 119,027 $ (25,226) 82.5% 750 1,000 1,000 - (1,000) 0.0% 723 913 913 772 (141) 84.6% 270 270 8,442,090 9,081,670 9,081,670 7,975,028 (1,106,642) 87.8% 13 - - 29 29 8,537 12,350 12,350 12,802 452 103.7% 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 - 100.0% 9,068 370 370 (1,612) (1,982) -435.7% 11,055 - - 48 48 8,627,583 9,242,556 9,242,556 8,108,364 (1,134,192) 87.7% 2,010,315 2,008,715 2,008,715 2,008,715 - 100.0% 2,010,315 2,008,715 2,008,715 2,008,715 - 100.0% $ 10,637,898 $ 11,251,271 $ 11,251,271 $ 10,117,079 $ (1,134,192) 89.9% $ 1,178,390 $ 1,249,557 $ 1,249,557 $ 1,201,888 $ (47,669) 96.2% 1,989,276 2,175,052 2,262,052 2,002,038 (260,014) 88.5% 1,410,846 1,356,585 1,377,978 1,079,094 (298,884) 78.3% 1,109,258 1,234,130 1,250,130 1,271,101 20,971 101.7% 55,724 70,400 70,400 55,129 (15,271) 78.3% 1,984,946 1,989,515 1,989,515 1,989,515 - 100.0% 7,728,440 8,075,239 8,199,632 7,598,765 (600,867) 92.7% Transfers Out: Capital Project Fund 1,151,955 1,914,400 568,400 - (568,400) 0.0% 'i Debt Service Funding 2,010,315 2,008,715 2,008,715 2,008,715 - 100.0% GO Bond Abatement 344,325 333,225 333,225 314,503 (18,722) 94.4% Sub -Total Transfers Out 3,506,595 4,256,340 2,910,340 2,323,218 (587,122) 79.8% Total Expenditures &Transfers Out $ 11,235,035 $ 12,331,579 $ 11,109,972 $ 9,921,983 $ (1,187,989) 89.3% Fund Balance*, June 30 $ 11,541,132 $ 9,681,710 $ 11,682,431 $ 11,736,228 $ 53,797 100.5% Restricted/Committed/Assigned 4,175,379 4,194,487 4,194,579 4,194,579 - 100.0% Unassigned Balance $ 7,365,753 $ 5,487,223 $ 7,487,852 $ 7,541,649 $ 53,797 100.7% IF-] City of Iowa City Refuse Collection (7400) Fund Summary FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 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 $ 4,300 $ (1,200) 78.2% 1,208,826 1,095 1,131 1,131 612 (519) 54.1% 303,344 3,050,265 3,009,096 3,009,096 2,961,357 (47,739) 98.4% 728,641 74 2,255 2,255 48 (2,207) 2.1% 138,047 $ 3,057,759 $ 3,017,982 $ 3,017,982 $ 2,966,317 $ (51,665) 98.3% (85,058) $ 509,622 $ 514,763 $ 514,763 $ 485,460 $ (29,303) 94.3% 1,208,826 1,286,089 1,286,089 1,297,324 11,235 100.9% 326,884 303,344 303,344 318,483 15,139 105.0% 688,554 728,641 728,641 682,433 (46,208) 93.7% 152,890 173,968 173,968 138,047 (35,921) 79.4% 2,886,776 3,006,805 3,006,805 2,921,747 (85,058) 97.2% - - 100,000 100,000 - $ 2,886,776 $ 3,006,805 $ 3,106,805 $ 3,021,747 $ (85,058) 97.3% $ 890,410 $ 755,691 $ 801,587 $ 834,980 $ 33,393 104.2% $ 890,410 $ 755,691 $ 801,587 $ 834,980 $ 33,393 104.2% iR1 City of Iowa City Landfill (7500 - 7504) Fund Summary FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 Transfers Out: Capital Project Funding 1,800,922 650,000 685,000 (43,575) (728,575) -6.4% Misc Transfers Out 6,421,324 747,087 747,087 418,162 (328,925) 56.0% Interfund Loan - - 2,495,350 2,495,350 - Sub -Total Transfers Out 8,222,246 1,397,087 3,927,437 2,869,937 (1,057,500) 73.1% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 12,536,546 $ 5,772,676 $ 8,649,804 $ 7,424,409 $ (1,225,395) 85.8% Fund Balance*, June 30 $ 24,265,434 $ 24,443,794 $ 22,412,057 $ 23,730,650 $ 1,318,593 105.9% Restricted / Committed /Assigned 22,423,720 20,703,026 20,868,669 21,342,617 473,948 102.3% Unassigned Balance $ 1,841,714 $ 3,740,768 $ 1,543,388 $ 2,388,033 $ 844,645 154.7% Yin 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised Fund Balance*, July 1 $ 24,616,339 $ 24,092,806 $ 24,265,434 $ 24,265,434 $ - 100.0% Revenues: Use Of Money And Property Interest Revenues $ 49,537 $ 70,894 $ 119,484 $ 86,736 $ (32,748) 72.6% Rents 50,245 50,118 50,118 49,655 (463) 99.1% Intergovernmental Other State Grants 12,242 - - - - Charges For Fees And Services Refuse Charges 392,531 383,760 383,760 743,007 359,247 193.6% Landfill Charges 4,967,453 4,733,705 4,733,705 4,658,138 (75,567) 98.4% Miscellaneous Contrib & Donations 713 - - 382 382 Misc Merchandise 20,219 19,376 19,376 20,839 1,463 107.6% Other Misc Revenue 35,541 30,210 30,210 33,001 2,791 109.2% Sub -Total Revenues 5,528,481 5,288,063 5,336,653 5,591,758 255,105 104.8% Transferin: Interfund Loans 235,836 88,514 712,686 879,705 167,019 123.4% Misc Transfers In 6,421,324 747,087 747,087 418,162 (328,925) 56.0% Sub -Total Transfers In 6,657,160 835,601 1,459,773 1,297,867 (161,906) 88.9% Total Revenues & Transfers In $ 12,185,641 $ 6,123,664 $ 6,796,427 $ 6,889,625 $ 93,198 101.4% Expenditures: Landfill Administration $ 736,362 $ 667,905 $ 664,753 $ 1,018,528 $ 353,775 153.2% Landfill Operations 3,486,272 3,608,305 3,588,235 3,442,627 (145,608) 95.9% Landfill Replacement Reserves - - 370,000 - (370,000) Solid Waste Surcharge Reserve 91,666 99,379 99,379 93,317 (6,062) 93.9% Sub -Total Expenditures 4,314,300 4,375,589 4,722,367 4,554,472 (167,895) 96.4% Transfers Out: Capital Project Funding 1,800,922 650,000 685,000 (43,575) (728,575) -6.4% Misc Transfers Out 6,421,324 747,087 747,087 418,162 (328,925) 56.0% Interfund Loan - - 2,495,350 2,495,350 - Sub -Total Transfers Out 8,222,246 1,397,087 3,927,437 2,869,937 (1,057,500) 73.1% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 12,536,546 $ 5,772,676 $ 8,649,804 $ 7,424,409 $ (1,225,395) 85.8% Fund Balance*, June 30 $ 24,265,434 $ 24,443,794 $ 22,412,057 $ 23,730,650 $ 1,318,593 105.9% Restricted / Committed /Assigned 22,423,720 20,703,026 20,868,669 21,342,617 473,948 102.3% Unassigned Balance $ 1,841,714 $ 3,740,768 $ 1,543,388 $ 2,388,033 $ 844,645 154.7% Yin City of Iowa City Housing Authority (7900 - 7922) Fund Summary FY 2015 Through The Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 21 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 Pct of Actual Budget Revised Year -to -Date Variance Revised Fund Balance', July 1 $ 6,115,885 $ 6,162,829 $ 5,606,540 $ 5,606,540 $ - 100.0% Revenues: Use Of Money And Property Interest Revenues $ 11,169 $ 23,025 $ 23,025 $ 3,473 $ (19,552) 15.1% Rents 212,816 203,286 203,286 239,728 36,442 117.9% Royalties & Commissions 26,487 28,516 28,516 38,635 10,119 135.5% Intergovernmental Fed Intergovnt Rev 6,720,374 7,101,264 7,101,264 7,616,682 515,418 107.3% Local 28E Agreements - - - - - Miscellaneous Other Misc Revenue 20,648 16,338 16,338 23,099 6,761 141.4% Other Financial Sources Loan Repayments 41,173 21,408 21,408 142,387 120,979 665.1% Sale Of Assets 285,500 - - - - Sub -Total Revenues 7,318,167 7,393,837 7,393,837 8,064,004 670,167 109.1% Misc Transfers In 1,158 - - 8,760 8,760 Sub -Total Transfers In 1,158 - - 8,760 8,760 Total Revenues & Transfers In $ 7,319,325 $ 7,393,837 $ 7,393,837 $ 8,072,764 $ 678,927 109.2% Expenditures: Voucher Program $ 6,891,723 $ 6,676,165 $ 6,676,165 $ 7,205,794 $ 529,629 107.9% Public Housing Program 722,958 667,677 667,677 503,704 (163,973) 75.4% Sub -Total Expenditures 7,614,681 7,343,842 7,343,842 7,709,498 365,656 105.0% Transfers Out: Operating Subsidy - PILOT Gen Fund 18,414 18,727 18,727 18,727 - 100.0% Misc Transfers Out - Director Reimb 25,575 26,010 26,010 46,010 20,000 176.9% General Fund - UniverCity program 170,000 - - - - Sub -Total Transfers Out 213,989 44,737 44,737 64,737 20,000 144.7% Total Expenditures & Transfers Out $ 7,828,670 $ 7,388,579 $ 7,388,579 $ 7,774,235 $ 385,656 105.2% Fund Balance', June 30 $ 5,606,540 $ 6,168,087 $ 5,611,798 $ 5,905,069 $ 293,271 105.2% Restricted / Committed /Assigned 2,830,484 2,775,386 2,854,395 2,945,146 90,751 103.2% Unassigned Balance $ 2,776,056 $ 3,392,701 $ 2,757,403 $ 2,959,923 $ 202,520 107.3% 21 PON From: 319 351 0596 Page: 1/1 Date: 8/22/2015 7:29:54 AM��� IP11 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa S2240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356.5009 FAX www.lcgov.o rg August 21, 2015 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE, Civil Service Entrance Examination — Special Projects Assistant — Cable TV Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Special Projects Assistant — Cable TV. Katie Linder IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra W. ickerson, Chair This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com Minutes Human Rights Commission August 18, 2015 — 5:30 PM Helling Conference Room Preliminary Members Present: Kim Hanrahan, Orville Townsend Sr, Ali Ahmed, Harry Olmstead, Paul Retish, Shams Ghoneim, Edie Pierce -Thomas, Joe Coulter, Stella Hart. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Recommendations to Council: No. Call to Order: Coulter called the meeting to order at 5:30. Consideration of the Minutes from the July 21, 2015 Meeting Date: Motion Olmstead, seconded by Townsend. Motion passed 7-0. (Retish and Ghoneim not present) Meetine Business (Ghoneim present 5:31) Commission Action Plan 2015 Community Outreach Bowers reviewed the action plan with Commissioners that was approved in January of 2015. Pierce - Thomas will assist Hanrahan on the community outreach subcommittee to seek information from various community groups and social service agencies to develop a list of possible issues/concerns the Commission can take on or bring attention to as a group. (Retish present 5:52) Education Programming Hart is working on the details of the upcoming affordable housing program the Commission is sponsoring on October 5 at the Iowa City Public Library. Bowers will send the list of questions Hart has developed to the entire Commission to provide feedback. Education Outreach Ghoniem, Townsend and Ahmed will either meet in person or via email to discuss additional ways in which they can update the community on the Human Rights Commission. Reports The Johnson County Americans with Disabilities Act Celebration (July 25) Olmstead reports that this year's event has been the best one yet. Ghoneim noted some frustration with the organizational aspects of the event but other than that the event was good and the Human Rights Commission materials were well received. Construction/Trade Job Fair The Commission approved holding another job fair for the fall of 2015. Retish will work on getting the usual participants gathered to plan the job fair but encouraged Commissioners to participate also and/or encourage other community members/organizations/businesses to assist. The target population is for those under employed or unemployed. Council for International Visitors (CIVIC) (August 10) Retish and Olmstead met with a group of international visitors from the country of Georgia. The main topic of the discussion was transparency in government. Retish said it was a good discussion and the professions of the group were quite impressive. Retish would like follow up and feedback from CIVIC as to how they did (Retish & Olmstead) and how they were received by the visitors. Human Rights Awards Breakfast (October 28) At the next meeting the Commission will select a subcommittee to decide nominations and also select program roles. Bowers reminded Commissioners of the memorial service being held on August 20 for the late Heather L. Shank, past Human Rights Coordinator for the City. Building communities The Black Voices Project held a reception for three incoming African-American administrators for the Iowa City Community School District on August 17. Townsend reports the reception was well attended and that those present offered their support and assistance to the new administrators. Making Iowa City a Human Rights Community Hanrahan reports there is a meeting on August 26. Bowers will confirm the meeting is still being held and let the Hanrahan, Olmstead and Coulter know of the date and time. Education Subcommittee Hanrahan spoke on the organization of the equity board and that the group is currently looking at the protocol the schools have for calling the police and also seeing that all Iowa City Community School District staff receive alternatives to violence training. Commission Hanrahan reminded Commissioners of the upcoming school board and council elections. United Action for Youth recently hired for the crisis intervention position. Retish reported on a vacation he and his wife took in July and how they had a terrific time. Retish spoke on the beauty of driving thru West Virginia. Ahmed and his wife are expecting their first children in the next month, triplets! Olmstead reminded Commissioners that on this date in history women were given the right to vote. Ghoneim is a part of the Press Citizen editorial board and they will be interviewing school board candidates in the near future. Coulter just got back from his annual summer chicken fried steak circuit and enjoyed the great meals at Southern Vittles in Lake City, Colorado. Staff ADA in Places of Public Accommodation Bowers spoke on encouraging business owners to go beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act by either starting a public awareness campaign or doing a ranking of businesses by how well they do in the area of accessibility. Adjournment: 6:53. Next Regular Meeting — September 16, 2015 at 5:30 p.m. K Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2014/2015 (Meeting Date) NAME TERM EXP. 10/2/ 14 10/21/ 14 11/18/ 14 12/15/ 14 1/20/ 15 2/17/ 15 3/17/ 15 4/1/ 15 4/21 15 5/19 15 6/16 15 7/21 15 8/18 15 Edie Pierce- Thomas 1/1/2016 - - - - X O/E X X X O/E X X X Joe D. Coulter 1/1/2016 X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X Harry Olmstead 1/1/2016 X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X Paul Retish 1/1/2017 X O/E O/E X X X X X X X X X X Ali Ahmed 1/1/2017 X X X X O X O/E X X X O/E X X Orville Townsend, Sr. 1/1/2017 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X Kim Hanrahan 1/1/2018 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X Shams Ghoneim 1/1/2018 X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X Stella Hart 1/1/2018 X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = No longer a member R = Resignation