HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-04 Info Packet= L
•®��� CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY
February 4, 2016
www.icgov.org
IPI Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
MISCELLANEOUS
IP2 Article from City Manager: Moving beyond job growth
I133 Memo from Neighborhood Services Coordinator: UniverCity Program, 1025 E. Burlington
Street Update
IP4 Memo from Equity Dir.: Diversity Implementations Update and Status on Racial Equity
and Diversity Initiative (4th quarter 2015)
IP5 Memo from Finance Dir.: Quarterly Financial Summary for period ending December 31,
2015
IP6 Information from Council Member Botchway: Celebration of Black History Month
IP7 Flyer: The Black History Living Museum: A Moment In Time
DRAFT MINUTES
I138 Housing and Community Commission: January 21
+ rr11U®r��
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Date
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Subject to change
Time Meeting
5:00 PM Conference Board Meeting
Work Session
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
February 4, 2016
Location
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Special Formal Meeting
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Monday, April 25, 2016
4:00 PM
Reception
Emma J. Harvat Hall
4:30 PM
Joint Entities Meeting
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
r 1 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule �N
"'� :J
Subject to change
CI�T-Y�OF IOWA CITY January 28, 2016
Date Time Meeting Location
Tuesday, February 16,*16 5:00 PM Conference Board Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Work Session
7:00 PM Formal Meeting'
d
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
5:00 PM
Wor Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM `
. Special Formal Meeting. Y
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7: PM
f,
d
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meetin
Monday, April 25, 2016
4:00 PM
Recep/*ies
Emma J. Harvat Hall
4:30 PM
Joint EMeeting
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
5:00 PM
Wor Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
FVmal Meeting
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting �a
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
5:00M
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7: PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, June 21, 20165:00
PM
Work Session
E ma J. Harvat Hall
Z7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. arvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
ti
Tuesday, July19, 2 16
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, Aug6st 2, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall
Formal Meeting
From the City Manager 02-04-16
ZIP2
Moving beyond job growth
Jobs, jobs, jobs.
That's what many states and metro areas desperately needed in the aftermath of the Great
Recession. So our program launched the Metro Monitor in 2009 to track jobs, housing prices,
and other indicators of post -recession recovery in the nation's 100 largest metro areas.
Today the U.S. economy has more jobs than before the recession, as do most metro
economies. Yet many workers and households are not better off.
It's time to change how leaders benchmark progress and measure metro economic success.
Telling state and local leaders to move beyond job creation as the proxy for economic progress
feels like moving the goal post. Of course, job growth matters. We need more jobs to match the
size of the labor force. Tighter labor markets boost wages, eventually, for those at the bottom of
the income ladder.
But the problem is that the relentless chase for jobs, absent broader goals to improve people's
economic well-being, can be costly. Local tax incentives to build a shopping center, for instance,
can result in near-term job growth. But if that development occurs in a region where incomes
aren't growing, then that subsidy merely shifts consumer spending and associated jobs within
the region, rather than creating net new (quality) jobs and lifting incomes.
It's better for taxpayer dollars to be spent on strategic investments in public goods like research,
training, and infrastructure that support innovative firms creating good -paying jobs. Only by
boosting household incomes can regions stoke demand for local -serving industries like
restaurants and retail, and create new jobs associated with them.
An increasing number of state and regional leaders understand the economic imperative to put
their regions on a better long-term economic trajectory, even if job growth is not a guaranteed
near-term outcome. They are adopting a new model of economic development to ensure their
leading distinctive industries remain productive amid rising global competition and new
technologies. They are working to improve their innovation ecosystem, boost trade, expand the
supply of skilled labor, and modernize their technology and transportation infrastructure. And
they are forging new alliances to better coordinate and sustain their efforts.
Our relaunched Metro Monitor can help these state and regional leaders keep their eye on the
mix of metrics that matter. My colleagues Chad Shearer, John Ng, Alan Berube, and Alec
Friedhoff have developed a three-part set of indicators—growth, prosperity, and inclusion
(including by race)—that capture broader goals for economic success. Among other things, they
find that economic growth alone, including rising numbers of jobs, does not necessarily yield
more prosperous, inclusive communities.
We hope leaders use our new Metro Monitor to bring clarity and urgency to their efforts. We
hope the Monitor informs the development of new regional metrics for success, as some metros
are beginning to do. And while we know metro areas love peer rankings, we hope leaders will
use this new Monitor to focus on their own growth trajectory.
Most state and regional leaders want to create communities that improve the quality of life for
the people who live there, now and for generations to come. It's time for our regional economic
development metrics and strategies to match that ambition—not just more jobs, but better
incomes and opportunities for all.
r
® CITY OF IOWA CITY IP3
-T4 MEMORANDUM
Date: February 1, 2016
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Re: UniverCity Program, 1025 E. Burlington Street Update
The City has operated the UniverCity program since 2010. Under the program, the City purchases
primarily rental properties, provides approximately $50,000 in rehabilitation and sells them as owner -
occupied housing. To date, the City has purchased 57 homes and sold 53. Of the four remaining homes
in the program, one is available for sale, two are under rehabilitation and the rehabilitation of 1025 E.
Burlington is in the process of being bid.
History/Background:
1025 E. Burlington was purchased in June of 2014 as a problem rental property for $170,000. The home
needs extensive renovations and will need more than the anticipated $50,000 investment to return it to
decent condition. Due to the extensive renovations, the City started considering other options to ensure
the home was rehabilitated and the home would remain owner -occupied. Staff spoke to Iowa Valley
Habitat for Humanity and Friends of Historic Preservation (FHP) to consider possible partnerships to
rehabilitate this home. The home is in a conservation district.
Discussion:
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity did not indicate an interest as they believed the cost of the repairs
would require a much higher selling price than a family under 50% of median income could afford.
FHP considered purchasing the home as an educational opportunity, using the rehabilitation to host free
and low cost workshops, and offered $77,280 to purchase the home. However, the City has incurred over
$184,000 on this home to date between acquisition and carrying costs.
The City Assessor provided an analysis of comparable owner -occupied homes in close proximity along
arterials/busy streets. Based on this analysis, this home, in decent condition, could be expected to sell for
approximately $215,000. The City's rehabilitation staff believes the City would need approximately
$75,000 to rehabilitate the home.
Financial Impact:
If the City accepted the FHP offer, that would be an approximate $107,000 City subsidy for one home
($184,000-$77,280). This level of subsidy is not justified. As the City only budgets for a $50,000
investment in each home, the City would have to find another $57,000 from the general fund to cover the
subsidy. If the home can sell for approximately $215,000 and the City proceeds with a $75,000 budget
for rehabilitation, no additional funds need to come through the general fund or GO bonds ($184,000 +
25,000 (75,000 - budgeted $50,000) = $209,000).
Staff notified Alicia Trimble, FHP Executive Director, on January 4, 2016 that their offer was
substantially too low for the City to accept. The lowest offer staff would contemplate was $100,000.
Staff would have had to seek approval from the City Manager's office as an additional $34,000 subsidy
would have been needed to proceed. Staff informed FHP if they wanted to resubmit an offer, they would
need to submit by January 8, 2016. No offer was submitted. FHP contacted Jim Throgmorton to discuss
their initial offer. A meeting was convened to discuss the selling price with Alicia Trimble on January 12,
2016. At this meeting, the City Manager offered to sell the home for $115,000 to reduce the amount of
funds the City would have to provide to subsidize this home. The FHP Director stated they were not
interested as the price was too high.
February 1, 2016
Page 2
Current Status:
City staff is proceeding with the rehabilitation of the home. The rehabilitation will comply with
conversation district requirements. The proposed improvements have been approved by the Historic
Preservation Commission. This appears to be the most cost effective method to rehabilitate the home to
conservation district standards and to ensure owner -occupied housing.
r
�"CITY OF IOWA CITY IP4
�
AS
'�� MEMORANDUM
Date: February 3, 2016
To: Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager
From: Stefanie Bowers, Equity Director`s 6
Re: Diversity Implementations Update and Status on Racial Equity and Diversity Initiative
(4th Quarter 2015).
Introduction:
This memo serves as an update for the ongoing staff responsibilities of the Ad Hoc Diversity
Committee's recommendations that were adopted by way of resolution in June of 2013. It also
provides the most recent activity on the Action Plans from the 2014 and 2015 Reports on Equity for
and the Action Plan and the Racial Equity and Diversity Initiatives adopted by resolution in February of
2015. This is the last update for 2015. The quarters for 2015 were divided up starting with a March 1 st
start date based on the adoption of the Racial Equity and Diversity Initiatives in mid-February 2015.
Future updates will be on a regular quarterly basis with a start date of January 1, 2016.
Council Hold Listening Posts
No Dosts held durino this time
Staff Roundtables
December 2, the City Manager's Roundtable was held. Persons in attendance included the City
Manager, Assistant City Manager, Police Chief, City Clerk, Communications Coordinator, Community
Outreach Assistant for the Police Deparlmentand the Equity Director along with representatives from the
Black Voices Project, the Coalition for Racial Justice, the Human Rights Commission, and the
Center for Worker Justice of Eastern Iowa held a roundtable in December. Topics included a
discussion with Library staff on programs and initiatives that address equity in services and
outreach.
Expand Coffee with a Cop
December 11, Coffee with a Cop was held at Daylight Donuts.
Participate in United States Department of Justice Pilot Program National Initiative for Building
Community Trust and Justice
The Police Department is still awaiting a response from the United States Department of
Justice on the inquiry to participate in the Building Community Trust and Justice.
Offer Police Ride Alongs to Community Members
To encourage more relationship building activities with police officers and members of the
community the Police Department offers ride alongs to members of the community who wish
to participate.
Expand the Use of Body -Mounted Cameras within the Police Department
This was completed in August of 2015.
Participate in the Disproportionate Minority Contact Study
The Police Department continues to participate in the study on disproportionate minority contact
in traffic stops with Dr. Christopher Barnum of St. Ambrose University. Dr. Barnum will
report out on the most recent data (2013 & 2014) in early 2016.
Encourage Other Jurisdictions within Johnson County to Establish
Community Police Review Boards
No update at this time.
City Departments Receive Trainings on Competency, Bias, Awareness and Cultural
Consciousness
December 28, Human Rights staff participated in Implicit Bias: Know It When You See It, and
Learn How to Avoid It. The program was sponsored by the Iowa State Bar Association.
Engage with Communities of Color by Actively Participating in Events, Programs,
Activities, and Outreach
No updates at this time.
Provide Support and Resources for a Regional Community Identification
Program.
Ongoing.
Partner with the Government Alliance on Racial Equity (GARE)
December 4, the Police Department and Human Rights staff joined a special sub -section of
GARE for Criminal Justice and Policing. To date one meeting has been held. This sub -section
looks specifically at policing racial equity work plans and racial equity training for Police Officers.
December 16, staff from the City Manager's Office, Human Rights and Police Department
participated in the monthly GARE Midwest meeting. Meeting included conversations about
restorative justice approaches to crime, and a report on Saint Paul, Minnesota's independent
audits of the Police Internal Affairs Review Commission.
Review and Discuss Committee Reports from the Criminal Justice Coordinating
Committee of Johnson County
The City Clerk has been including the meeting minutes of the Criminal Justice
Coordinating Committee of Johnson County in Council Information Packets.
Collect and Analyze Data on Individuals who Apply for Employment with the City
The City has been collecting data on the race and ethnicity of individuals that apply for
employment with the City through the new MUNIS Enterprise Resource Planning System.
The data is voluntarily submitted by the applicant. The data started being collected
January 1, 2015 and will be collected through December 31, 2015.
Collectand Analyze Data on Individuals who Apply for Appointment on City
Boards/Commissions
The City has been collecting data on the race and ethnicity of individuals that apply for
appointment on a City board/commission through a voluntary survey that is a part of the
application. The data started being collected January 1, 2015 and will be collected through
December 31. 2015.
Evaluate a Racial Equity Impact Review Tool for City Budgets, Programs, Policies
and Services
Further information will be reported out in the next quarterly report on this item. Initial GARE
training and workshop has just been completed in November 2015.
Increase Racial/Ethnic Diversity of the Applicant Pool for Hiring within the Police
Department
No updates at this time.
Increase Awareness of the Options to File Complaints of Discrimination against the
Police Department or other City Services, Program or Operations
No updates at this time.
Other Items to Note:
December 1, Parks and Recreation staff attended a de-escalation training led by Annie Tucker
of Mediation Services for Eastern Iowa. Parks and Recreation staff also discussed with Ms.
Tucker the development of an ongoing training program for Recreation staff. This training would
coincide with the Department's spring hiring season in 2016.
December 11, Library staff held an annual in-service day that included a presentation by Erin
Altheide of Johnson County Juvenile Court Services on the Juvenile Courts Mediation Process.
Peggy Loveless of the National Alliance on Mental Illness also presented on Mental Health.
December 15, the Equity Director met with Joan Nashelsky, Program Coordinator for the
University of Iowa Center for Human Rights to discuss possible ways the City could collaborate
on One Community, One Book 2016. One Community, One Book was started in 2001; it is a
program that invites community members to read and come together to discuss the same book
with human rights or social justice themes. These discussion forums typically take place from
September through November with a capstone event held during that time.
December 17, the Communications Department updated the City's website to include
information and a link to GARE's website. This can be viewed on the City's Racial Equity and
Diversity Initiative page.
December 17, the Director of Transportation Services attended and spoke at the monthly
Community Transportation Committee meeting. The discussion included ideas and
considerations for new programs.
December 28, the Equity Director and Iowa City Community School staff met with Andy
Johnson, Executive Assistant to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors Member and Janet
Lyness, County Attorney for Johnson County to discuss the Criminal Justice Coordinating
Committee of Johnson County's structure and future focus.
See Attachment for a complete list of the Police Department's activities for the fourth
quarter.
TO: Stefanie Bowers
FROM: Captain Douglas S. Hart
RE: DIF Reporting for ICPD 4th Quarter 2015
DATE: January 20, 2016
ICPD's DIF Reporting for the fourth quarter of 2015 is below.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH: Documentation of any participation of an event, attended or presented, by a
Department Member to a community member or organization.
45 ICPD Officers attended 275 events in the fourth quarter of 2015 totaling 464.95 hours and made
contact with approximately 7,964 community members. Several community outreach efforts included
community member ride alongs. Of particular note is the Department's participation in the Johnson
County Explorers.
The Department also had Coffee with a Cop in October, November, and December. Locations for the
events included the Center for Worker Justice, High Ground Cafe, and Daylight Donuts. Of particular note
is the Department's community outreach efforts include the organization of a dodge -ball tournament to
raise money for the Special Olympics and attendance at a UI LGBTQ event.
COMMUNITY Presentations: Documentation of any participation in a community presentation by a
Department Member.
11 ICPD Officers participated in 22 community presentations in the fourth quarter of 2015 totaling 52.75
hours making contact with 891 community members.
Of particular note are the Department's presentations to students on Social Media/Bullying in Schools and
the Coralville Police Mini -Citizen's Police Academy,
CULTURAL COMPETENCY TRAINING: Documentation of any training by a Department Member involving
cultural competency. Cultural competency training refers to training directed at an ability to interact
effectively with people of different cultures, ethnicity, and socio-economic backgrounds.
All members of the Department attended 3.5 hours of Cultural Competency training this quarter. All
sworn officers also completed on line training for biased based policing.
All command staff, the Training/Accreditation/PIO Sergeant, and Community Outreach Assistant attended
and additional 4-8 hours of equity training sponsored by the Government Alliance on Race and Equity.
The Captain of Field Operations and Community Outreach Assistant attended 8 hours of training at the
Iowa Criminal Justice Summit.
PUBLIC EDUCATION EFFORTS ON RIGHTS: Documentation of any participation of an event, attended or
presented by a Department Member to a community member or organization where focus is on education
of one's rights.
4 ICPD Officers participated in 4 public education efforts on rights in the third quarter of 2015 totaling 4.75
hours and making contact with 206 community members.
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS: Documentation of any partnership between the Department and another
Community Organization.
ICPD worked with 60 community partners that led to attendance at 107 events by 27 officers who spent
360.35 hours with 2,546 community members.
Of note is the Department's partnership with agencies that involve elder abuse, child protection, sexual
assault, and domestic violence, bike library, homelessness, and restorative justice,
The Department also conducted 488 extra patrol efforts, 193 foot patrol efforts, and made 35 school
visits.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORA14
NDUM
Date: February 2, 2016
To: City Manager, City Council
From: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director*
Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending December 31, 2015
Introduction
Attached to this memorandum are the City's quarterly financial reports as of December 31,
2015. The quarterly report includes combined summaries of all fund balances, revenues, and
expenditures for fiscal year 2016 through the quarter end. These reports represent the mid-
point or 50% mark of the fiscal year.
For the December 31, 2015 quarterly reports, the '2016 Revised' columns for both revenues
and expenditures now include the revised budget totals from the proposed budget book that
was given to City Council in December. The revised fiscal year 2016 budget totals have not
been adopted by City Council yet in a budget amendment; however, they will be presented for
adoption along with the fiscal year 2017 budget in March 2016.
Revenue Analysis
This revenue analysis pertains to the revenue reports, Revenues by Fund and Revenues by
Type, on pages 2-4 of the attached statements. In these two reports, the actual revenues
should appear near the 50°x6 mark of budget since we are half way through the fiscal year.
There are revenue totals in the quarterly report that are inconsistent with this benchmark for
various reasons.
Some variances to the 50% benchmark exist due to accrued revenues being posted back to the
prior fiscal year. Revenues such as utility service charge revenues (46.4%) and other city tax
revenues (35.4%) differ from the benchmark for that reason. Other revenue comparisons vary
due to the majority of their charges being received at the front of the fiscal year. Revenues such
as the Risk Management Fund revenues (97.1 %) or the Information Technology Fund revenues
(57.5%) differ from the benchmark due to this.
LZ
Several other funds have actual revenues that are not near 50% of budget due to more
substantive reasons. For instance, the Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant Fund and
the Cable Television Fund revenues are at 0.0% due to the transfer of these activities to the
General Fund. The Other Shared Revenues Fund has revenues that are negative (-1.2°x6) due
to grant repayments to the State of Iowa. The Parking Fund revenue is at 26.60%, because the
sale of the Court/Linn property for $5,500,000 has not yet taken place.
Fund revenues also have variances in their totals due to the timing of the collections. Four
funds affected by the timing of grants are the Community Development Block Grant Fund
(11.9%), the HOME Fund (75.4%), the Mass Transit Fund (37.7°x6), and the Governmental
Projects Fund (12.0%). Due to the unpredictable timing of grant activity, these funds can vary
greatly from the norm during the fiscal year. The Governmental Projects Fund also presents
low revenues because the City's general obligation bond revenue of about $9.5 million will not
take place until the spring of 2016. Ultimately, each fund's budget is based off what is
anticipated for the entire year..
Overall, the City's revenues are not substantially different than projected, and total revenues are
at 43.0% of budget for all funds. The City's fiscal year 2016 budget may still need to be further
amended however, due to revenue projections that are greater than the current budgeted
amounts in the HOME Fund, the CDBG Fund, and the Housing Authority Fund. Across all
funds, we are not anticipating any significant revenue shortfalls at this time.
Expenditure Analysis
This expenditure analysis pertains to the expenditure reports, Expenditures by Fund and
Expenditures by Fund by Department on pages 5-7 of the attached statements. The analysis of
the City's expenditures for fiscal year 2016 through December is similar to the analysis for the
City's revenues. We generally expect the actual expenditure levels to be around 50% of the
budget amount at this time of year. There are expenditure levels that may vary for different
reasons including the timing of capital projects, debt payments, contract payments, and grant
activities.
Some of the funds that have actual expenditures that vary from this benchmark include the
HOME Fund (100.7%) and the Housing Authority Fund (61.9%). These two funds have
expenditure levels that are up; however, their grant revenue levels are up as well so that they
offset. Some other funds have debt related timing variances. The Debt Service Fund is one of
these funds. Its actual expenditures for the year are at 25.2% of budget due to the timing of the
general obligation bond principal payments which are not due until June 2016. Other funds
with debt related variances include the Water Fund (55.1%) and the Wastewater Fund (70.4%).
These funds have paid their bond principal payments in July 2015 which accounts for their high
actual -versus -budget percentages.
In addition to these variances, there are several other funds that are well below budget due to
the timing of project activity. These funds include the Community Development Block Grant
Fund (25.5%), the Storm Water Fund (36.4%), and the Governmental Projects Fund (10.5%). A
fund with a similar variance is the Other Shared Revenue Fund. This fund will account for the
Hazard Mitigation Buyout Grant if it is received. Since this grant has not yet been awarded,
there is no activity year-to-date and therefore, the fund has low expenditure activity. The Other
Shared Revenue Fund is unusual in that it has negative actual expenditures (-0.7%). The
fund's actual expenditures are below zero due to the return of a loan by a debtor. Another fund
With a negative percent is the Enterprise Projects Fund at -2.9%. This is due to the accounting
methodology for contract retainage.
The last two expenditure variances that I will discuss are in the Self -Supporting Municipal
Improvement District (SSMID) Fund (30.0%) and the Equipment Fund (30.5%). The SSMID
Fund's expenditures are at only 30.0% due to the timing of the payouts of the funds. The
second quarter payment was in January, and therefore, it did not fall in the December report.
The Equipment Fund is under budget primarily due to the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel being
well below the original estimates. It is unknown to what extent that this could have spillover
benefits to the other City activities. Overall, the City's expenditures are not substantially
different than projected, and total expenditures are at 33.2°x6 of budget for all funds.
Conclusion
Overall, the City's revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year are within budget or have
reasonable or explainable variances. Generally, there are no major concerns or shortfalls to
report with the City's fund balances. The next budget amendment will be presented for City
Council approval in March 2016. Any of the information presented in this report is available in
greater detail upon request.
City of Iowa City
All Fund Summary
Fiscal Year 2016
December 31, 2015
Beginning Ending Restricted, Unassigned
Fund Year -to -Date Transfers Year -to -Date Transfers Fund Committed, Fund
Balance Revenues In Expenditures Out Balance Assigned Balance
Budgetary Funds
General Fund
1C- General Fund $ 49,045,399
$
24,762,674
$ 6,165,887 $
24,301,126
$ 3,649,916
$ 52,022,919
$27,296,617
3 24,724,302
Special Revenue Funds
2100 Community Dev, Block Gras
144,414
102,690
212,410
34,693
34,893
2110 HOME
132,858
422,637
555,671
-
(175)
(175)
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
5,564,215
3,926,247
198,185
2,574,533
886,798
6,227,318
6,227,318
2300 Other Shared Revenue
(109)
(14,394)
-
(10,541)
(3,962)
(3,962)
2350 Metro Planning Org of J.C.
292,006
103,843
135,118
261,376
-
269,591
269,591
2400 Employee Benefits
1,592,570
5,652,167
-
518,440
4,694,634
2,033,663
2,033,663
2510 Peninsula Apartments
105,146
38,969
24,070
-
118,045
-
118,045
26" Tax Increment Financing
835
524,161
524,996
524,996
2820 SSMID-Downtown District
148,542
88,206
60,336
60,336
Debt Service Fund
51 Debt Service
8,444,718
7,047,007
5,900
3,837,117
9,650,508
631,837
9,025,671
Permanent Funds
6001 Perpetual Care
115,682
(41)
-
-
115,841
115,841
Enterprise Funds
71V Parking
3,713,076
2,877,392
1,625,148
110,722
4,854,598
385,583
4,469,015
715` Masa Transit
4,762,385
1,703,203
1,555,274
3,395,232
14,826
4,610,805
1,202,688
3,408,116
720• Wastewater
19,788,658
5,463,739
2,366,037
7,498,934
2,616,037
17,503,462
7,531,248
9,972,215
730• Water
12,332,979
4,197,471
1,005,358
4,746,124
1,011,783
11,777,901
3,212,721
8,565,179
7400 Refuse Collection
1,050,437
1,319,224
-
1,455,017
-
914,644
914,644
750' Landfill
24,052,855
2,791,605
364,651
1,908,893
289,103
25,013,114
21,975,692
3,037,422
760C Airport
611,028
162,483
60,965
204,651
-
629,824
100,000
529,824
7700 Storm water
1,571,993
495,115
-
289,118
121,945
1,656,046
1,658,046
780• Cable Television
1,571,324
-
1,571,324
-
79" Housing Authority
5,911,702
4,340,180
4,727,662
22,592
5,501,628
2,967,147
2,534,481
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects
12,886,726
2,800,773
3,128,107
5,962,358
321,328
12,531,919
-
12,531,919
Enterprise Projects
8,108,609
779,045
325,526
(420,803)
9,633,982
-
9,633,982
Total Budgetary Funds
$159,799,706
$
69,642,731
$15,311,006 $
63,750,740
$15,311,006
$165,691,697
$65,305,534
$100,386,163
Non43udgetary Funds
Capital Project Funds
Internal Service Projects
$ 465,596
$
881
$ 5
322,455
$
$ 144,022
$ -
$ 144,022
Internal Service Funds
810' Equipment
11,01.8,138
2,939,708
1,824,564
12,133,282
8,397,329
3,735,954
8200 Risk Management
3,298,488
1,431,087
686,801
4,042,774
-
4,042,774
830' Information Technology
2,530,336
1,203,598
874,177
2,859,757
2,859,757
8400 Central Services
656,527
96,298
127,738
-
627,087
-
627,087
8500 Health Insurance Reserves
10,620,338
3,588,541
4,012,760
10,196,119
3,969,641
6,228,478
8600 Dental insurance Reserves
142,803
181,320
177,512
146,611
-
146,811
Total Non -Budgetary Funds
$ 28,734,226
$
9,441,433
$ $
8,026,007
$
$ 30,149,652
$12,366,970
$ 17,782,682
Total All Funds
$188,533,932
$
79,084,164
$15,311,006 $
71,776,747
$15,311,006
$195,841,349
$77,672,504
$118,168,845
0
City of Iowa City
All Funds
Revenues by Fund
Fiscal Year 2016 through December 31, 2015
Internal Service Funds
2015
2016
2016
2016
810" Equipment
Actual
Budget
Revised
Actual
Variance
Percent
Budgetary Fund Revenues
1,581,498
1,476,424
1,474,136
1,431,087
(43,049)
97.1%
General Fund
1,765,501
2,092,829
2,092,829
1,203,598
(889,231)
57.5%
10" General Fund
$ 46,753,570
$ 45,535,046
$ 48,556,189
$ 24,762,674
$ (23,793,515)
51.0%
Special Revenue Funds
7,508,804
7,841,907
7,841,907
3,588,541
(4,253,368)
45.8%
2100 Community Dev Block Grant
685,596
859,962
859,962
102,690
(757,272)
11.9%
2110 HOME
533,378
560,456
560,456
422,637
(137,819)
75.4%
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
7,414,926
6,794,627
7,887,080
3,926,247
(3,960,833)
49.8%
2300 Other Shared Revenue
129,659
-
1,240,308
(14,394)
(1,254,702)
-1.2%
2310 Energy Eff & Cons Block Grant
1,168
-
-
0.0%
2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co
321,768
331,761
331,761
103,843
(227,918)
31.3%
2400 Employee Benefits
9,782,477
10,480,961
10,520,961
5,652,167
(4,868,794)
53.7%
2510 Peninsula Apartments
73,697
70,119
70,119
36,969
(33,150)
52.7%
26" Tax Increment Financing
540,244
1,020,126
1,020,125
524,161
(495,955)
51.4%
2820 SSMID-Downtown District
296,141
294,092
294,092
148,542
(145,550)
50.5%
Debt Service Fund
5""" Debt Service
'.3,651,221
13,230,050
13,230,050
7,047,007
(6,183,043)
53.3%
Permanent Funds
6001 Perpetual Care
432
96
96
(41)
(137)
-42.3%
Enterprise Funds
710` Parking
5,619,653
5,328,876
10,828,876
2,877,392
(7,951,484)
26.6%
715' Mass Transit
4,419,840
4,206,868
4,523,468
1,703,203
(2,820,265)
37.7%
720` Wastewater
12,592,429
12,965,154
13,023,274
5,463,739
(7,559,535)
42.0%
730" Water
8,753,178
9,412,456
9,412,456
4,197,471
(5,214,985)
44.6%
7400 Refuse Collection
3,182,296
3,057,022
3,057,022
1,319,224
(1,737,798)
43.2%
750' Landfill
6,037,167
5,833,264
5,833,264
2,791,605
(3,041,659)
47.9%
7600 Airport
1,281,691
324,100
324,100
162,483
(161,617)
50.1%
7700 Storm water
1,374,913
1,140,978
1,140,978
495,115
(545,863)
43.4%
780' Cable Television
754,999
-
-
0.0%
79" Housing Authority
8,091,682
8,055,240
8,156,555
4,340,180
(3,816,375)
53.2%
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects
17,267,580
19,661,327
23,265,528
2,800,773
(20,464,755)
12.0%
Enterprise Projects
3,414,404
762,258
1,446,725
779,045
(667,680)
53.8%
Total Budgetary Revenues
$ 153,074,089
$ 149,924,639
$ 165,583,446
$ 69,642,731
$ (95,940,715)
42.1%
Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues
Capital Project Funds
Internal Service Projects
$ 100,760
$ 100,000
$
$ 881
$ 881
0.0%
Internal Service Funds
810" Equipment
6,343,244
6,446,145
6,448,145
2,939,708
(3,506,437)
45.6%
8200 Risk Management
1,581,498
1,476,424
1,474,136
1,431,087
(43,049)
97.1%
830' Information, Technology
1,765,501
2,092,829
2,092,829
1,203,598
(889,231)
57.5%
8400 Central Services
251,501
256,208
256,208
96,298
(159,910)
37.6%
8500 Health Insurance Reserves
7,508,804
7,841,907
7,841,907
3,588,541
(4,253,368)
45.8%
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves
362,316
377,699
377,699
4.81,320
(196,379)
48.0%
Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures
$ 17,913,624
$ 18,591,211
$ 18,488,924
$ 9,441,433
$ (9,048,372)
51.1%
Total Revenues - All Funds
$ 170,987,713
$ 168,515,850
$ 184,072,370
$ 79,084,164
$ (104,989,087)
43.0%
`a
City of Iowa City
All Funds
Revenues by Type
Fiscal Year 2016 through December 31, 2016
3
2015
2016
2016
2016
Actual
Budget
Revised
Actual
Variance Percent
Budaetary Fund Revenues
Property Taxes
$ 51,492,986 $
52,033,986 $
52,033,986 $
27,242,807
$ (24,791,179)
52.4%
Delinquent Property Taxes
3,366
-
61
61
0.0%
TIF Revenues
640,244
1,020,126
1,020,126
524,161
(495,965)
51.4%
Other City Taxes
2,877,888
2,786,289
2,786,289
985,052
(1,801,237)
35.4%
General Use Permits
103,958
87,011
87,011
8,364
(78,647)
9.6%
Food & Liquor Licenses
120,434
99,912
99,912
45,154
(54,758)
45.2%
Professional License
18,704
16,610
16,610
8,370
(8,240)
50.4%
Franchise Fees
750,167
727,698
727,698
205,298
(522,400)
28.2%
Construction Permits & Insp Fees
1,537,002
1,280,144
1,280,144
842,911
(437,233)
65.8%
Misc Lic & Permlis
38,116
37,960
37,960
19,644
(18,316)
51.7%
Licenses, Permits, & Fees
2,568,380
2,249,335
2,249,335
1,129,740
(1,119,595)
50.2%
Fed Intergovemment Revenue
13,160,509
16,408,042
23,408,530
5,819,758
(17,588,762)
24.9%
Property Tax Credits
1,135,396
2,152,703
2,152,703
1,049,785
(1,102,918)
48.8%
Road Use Tax
7,230,663
6,744,663
7,837,116
3,869,164
(3,967,952)
49.4%
State 28E Agreements
1,753,673
1,684,894
1,820,083
1,806,870
(13,213)
99.3%
Operating Grants
84,126
90,067
90,067
81,847
(8,220)
90.9%
Disaster Assistance
61,259
-
86,927
14,652
(72,275)
16.9%
Other State Grants
10,543,117
2,237,352
3,700,058
2,643,039
(1,057,019)
71.4%
Local 28E Agreements
989,787
980,701
980,701
566,454
(414,247)
57.8%
Intergovernmental
34,958,530
30,296,422
40,076,185
15,851,580
(24,224,605)
39.6%
Building & Development
694,796
358,082
358,082
324,730
(33,352)
90.7%
Police Services
226,621
31,335
31,335
71,770
40,435
229.0%
Ar.imal Care Services
9,945
10,000
10,000
5,695
(4,306)
56.9%
Fiae Servloes
11,404
7,500
7,500
5,590
(1,910)
74.5%
Transit Fees
1,448,151
1,385,691
1,385,691
574,804
(810,887)
41.5%
Culture & Recreation
741,912
805,961
805,961
300,452
(505,509)
37.3%
Library Charges
39
-
15
15
0.0%
Misc Charges For Services
67,073
52,236
52,236
41,893
(10,343)
80.2%
Water Charges
8,531,499
9,271,112
9,271,112
4,141,806
(5,129,306)
44.7%
Wastewater Charges
12,180,738
12,555.993
12,555,993
5,338,993
(7,217,000)
42.5%
Refuse Charges
3,925,946
3,446,256
3,446,258
1,500,904
(1,945,352)
43.6%
Landfill Charges
5,C43,246
5,269,970
5,269,970
2,526,209
(2,743,762)
47.9%
Storm water Charges
1,147,390
1,140,000
1,140,000
495,143
(644,857)
43.4%
Parking Charges
5,972,285
5 751,956
5,751,956
3,255,330
(2,496,626)
56.6%
Charges For Fees And Services
40,001,045
40,086,092
40,086,092
18,583,333
(21,532,759)
46.4%
Code Enforcement
322,537
415,641
415,841
113,137
(302,704)
27.2%
Parking Fines
614,363
512,997
512,997
257,108
(255,889)
50.1%
Library Fines & Fees
166,785
175,666
175,666
73,415
(102,251)
41.8%
Contributions & Donations
547,781
413,318
1,121,279
137,835
(983,444)
12.3%
Printed Materials
49,104
43,136
43,136
22,711
(20,425)
52.7%
Animal Adoption
12,912
11,060
11,060
9,020
(2,040)
81.6%
MlscMerchandise
66,801
59,036
59,036
43,148
(15,888)
73.1%
Intra -City Charges
2,760,448
2,766,196
3,237,534
1,382,435
(1,855,099)
42,7%
Other Mise Revenue
930,739
634,418
863,511
308,000
(555,511)
35.7%
Special Assessments
604
979
979
478
(501)
48.8%
Miscellaneous
$ 5,472,074
$ 5,032,647
$ 6,441,039
$ 2,347,287
$ (4,093,752)
36.4%
3
City of Iowa City
All Funds
Revenues by Type
Fiscal Year 2016 through December 31, 2015
Debt Sales
2016
2016
2016
2018
(9,476,888)
0.0%
Actual
Budget
Revised
Actual
Variance
Percent
Interest Revenues
$ 1,139,734
$ 742,838
$ 742,838 $
157,208
$ (585,630)
21.2%
Rents
1,291,672
1,192,640
1,192,640
606,430
(586,210)
60.8%
Royafties & Commisslons
105,454
80,634
80,634
59,062
(21,572)
73.2%
Use Of Money And Property
2,536,860
2,016,112
2,016,112
822,700
(1,193,412)
40.8%
Debt Sales
7,866,773
12,982,088
9,476,888
(9,476,888)
0.0%
Sale Of Assets
2,316,495
494,150
8,469,982
1,567,436
(6,902,546)
18.5%
Loans
2,339,448
927,412
927,412
588,575
(338,837)
63.5%
Other Financial Sources
12,522,716
14,4.03,630
18,874,282
2,156,011
(16,718,271)
11.4%
Total Budgetary Revenues
$ 153,074,089
$149,924,639
$ 165,583,446
$
69,642,731
$ (95,940,715)
42.1%
Non-Budaetary Fund Revenues
Capital Project Funds
$ 100,760
$ 100,000
$ -
$
881
$ 881
0.0%
Internal Service Funds
17,812,864
18,491,211
18,488,924
9,440,552
(9,048,372)
51.1%
Total Non -Budgetary Revenues
$ 17,913624
$ 18,591,211
$ 18,488,924
$
9,441,433
$ (9,047,491)
51.1%
Total Revenues - All Funds
$ 170,987,713
$168,515,850
$ 184,072,370
$
79,084,164
$ (104,988,206)
43.0%
4
City of Iowa City
All Funds
Expenditures by Fund
Fiscal Year 2016 through December 31, 2015
Budgetary Fund Expenditures
General Fund
10"* Geners! Fund
Special Revenue Funds
2100 Community Dev Block Grant
2110 HOME
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
2300 Other Shared Revenue
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
72V Wastewater
730* Water
7d00 Refuse Collection
750* Landfill
7600 Airport
7700 Storm water
780* Cable Television
79" Housing Authority
Capital Project Funds
Govemmental Projects
Enterprise Projects
Total Budgetary Expenditures
Non-Budaetary Funds Expenditures
Capital Project Funds
Internal Service Projects
Internal Service Funds
810* Equipment
8200 Risk Management
830* Information Technology
8400 Central Services
8500 Health Insurance Reserves
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves
Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures
Total Expenditures - All Funds
2015 2016 2016 2016
Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent
$ 49,320,669
$ 50,327,585
$ 54,115,608
$ 24,301,126 $
29,814,482
44.9%
535,735
753,955
832,605
212,410
620,195
25.5%
387,664
551,612
551,612
555,671
(4,059)
100.7%
5,563,553
5,840,581
5,919,223
2,574,533
3,344,690
43.5%
129,831
-
1,459,187
(10,541)
1,469,728
-0.7%
541,601
610,325
610,325
261,376
348,949
42.8%
976,606
951,539
1,091,539
516,440
575,099
47.3%
59,957
48,206
48,206
24,070
24,138
49.9%
18,670
42,500
42,500
-
42,500
0.0%
296,141
294,092
294,092
88,206
205,886
30.0%
17,208,781
13,207,838
1.5,210,235
3,837,117
11,373,118
25.2%
0.0%
11,228,816
3,270,015
3,395,921
1,625,148
1,770,773
47.9%
6,556,267
6,879,486
7,250,374
3,395,232
3,855,142
46.8%
10,384,032
10,395,608
10,558,723
7,498,934
3,159,789
70.4%
7,646,828
8,423,501
8,606,087
4,746,124
3,859,963
55.1%
2,922,269
3,088,438
2,975,446
1,455,017
1,520,429
48.9%
4,677,884
4,437,980
4,699,796
1,906,893
2,792,903
40.6%
365,460
346,072
346,072
204,651
141,421
59.1%
1,095,239
786,064
793,193
289,118
504,075
38.4%
687,397
-
-
0.0%
7,730,524
7,537,903
7,639,218
4,727,662
2,911,556
61.9%
24,859,198 36,301,340 56,997,763 5,962,358 51,035,405
6,485,716 3,892,758 14,450,028 (420,803) (14,029,225)
$ 159,678,838 $ 157,987,398 $ 197,987,753 $ 63,750,740 $ 105,336,957
10.5%
-2.9%
32.2%
$ 62,526 $ 100,000 $ 465,596 $ 322,455 143,141 69.3%
5,194,488
5,990,748
5,990,748
1,824,564
4,166,184
30.5%
1,435,706
1,329,373
1,329,373
686,801
642,572
51.7%
1,786,707
2,018,404
2,118,404
874,177
1,244,227
41.3%
308,846
308,458
315,258
127,738
'.87,520
40.5%
7,285,127
7,880,283
7,880,283
4,012,760
31867,523
50.9%
354,318
359,275
359,275
177,512
181,763
49.4%
$ 16,427,718
$ 17,986,541
$ 18,458,937
$ 8,026,007
$ 10,432,930
43.5%
$ 176,106,556
$ 175,973,939
$ 216,446,690
$ 71,776,747
$ 115,769,887
33.2%
5
City of Iowa City
All Funds
Expenditures by Fund by Department
Fiscal Year 2016 through December 31, 2015
6
2018
2016
2016
2016
Actual
Budget
Revised
Actual
Variance
Percent
Budcetary Funds Expenditures
General Fund
10" General Fund
City Council
$ 97,273
$ 119,412
$ 121,412
$ 52,299
$ 69,113
43.1%
City Clerk
518,724
576,888
576,888
259,840
317,048
45.0%
City Attorney
690,901
712,939
712,939
325,774
387,165
45.7%
City Manager
1,805,223
2,260,704
2,339,031
1,075,620
1,263,411
46.0%
Finance
3,751,801
4;097,972
4,057,257
2,185,686
1,871,571
53.9%
Police
12,389,622
12,892,439
13,015,803
5,779,522
7,236,281
44.4%
Fire
7,598,771
7,754,662
7,795,901
3,625,121
4,17D,780
46.5%
Parks & Recreation
7,628,887
8,147,163
8,192,788
3,489,470
4,703,318
42.6%
Library
5,908,777
6,150,211
6,280,211
2,964,719
3,315,492
47.2%
Senior Center
634,813
898,419
937,254
375,653
561,401
40.1%
Neighborhood & Development Services
6,958,307
5,326,434
8,333,300
3,676,614
4,656,686
44.1%
Public Works
1 137,570
1,390,342
1,752,824
490,607
1,262,217
28.0%
Total General Fund
_
^ 49,320,669
50,327,585
54,115,608
24,301,126
29,814,482
44.9%
Special Revenue Funds
210C Community Dev Block Grant
Neighborhood & Deve!opment Services
535,735
753,955
832,605
212,410
620,195
25.5%
2110 HOME
Neighborhood & Deveiopment Services
387,664
551,612
551,612
555,67:
(4,059)
100.7%
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
Public Works
5,563,553
5,840,581
5,919,223
2,574,533
3,344,690
43.5%
2300 Other Shared Revenue
Neighborhood & Development Services
129,831
1,459,187
(10,541)
1,469,728
-0.7%
2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co
Neighborhood & Development Services
541,601
610,325
610,325
261,376
348,949
42.8%
2400 Employee Benefits
Finance
976,606
951,539
1,091,539
516,440
575,099
47.3%
2510 Peninsula Apartments
Neighborhood & Development Services
59,957
48,206
48,206
24,070
24,136
49.9%
26- Tax Increment Financing
Neighborhood & Development Services
18,670
42,500
42,500
-
42,500
0.0%
2820 SSMID-Downtown District
Neighborhood & Development Services
296,141
294,092
294,092
88,206
205,886
30.0%
Total Special Revenue Funds
8,509,758
9,092,810
10,849,289
4,222,165
6,627,124
38.9%
Debt Service Fund
5'•' Debt Service
Finance
17,208,781
13,207,838
15,210,235
3,837,117
11,373,118
25.2%
Total Debt Service Fund
17,208,781
13,207,838
15,210,235
3,837,117
11,373,118
25.2%
Permanent Fund
6001 Perpetual Care
Parks & Recreation
-
-
-
0.0%
Total Permanent Fund
$ -
$
$ •
$
$ -
0.0%
6
City of Iowa City
All Funds
Expenditures by Fund by Department
Fiscal Year 2016 through December 31, 2015
2015 2016 2098 2016
Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent
Enterprise Funds
710` Parking
Transportation & Resource Managemen
$ 11,228,816
$ 3,270,015
$ 3,395,921
$
1,625,148
$ 1,770,773
47.9%
715' Mass Transit
Transportation & Resource Managemen.
6,556,267
6,879,486
7,250,374
3,395,232
3,855,142
46.8%
720' Wastewater
Public Works
10,384,032
10,395,608
10,658,723
7,498,934
3,159,789
70.4%
730" Water
Public Works
7,646,828
8,423,501
8,606,087
4,746,124
3,859,963
55.1%
7400 Refuse Collection
Transportation. & Resource Managemen
2,922,269
3,088,438
2,975,446
1,455,017
1,520,429
48.9%
750' Landfill
Transportation & Resource Managemen
4,677,884
4,437,980
4,699,796
1,906,893
2,792,903
40.6%
7600 Airport
Airport Operations
365,460
346,072
346,072
204,651
141,421
59.1%
7700 Storm water
PubllcWorks
1,095,239
786,064
793,193
289,118
504,075
38.4%
780' Cable Television
City Manager
687,397
-
-
-
0.0%
79" Housing Authorty
Neighborhood & Development Services
7,730,524
7 537,903
7,639,218
4,727,662
2,911,556
61.9%
Total Enterprise Funds
53,294,716
45,165,067
46,364,830
25,848,778
20,516,052
55.8%
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects
24,859,198
36,301,340
56,997,763
5,962,358
51,035,405
10.5%
Enterprise Projects
6,465,716
3,892,758
14,450,028
420,803)
14,870,831
-2.9%
Total Capital Project Funds
31,344,914
40,194,098
71,447,791
5,541,555
65,906,236
7.8%
Total Budgetary Expenditures
$ 159,678,838
$ 157,987,398
$ 197,987,753
$
63,750,740
$ 134,237,013
32.2%
Non-Budoetary Funds Expenditures
Capital Project Funds
Internal Service Projects
$ 62,526
$ 100,000
$ 455,596
$
322,455
$ 143,141
69.3%
Total Capital Project Funds
62,526
100,000
465,596
322,455
143,141
69.3%
Intemal service Funds
810' Equipment
Public Works
5,194,488
5,990,748
5,990,748
1,824,584
4,166,184
30.5%
8200 Risk Management
Finance
1,435,706
1,329,373
1,329,373
666,801
642,572
51.7%
830' Information Technology
Finance
1,786,707
2,018,404
2,118,404
874,177
1,244,227
41.3%
8400 Central Services
Finance
308,646
308,458
315,258
127,738
187,520
40.5%
8500 Health. Insurance Reserves
Finance
7,285,127
7,880,283
7,880,283
4,012,760
3,867,523
50.9%
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves
Finance
354,318
359,275
359,275
177,512
181,763
49.4%
Total Internal Service Funds
16,365,192
17,886,541
17,993,341
7,703,552
10,289,789
42.8%
Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures
$ 16,427,718
$ 17,986,541
$ 18,458,937
$
8,026,007
$ 10,432,930
43.5°x6
Total Expenditures -All Funds
$ 176,106,556
$ 175,973,939
$ 216,446,690
$
71,776,747
$ 144,669,943
33.2%
7
O-
/� �N N
T� J
=OOC O O
g G da �z a`=� 2
o ° 3
r >i adox�� 3on� c
oL�o°�T„�...r1c
!.�. Z J O ^ n. N W vi � � f^D
f d d o :Kv U4 r-, ro W+
0 p H -V � c,
f 3 CD
CD =r
d - ^ rc
l<
S
N _
Oa W
eb
Z
Lq
�w W 2
O W �O
o
'�
M.
oQ
O
cr
V'
w
a o Ul
3fbnodrwe%
v
a p
of D_,
kA
�
o
S
'<
`�C
^ is
nPm*nz
E
-i
Z=
p m
^
F
G
3fbnodrwe%
n
rD
S
f^D
^ is
op
The Black History Living Museum:
A Moment In Time
Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center
Saturday, Feb. 20, 2016
Museum Opens: 5:30p
Participates Live: 6:00-8:OOp
FREE ADMISSION
At the museum, youth will pose as sculptures of African American figures.
When a spectator rings the bell in front of the sculpture, the figure will tell the audience
members about their character's life or reenact a scene from their character's life.
Donations are welcome and will go toward our performing arts academy
\ THE
ENGLERT
�' � THEATRE
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 21, 2016 — 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, Michelle Bacon Curry, Sydny Conger, Bob Lamkins,
Jim Jacobson, Harry Olmstead, Matthew Peirce, Dorothy Persson,
Emily Seiple
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Kris Ackerson, Marcia Bollinger, Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Rackis
OTHERS PRESENT: Dee Dixon, Tracy Achenbach, Stu Mullins, Ron Berg, Becci
Reedus, Karen DeGroot, Scott Hansen, Mark Sertterh
By a vote of 9-0 the Commission recommends the City Council approve the following allocations
for FY17 Aid to Agencies funding.
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 21, 2016
Page 2 of 12
(Minimum allocation was $15,000)
By a vote of 9-0 the Commission recommends City Council approve the amendments to the Iowa
City Housing Authority's Admissions and Continued Occupancy (ACOP) Plan to require that all
public housing units are smoke free.
By a vote of 5-4 (Bacon Curry, Byler, Lamkins, and Persson dissenting) the Commission
recommends City Council approve inclusion of the Housing Choice Vouchers as a protected
class under source of income.
By a vote of 9-0 the Commission recommends City Council approve the proposed FY2016
Annual Action Plan Amendment #3.
Byler called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 21, 2016
Page 3 of 12
APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 19. 2015 MINUTES:
Persson moved to approve the minutes of November 19, 2015.
Seiple seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and motion passed 7-0 (Lamkins & Peirce not present for vote).
PUBL
None.
STAFF/COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Ackerson introduced Olmstead, a new commissioner. Olmstead had previously served on the
Human Rights Commission.
Ackerson mentioned they received 11 applications for CBDG/HOME funding. Ackerson stated
the applications will be forwarded to Commission members the next day.
Lamkins and Peirce arrived at meeting.
Hightshoe stated that back in the 1990's there was a demonstration project for affordable
housing. The City provided $30,000 in down payment assistance to an eligible family to
purchase a home at 1109 5`h Avenue. The $30,000 was to be repaid upon sale of the property.
The house was in danger of foreclosure. The City purchased the home from the owner to
prevent it from going into foreclosure. The City will now rehab the home and sell it for a
homebuyer under 80% of median income.
Hightshoe stated the CDBG Economic Development Fund, in existence since 2003, is now out of
funds. The fund provided low or no interest loans to eligible businesses providing employment
to low -moderate income persons. The Council has a $50,000 set-aside for economic
development. The Council Economic Development Committee will determine if additional funds
will be used for this purpose in FY17. If yes, funds will be available in July.
Ackerson noted Congress approved the bill authorizing CDBG and HOME funding at
approximately the same level as last year. Unfortunately, more communities are eligible for the
funds. Iowa City may be allocated less money as HUD must split the funds amongst more cities.
DISCUSS FY2017 AID TO AGENCIES FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL — APPLICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE AT
www.icgov.org/actionplan:
Byler noted that Ackerson compiled the Commissioner's recommendations showing the median
and the average. He mentioned that generally for Aid to Agencies they do not call each agency
up unless someone on the Commission has specific questions. Byler noted that if anyone from
the agencies wishes to address the Commission they are welcome to. He mentioned the
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 21, 2016
Page 4 of 12
Commission appreciates the time that went into the applications and wishes they could fully
award them all.
Byler suggested the Commission go through the recommendations based on majority
agreement first. Persson suggested that the median shows only a $1,000 difference in overall
allocations, so perhaps approve the median and then figure out how to allocate the additional
$1,000.
Byler suggested discussing the projects first and then arriving at a consensus based on the
median numbers. Byler noted that a minimum $15,000 allocation is driving some of the
decisions. The Commission used to fund less than $5,000, but decided to raise the minimum to
make a greater impact with the funds. Bacon Curry noted that in one application it was noted
how the raising of the minimum wage was affecting agencies but felt it important to support the
other initiatives that are important.
Agencies that were only chosen for funding by one Commissioner were discussed. Byler noted
that Big Brothers Big Sisters to him is a youth organization which is listed as a medium priority,
but it shows on the list as a mental health/high priority.
Scott Hansen, Big Brothers Big Sisters, stated they are a mentoring organization and provide
services in many different ways. They work very closely with child psych at UIHC for mental
health services. He did note that mental health services is not their primary focus, but have
programs that provide mental health services.
Persson noted she and her husband were a couples match for Big Brother Big Sisters for ten
years for a young person with disabilities.
Hightshoe asked if they spent more than $24,000 for mental health services. Hansen stated yes.
Hightshoe noted that whenever there is an agency with a medium priority and they are applying
for a specific program that is a high priority, it can be funded with conditions. In the City's
agreement only the activities associated with the high priority will be funded. So in this case if
the City awarded money to Big Brother Big Sisters, the $24,000 would need to be targeted to
mental health services.
Byler also commented on Elder Services. They are a medium priority and were allocated a
significant amount less than in prior years. From his understanding the Council was then
petitioned directly and the Council came up with additional funds to increase their allocation for
the year. Byler noted that was unusual and Council would probably not be able to keep doing
this as there is just not enough extra money out there. He did note all applicants are very
important to the community.
Bacon Curry noted that other agencies were clearer about what the funds would be used for.
She wasn't sure if it was going to be spread out amongst the whole agency or if specific
programs were being targeted.
Byler asked if any other Commissioners wanted to discuss specific applications. Byler then
asked if any of the applicants in the audience wanted to address the Commission to comment on
their applications. No one came forward.
Persson noted that if they go with the median allocation model, there is an additional $1,000 to
allocate. She suggested those additional funds go to Prelude Behavioral Services. Olmstead
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 21, 2016
Page 5 of 12
suggested the additional funds go to the Free Lunch Program because it is hard for that program
to get resources financially, and the median is under the requested amount. Conger agreed,
noting that it would be nice to see the funds to go an agency that does not collect fees for
services. Prelude has clients that pay or they can bill insurers for services whereas Free Lunch
is strictly donation funded. Lamkins agreed on giving the Free Lunch Program the additional
funds. Bacon Curry also agreed, noting Free Lunch asked for $18,000. Persson noted no
objection as well.
Byler asked if there was someone from Domestic Violence Intervention Program. He had a
question on the budget. In the last fiscal year there was a $140,000 increase in salaries and
there was a $300,000 federal grant and wanted more information on those line items.
Dee Dixon, DVIP, replied stating that they began to serve more areas/counties as the State of
Iowa closed programs in southeast Iowa. In their service area they lost more than half the
available beds when shelters closed.
Olmstead moved that the Commission recommend to the City Council the following
allocations for FY17 Aid to Agencies funding.
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 21, 2016
Page 6 of 12
Conger seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 9-0.
CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING PROPOSED
SMOKE FREE POLICY IN PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS:
Rackis gave an overview of the proposed policy, stating it would be mandatory for public housing
agencies to go smoke free in public housing units. Even though this proposal is still in the public
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 21, 2016
Page 7 of 12
comment period, Rackis feels it will happen and wants to be prepared. He noted it was part of
an evolution of participation in the STAR certification for the City, which is a way for communities
to evaluate themselves. It is very a detailed certification and the smoke free policy was part of
that. The only issue the City has with the HUD ruling is the 25 foot barrier required from the
building. This makes sense with multi -family properties with common areas. The City currently
only has two multi -family units and they are already smoke free. The City proposes instead of a
25 foot barrier to just designate the right-of-way as the smoking area. The City will not actively
enforce this as no practical way to do so, but it will respond to complaints. Rackis noted that on
the HUD website the public comments are overwhelmingly in favor of the smoking ban, it is
mostly those living in the units that are smokers who are objecting.
Conger asked what the enforcement would be if a complaint was received. Rackis said it would
be treated as a violation of the lease. He noted that legal questioned if a magistrate in Johnson
County would allow the eviction of a low-income family from public housing due to smoking in the
units. He said across the country there have been communities that have adopted such policies
and have been able to enforce them through the court system. If a complaint was received,
Rackis said the first step is to issue a '7 day notice to cure" which means the occupant has 7
days to correct the issue (to quit smoking in the unit). The notice will also state if it happens
again within 6 months the City could pursue an eviction. He also noted that HUD does make
accommodations for tenants with disabilities so the City would honor those as well.
Olmstead asked how many units city-wide would be affected by this policy. Rackis said there
are 81 units. Olmstead asked if this policy also pertains if the tenant has a guest over. Rackis
said yes, the guest must also go outside to the public right-of-way to smoke.
Persson asked if the City goes in on a regular basis to paint or repair the units, especially those
who have been tenants for multiple years. Rackis said those type of maintenance issues are
usually handled when there is unit turnover, however it can be done at the tenant's request if
they are long-term tenants. There is an annual inspection of every unit.
Conger moved to recommend approval of the amendments to the Iowa City Housing
Authority's Admissions and Continued Occupancy (ACOP) Plan to require that all public
housing units are smoke free.
Peirce seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 9-0.
CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING INCLUSION OF
HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS AS A PROTECTED CLASS UNDER SOURCE OF
INCOME:
Rackis noted this is not a Housing Authority recommendation but rather from the Human Rights
Commission. Once the Human Right Commission made their recommendation the Housing
Authority met with the City's Equity Director and other staff members to discuss the issue. City
staff also reached out to the greater Iowa City apartment owners association and got their input.
Rackis said the Human Rights Commission made their recommendation in February and met
with the apartment owners in July.
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 21, 2016
Page 8 of 12
Rackis explained this proposal. In the Human Rights Ordinance source of income is included as
a protection; one cannot discriminate on the basis of someone's source of income. The
definition included sources like Family Investment Program, food stamps, etc., but the Housing
Choice Voucher (Section 8) was not part of the definition of source of income. It is illegal for a
landlord to discriminate on the basis of source of income. This proposal adds Housing Choice
Voucher to the definition so it would also be illegal to discriminate against someone just due to
their voucher status.
Bacon Curry noted that is a big change, noting that a Housing Choice Voucher is not a source of
income for a tenant; it is a source of income for a landlord. A landlord does not just have to take
a specific source of payment when they accept a Housing Choice Voucher they have to accept
an addendum to their lease that supersedes anything that is in their own lease and has an
additional inspection and reporting requirements.
Rackis noted the tendency addendum does not change their lease, the HAP contract only states
that if the HAP contract is cancelled it cancels the lease. Additionally there are no reporting
requirements for the landlord.
Bacon Curry noted that when a private landlord that is not accepting vouchers has some sort of
violations to their lease they handle it. If they do accept vouchers they are required to report
violations to the Housing Authority and are not allowed to charge late fees if the tenant is not
current.
Rackis noted that in terms of lease violations, landlords are not required to report lease violations
to the Housing Authority, it is just preferred that they do. If someone is late on their rent, if the
landlord provides the City with that notice, the City can assist the landlord and communicate with
the tenant.
Bacon Curry noted the Housing Choice Voucher program is a great program, but it should not be
a protected class because the money goes to the landlord, not the tenant. The City is
subsidizing the landlord, not the tenants. Concern was also expressed that many landlords will
not want increased City interference or regulations about how they select their tenants.
Hightshoe noted the intent of this proposal is to provide the same opportunity for all tenants and
use the same method to screen all tenants, regardless of a tenant's income/rent source.
Voucher holders do not need to be prioritized and can be denied based on landlord criteria, as
long as the same criteria applies to everyone, such as bad landlord references, history of
eviction, damage to unit, etc. If there are multiple tenant applications, the landlord can make an
appropriate selection based on their screening method such as date of application, can
immediately rent the unit, etc. if all other criteria (the landlord's screening criteria) are met.
Jacobsen noted that this could be listed as its own separate protected class, a housing subsidy,
rather than income protected class. This just simplifies the process, but it is just semantics.
Jacobson agrees with Rackis that this is an issue of discrimination and whatever the community
can do to limit the amount of discrimination it is encumbered upon them to do so. Having this
policy in place does not force landlords to rent to voucher holders, but it will give them pause to
have to consider their decisions.
Byler asked how a landlord should approach a prospective tenant who has a housing voucher,
but the landlord's rents are significantly higher than the housing voucher limits or tenant's
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 21, 2016
Page 9 of 12
income. It seems unfair to have the prospective tenant fill out and pay and application fee just to
learn they cannot move into the unit. Rackis said the prospective tenant should communicate
with their case worker prior to filling out an application and paying a fee to make sure they meet
the all the guidelines for the unit they are applying for.
Lamkins was concerned that landlords would have to meet with their attorney to review
screening criteria to make sure they are not sued. They will be concerned if they will be called
racist or open themselves to lawsuits. Landlords will inform all applicants they can apply as they
will be concerned about a suit, even when they know they will not lower rent based on voucher
eligibility. He was also concerned if some landlords would raise their rents and or increase
screening criteria that may impact all low income tenants.
Concern was noted that with such a high voucher utilization rate, why it is needed. Are we trying
to fix a problem that doesn't exist? Hightshoe noted this proposal will not impact our voucher
utilization rate. It is intended to increase opportunity of tenants with a voucher to access units in
different neighborhoods that they can afford.
Olmstead suggested tabling this item until the next meeting and inviting Stephanie Bowers from
the Human Rights office and one of the City Attorneys to answer some of the questions and
concerns. Byler said the issue is this item is going to City Council at the February 2 meeting.
Olmstead moved that the Commission recommend to City Council to approve inclusion of
the Housing Choice Vouchers as a protected class under source of income.
Jacobsen seconded the motion.
Seiple said that when she has called on behalf of friends who were nervous about contacting
landlords because they have a voucher, the reason landlords gave for not accepting them had
nothing to do with inspections, it was more derogatory. There is a perception problem of who
needs a voucher.
Conger noted this is a change to an ordinance; it can be changed again in the future if Council
hears complaints or that it is not working property. She sees this as a value added and in line
with CITY STEPS.
Peirce asked what the percentage of people currently being turned away from rental units
because they have Housing Vouchers is. If it is only 1 % there shouldn't be a protective class to
protect such a small class. Rackis did not recall the numbers but they did report to HUD recently
on voucher utilization and the fact was the City had to increase the voucher eligibility days from
120 to find a unit to 365. Either people found a home with their voucher in the first 60 days or
otherwise it was 150 to 180 days.
Byler noted he will be voting no on this motion for the reason of not having addressed the
question of landlords who are close to or above fair market rents and what they tell applicants.
Rackis said fair market rents are not what determine if the voucher can be used; it is the income
of the applicant. This ordinance will not compel landlords to change their rents.
Hightshoe stated a great deal of education will need to be done as there are many incorrect
assumptions about the voucher program. Staff will work to improve understanding of the
voucher program and the people who utilize them.
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 21, 2016
Page 10 of 12
Persson asked about abstaining from the vote as she was not ready to make a decision.
Hightshoe stated the preference is that if a member does not have a conflict, they vote yes or no.
If a member feels they don't have enough information to make a decision, they should vote no.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-4 (Bacon Curry, Byler, Lamkins, and Persson
dissenting).
CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING PROPOSED FY2016
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT #3:
Ackerson explained that in the current Action Plan there is a $75,000 streetscape project in
census tract 18 which is south of Highway 6 and east of Sycamore Street. $50,000 is for curb
ramps for accessibility and $25,000 for additional signage in the neighborhood. The signage
project will now be funded with other sources as determined not appropriate with CDBG funds.
Due to the nature of CDBG and the low income requirements; signage on major arterials is not
eligible as the traffic is not necessarily local traffic.
Since CDBG funds will not be used for the signage, there is a request to use the funds for
improvements at the Highland Park in the Lucas Farms neighborhood. The neighborhood has
been very involved in advocating and assisting with park improvements. These funds will help
finish the improvements requested by the neighborhood.
Jacobsen moved to recommend to City Council the proposed FY2016 Annual Action Plan
Amendment #3.
Olmstead seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 9-0.
CONSIDER FORMING SUB -COMMITTEE TO CELEBRATE NATIONAL COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT WEEK, MARCH 28 -APRIL 2:
Byler asked if anyone was interested. Hightshoe explained that cities typically promote the
impact of the CDBG/HOME programs annually. The City used to have a Community
Development Celebration in years past, but hasn't had one in two -three years. Hightshoe asked
if a subcommittee wanted to be formed to consider what type of activities, if any, the City would
like to pursue for this week.
Due to time constraints and other personal obligations there was not an interest on the
Commission to form a sub -committee. Hightshoe stated their intern may be able to organize a
couple smaller activities. Staff would keep them informed.
OVERVIEW OF HOUSING PRO FORMA TEMPLATE:
Ackerson just wanted to invite any of the Commissioners who are interested in an overview of
the Pro Formas to contact him and he will schedule a time.
ADJOURNMENT:
Olmstead moved to adjourn.
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 21, 2016
Page 11 of 12
Persson seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and motion carried 9-0.
z
w
a. w
00
>ce
LLI w
GV
�Z
Z 0
�Z
w
0Q
oz
Q N
z
N �
�0
0 V
co
X
X
X
x
X
X
x
X
x
i
i
N
�
w
O
x
X
X
x
i
i
X
X
X
r
r
LO
w
w
W
N
X
X
x
X
X
O
O
O
'
0
W)
X
x
o
X
X
x
x
x
o
W)
o
w
W
x
x
x
X
O
O
co
LLI
X
x
x
X
X
C4
X
X
X
X
X
O
M
LO
Irl
o)
X
x
x
x
x
x
N
a
o
r-
0o
1-
(0
Co
00
c4
00
0o
�
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
uj
0)
0)
0)
0)
a)
a7
CF)
0)
0)
W
0)
H
W
J
J
LU
2
w
Z
�_
Q
=
F~—
W
Lu
D
0
=
O
J
Y
C9
N
Q
w
Q
v
a
0
C
z
0
Z
w
0
ui
w
O
0
N
w
0
Z
Y
U
N
J
0
v
oc
a
N
X
w
c c c
-0-0 cu
CL Q Q >
II II II II
m w
YXOO f