Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-04-21 Info Packet
i CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 21, 2016 IPI Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP2 Agenda APRIL 25 JOINT MEETING MISCELLANEOUS IP3 Article from Interim City Manager: MidAmerican Energy pours $3.613 more into wind IP4 Article from Interim City Manager: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build IP5 Memo from Neighborhood Services Coordinator and Senior Housing Inspector: Systematic Inspection of University Impacted Neighborhoods and the Housing Exterior Loan Program IP6 Memo from Development Services Coordinator and Senior Housing Inspector: Flood plain and rental permit location map IP7 Memo from Neighborhood Services Coordinator and Community Development Planner: Entrepreneurship Workshops IPS Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show IP9 Memo from the Finance Dir.: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending March 31, 2016 IP10 Quarterly Investment Report— January 1, 2016 to March 31, 2016 IP11 Email invitation: Building a Foundation for Criminal Justice Reform in Iowa IP12 Affordable Housing Conference June 17 IP13 Copy if ]CAD Press Release: Iowa City Area Receives Inaugural Technology Community of Iowa Award Email from Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House) to staff: Rose Oaks Tenant Relocation Assistance Update [Distributed to Council as Late Handout on 5/2/16.] DRAFT MINUTES IP14 Planning and Zoning Commission: April 7 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org April 21, 2016 IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule APRIL 25 JOINT MEETING IP2 MISCELLANEOUS IP3 Article from terim City Manager: MidAmerican wind IP4 Article from Interi City Manager: In Cramped anc Baby, Build I135 Memo from Neighborho Services Coordinator and e Inspection of Univers! Impacted Neighborh & Program IP6 Memo from Development Sery es Coordinator and rental permit location map IP7 Memo from Neighborhood Service Coor Ina Entrepreneurship Workshops IP8 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Sho IP9 Memo from the Finance Dir.: Quarter y Fin 2016 pours $3.613 more into Bay Area, Cries to Build, or Housing Inspector: Systematic and the Housing Exterior Loan Senior Housing Inspector: Flood plain and Community Development Planner: Summary for Period Ending March 31, IP10 Quarterly Investment Report — J uary1, 2016 March 31, 2016 IP11 Email invitation: Building a Fo dation for Crimina ustice Reform in Iowa IP12 Affordable Housing Confer ce June 17 IP13 Copy if [CAD Press Relea : Iowa City Area Receives In ugural Technology Community of Iowa Award DRAFT MINUTES \ AQ':1 IP14 Planning and Zoni g Commission: March 7 I City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule -4t—*-- at MOM% Subject to change April 21, 2016 CITY OF IOWA CITY Date Time Meeting Location 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 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, August 16, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 6, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 20, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 4, 2016 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 18 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall Formal Meeting JOINT MEETING AGENDA Invitees: Johnson County Board of Supervisors University of Iowa Cities: Coralville; Hills; Iowa City; Lone Tree; North Liberty; Oxford; Shueyville; Solon; Swisher; Tiffin; University Heights School Boards: Clear Creek; Iowa City Monday, April 25, 2016 Reception 4:00 PM; Meeting 4:30 PM Harvat Hall — City Hall 1. Call to order 2. Welcome and introductions 3. Rose Oaks and affordable housing update (Iowa City) 4. Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training and related services (Johnson County) 5. Forevergreen Road interchange (North Liberty) 6. Attendance Zones and Facilities Master Plan (ICCSD) 7. Hunger Task Force Report (Johnson County) 8. Minimum Wage Update (Iowa City) 9. Update of the County land use plan (Johnson County) 10. Transportation Renewal (ICCSD) 11. Use of Pesticides and Herbicides (Iowa City) 12. Bell Schedule (ICCSD) 13. Other Updates 14. Public comment 15. Schedule next meeting 16. Adjourn (Entity in parenthesis has asked the item be placed on the agenda) I P2 CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE From Interim City Manager 04-21-1 IP3 MidAmerican Energy pours $3.6B more into wind EDonnelle Eller, deller@dmreg.com 12:06 p.m. CDT April 14, 2016 Buy Photo Iowa snagged 31.3 percent of its electricity last year from wind generation, according to data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.(Photo: Christopher Gannon/Register file photo)Buy Photo MidAmerican Energy said Thursday it will pour $3.6 billion more into its largest wind energy project yet, pushing it's total investment into the renewable energy to just over $10 billion. The project would bring the Des Moines -based company's wind -generation potential to 85 percent of its total energy mix, "within striking distance of our 100 percent renewable vision," said Bill Fehrman, MidAmerican's CEO. "We don't know of another U.S. energy provider that has staked out this 100 percent position," Fehrman said in a statement. "Our customers want more renewable energy, and we couldn't agree more." Environmental groups applauded the investment. "MidAmerican made clean energy history today," said Bruce Nilles, senior director for Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign. "Iowa and MidAmerican's rapid transition from dirty coal to affordable wind offers a game changing new model for how utilities will reach 100 percent renewable energy more quickly than anyone would have predicted." "MidAmerican's announcement reaffirms that wind energy is affordable, reliable, and strengthens our energy independence," said Josh Mandelbaum, an attorney at the Environmental Law & Policy Center. U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R -Iowa, said "wind energy is having a banner year, and it's only April. "The potential for wind energy in Iowa and the nation looks endless. I'm grateful for the latest investment in the people of Iowa," Grassley said. Fehrman said the availability of the federal production tax credit played a large role in the utility's decision. He said the utility would receive a credit equal to the $3.6 billion investment over a decade. "This is exactly the kind of wind energy project we hoped would be announced with the extension" of the federal production tax credit, said Nathaniel Baer, energy program director at the Iowa Environmental Council. The proposal would be the largest economic development project in the state's history, the company said. MidAmerican is filing a request with the Iowa Utilities Board to build Wind XI, a project that will add up to 2,000 megawatts of wind generation in Iowa. The proposed project will be done without asking "for an increase in customer rates or financial assistance from the state to pay for it," the investor-owned utility said. The company already has invested $6.6 billion in wind generation over the last 12 years, it said. MidAmerican said the proposal puts the state in a "a strong position to comply with carbon emissions limits." Iowa is required to reduce carbon emissions from its power plants by 42 percent under the federal Clean Power Plan, which is now being challenged in courts. Gov. Terry Branstad said the MidAmerican project "puts Iowa on track to be the first state in the nation to generate more than 40 percent of its energy needs from wind power — far ahead of any other state. "Today, Iowa is the only state to have crossed the 30 percent mark," Branstad said. Debi Durham, the state's economic development director, said wind power supports as many as 7,000 jobs in Iowa. She said the industry's growth, its cost competitiveness and job creation have been driven by the wind production tax credits. - - - - Leaders said wind energy in Iowa has been critical to attracting Facebook, Google and Microsoft data centers to the state. The operations are huge energy users, and the tech companies want renewable energy to be a large piece of the portfolio. Fehrman said MidAmerican has wind farms in operation or under construction in 23 Iowa counties and have partnered with more than 2,400 Iowa landowners to site the turbines. Since 2004, MidAmerican has built 3,450 megawatts of wind energy. Fehrman said the new project would generate about $12.5 million per year in property tax payments, $18 million per year in landowner payments, and $48 million per year in state and local expenditures. MidAmerican Energy said it will work to finalize locations for its new wind development while the Iowa Utilities Board considers the project filing request. The company has asked the utilities board to approve its rate -making principles by September so it can take full advantage of the extended production tax credit available for the construction of new wind projects. In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build - The New York Times Page 1 of 10 From Interim City Manager 1P4 1 http://nyti.ms/20KIJtT slum In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build An activist who calls her group BARF is pushing for more housing, pitting cranky homeowners and the political establishment against newcomers who want the region to make room for them, too. By CONOR DOUGHERTY APRIL 16, 2016 San Francisco does not have enough places to live. Sonja Trauss, a local activist, thinks the city should tackle this problem by building more housing. This may not sound like a controversial idea. But this is San Francisco. Ms. Trauss is a self -described anarchist and the head of the SF Bay Area Renters' Federation, an upstart political group that is pushing for more development. Its platform is simple: Members want San Francisco and its suburbs to build more of every kind of housing. More subsidized affordable housing, more market -rate rentals, more high-end condominiums. Ms. Trauss supports all of it so long as it is built tall, and soon. "You have to support building, even when it's a type of building you hate," she said. "Is it ugly? Get over yourself. Is it low-income housing? Get over yourself. Is it luxury housing? Get over yourself. We really need everything right now." Her group consists of a Soo -person mailing list and a few dozen hard-core members — most of them young professionals who work in the technology industry http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/ l 7ibusinessleconomylsan-ftancisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-barf.... 4/18/2016 In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build - The New York Times Page 2 of 10 — who speak out at government meetings and protest against the protesters who fight new development. While only two years old, Ms. Trauss's Renters' Federation has blazed onto the political scene with youth and bombast and by employing guerrilla tactics that others are too polite to try. In January, for instance, she hired a lawyer to go around suing suburbs for not building enough. The organization also inflamed Sierra Club volunteers in San Francisco by trying to elect its own pro -development candidate to the environmental group's executive committee. That effort failed, and last week her candidate, Donald Dewsnup, was arrested and charged with voter fraud — a move that Ms. Trauss claims is political retaliation. "There's no other explanation for why the district attorney of a major city would investigate and charge one person for registering at an inaccurate address," she said. In an interview, Mr. Dewsnup said he was homeless and simply used an address near the place where he was sleeping at the time. Across the country, a reversal in urban flight has ignited debates over gentrification, wealth, generational change and the definition of the modern city. It's a familiar battle in suburbs, where not -in -my -backyard homeowners are an American archetype. In San Francisco, though, things get weird. Here the tech boom is clashing with tough development laws and resentment from established residents who want to choke off growth to prevent further change. Ms. Trauss is the result: a new generation of activist whose pro -market bent is the opposite of the San Francisco stereotypes — the lefties, the aging hippies and tolerance all around. Ms. Trauss's cause, more or less, is to make life easier for real estate developers by rolling back zoning regulations and environmental rules. Her opponents are a generally older group of progressives who worry that an influx of corporate techies is turning a city that nurtured the Beat Generation into a gilded resort for the rich. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/ l 7lbusinessleconomylsan-francisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-barf.... 4/18/2016 In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build - The New York Times Page 3 of 10 Those groups oppose almost every new development except those reserved for subsidized affordable housing. But for many young professionals who are too rich to qualify for affordable housing, but not rich enough to afford $5,000 -a -month rents, this is the problem. Adding to the strangeness is that the typical San Francisco progressive and the typical mid-2os-to-early-30s member of Ms. Trauss's group are likely to have identical positions on every liberal touchstone, like same-sex marriage and climate change, and yet they have become bitter enemies on one very big issue: housing. "We have liberal Democrats, and very liberal Democrats, and yet we are as polarized as the rest of the country," said Tim Colen, executive director of the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition. Birth of an Acronym Ms. Trauss is smart and energetic and unpolished. She called her group the Bay Area Renters' Federation because "federation" reminds her of "Star Trek" and because her roommate thought it would be funny if her group's acronym spelled "BARF." Jennifer Fieber, policy director at the San Francisco Tenants Union, likened the group to the Tea Party, because it lacks nuance ("Just build!") and can be rude. BARF's public message board does in fact veer into strident libertarianism and juvenile ribbings, like pictures that equate its opponents to Adolf Hitler. This might make it tempting to dismiss Ms. Trauss as just another colorful activist in a place where activism is a local sport. But the anger she has tapped into is real, reflecting a generational break that pits cranky homeowners and the San Francisco political establishment against a cast of newcomers who are demanding the region make room for them, too. To befriend a certain kind of techie on social media is to be bombarded with angry Facebook posts and retweeted news articles about how San Francisco doesn't build enough housing or how it is also the suburbs' fault and isn't Seattle great? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/ l 7lbusinessleconomylsan-francisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-barf.... 4/18/2016 In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build - The New York Times Page 4 of 10 Every few weeks, when a company like Zillow puts out a new price report, both sides hold up the numbers as an example of how San Francisco has failed the middle class. Zillow puts the city's median home price at $1.1 million, neck and neck with Manhattan. The region's rent, at $3,50o a month for an average apartment, is the highest in the nation. Today Ms. Trauss's group is one of several pro -housing organizations (GrowSF and East Bay Forward are others) that represent a kind of "Yimby" party, built on the frustrations of young professionals who feel priced out of the Bay Area. BARF has won the backing of technology millionaires — Jeremy Stoppelman, co-founder and chief executive of Yelp, is the group's largest individual donor — and the encouragement of local politicians. "BARF is an important voice in this housing debate, and that is the voice of young people who are asking the question: `What is my future in this city?"' said Scott Wiener, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. "And you can agree or disagree with them, but they have activated a new generation of pro -housing activists." The group's build -more platform may be politically contentious, but economically speaking, it is anything but controversial. The Bay Area was expensive even before the tech boom. And the supply of new projects, while increasing, remains decades behind population growth. This extends from Silicon Valley suburbs like Palo Alto, whose ratio of jobs to housing units is triple the median level in the Bay Area, to San Francisco, which despite an increase in new housing has lagged behind job growth, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments. Much of San Francisco's progressive establishment feels the city is building too much market -rate housing. Some go so far as to argue that the appetite for real estate here is so high that supply -and -demand rules don't really apply. To get prices down, "You'd have to, like, build another city on top of the city," said David Campos, a progressive -wing member of the San Francisco Board of http: //www.nytimes.com/2016/04/ l 7lbusinessleconomylsan-francisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-barf.... 4/18/2016 In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build - The New York Times Page 5 of 10 Supervisors. He thinks the city should focus the vast majority of future development on affordable housing limited to people making well below the city's median income. This thinking is at odds with a February report on housing prices from the California Legislative Analyst's Office, which said underdevelopment was the primary cause of the high prices that afflicted cities throughout the coastal part of the state, especially in the Bay Area. "Many housing programs — vouchers, rent control and inclusionary housing — attempt to make housing more affordable without increasing the overall supply," the report said. "This approach does very little to address the underlying cause of California's high housing costs: a housing shortage." Ms. Trauss, 34, is a born activist from Philadelphia whose father is a lawyer who defends low-income homeowners against foreclosure. She moved to the Bay Area in 2011, shortly after getting her master's degree in economics from Washington University in St. Louis, and taught math at local community colleges. She intended to live in San Francisco, but settled across the bay in Oakland. Like nearly everyone who moves to the Bay Area, Ms. Trauss spent an inordinate amount of time complaining about rent. In 2014, after reading a 13,000 - word history of Bay Area housing politics written by Kim -Mai Cutler, a reporter at the TechCrunch news site who has gone on to help found a communal -living start-up called Roam, Ms. Trauss started writing letters to the San Francisco Planning Commission in support of any new project with more than 30 units. She graduated from writing letters to attending planning meetings, and, after registering the SFBARF website, started recruiting members by finding pro -housing voices on sites like Reddit and the comments sections of local news articles. "People say testifying doesn't do anything — but guess what definitely doesn't do anything: giving a dumb speech to your friend at the bar," she said. Today BARF is her full-time job, allowing her the financial wherewithal to become one of those strangely persistent people who speak regularly at City Hall. To an outside observer, this can feel like watching an obscure and slow-moving sport. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/ l 7lbusine ss/economylsan-francisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-barf.... 4/18/2016 In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build - The New York Times Page 6 of 10 This is a town with an app for everything and where people get fussy when an Uber driver takes more than five minutes to arrive. City Hall, with its Beaux-Arts architecture and government -grade wait times, can feel like an anachronism. Ms. Trauss may be a plugged -in millennial, but she loves it. "Even in this modern era of, whatever, the Internet and people like interacting in a place that's no place at all, City Hall is still a center," she said. One recent afternoon, she spent an hour on the hard wooden benches in the chamber of the Board of Supervisors. She was there to make a two -minute public comment in favor of a dull -but -important proposal to streamline the permitting process for some affordable -housing projects. Three days later she was back, this time to support a "density bonus" — a proposal to let developers build taller buildings in exchange for including more affordable housing as well. When she arrived, Mr. Campos, from the Board of Supervisors, was blasting the proposal from the City Hall steps, surrounded by 70 or so supporters. Ms. Trauss and another member of her group stood opposite and held up signs that said "Stop Affordable Housing." This was meant to be ironic. Their point was that Mr. Campos was opposing legislation that would create more market -rate housing — but also more affordable housing. Nobody seemed to get it, so Ms. Trauss went inside City Hall to add her name to a list of people making public comments before the planning commission. Her chance to speak would be hours away, so she trekked around City Hall, past bronze busts and wedding parties, in search of a quiet place to take a lunch break. She was joined by a man whose legal name is Starchild. Starchild is the sort of only -in -San Francisco character you end up making friends with if you spend enough time at City Hall. He works nights as an "erotic service provider." Asked if this meant he was a prostitute, he said, "`Prostitute' is O.K. as long as it's said in a respectful way." Starchild spends his days campaigning for libertarian causes and running doomed campaigns for office. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/ l 7lbusinessleconomylsan-francisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-barf.... 4/18/2016 In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build - The New York Times Page 7 of 10 The two ate on a marble ledge and discussed police brutality, pretrial detention and whether it was possible for an anarchist to be in favor of soda taxes. A short while later, Ms. Trauss headed back to a waiting room, where she took a selfie for the @SFyimby Twitter account and began a two -and -a -half-hour wait for a few more minutes at the public -comment microphone. "This is my life," she whispered. "It's ridiculous." Problems With `Progressive' Many longtime San Franciscans view groups like BARF as yet another example of how the technology industry is robbing San Francisco of its San Francisco-ness. Far from the hippies of the 196os, many of today's migrants lean libertarian — drawn by start-up dreams or to work for the likes of Google or Apple, two of the world's most valuable companies. They tend to share a belief, either idealistically or naively, depending on who is judging, that corporations can be a force for social good and change. But BARF members are so single-minded about housing that they can be hard to label politically. They view San Francisco progressives as, in fact, fundamentally conservative. That is because, to the group members at least, progressive positions on housing seem less about building the city and more about keeping people like them out. On a drizzly Sunday in December, Ms. Trauss hosted the SF YIMBYParty Congress, a gathering of pro -housing groups held at a Market Street co -working space full of start-up touches like mismatched furniture, a foosball table and lots of white men. Toward the beginning, a debate broke out about whether they should call themselves moderates to distinguish themselves from progressives. Ms. Trauss joked that she liked moderate because you can shorten it to mod, and mod sounds cool. Mr. Wiener, the supervisor, disagreed, noting that in San Francisco, a moderate Democrat "might have a Bernie Sanders sticker on their car." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/ 17/business/economy/san-francisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-barf.... 4/18/2016 In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build - The New York Times Page 8 of 10 One man, who seemed exasperated by the discussion and the idea of using his Sunday to talk about politics, said, with more colorful language, that he did not give a hoot about progressives versus moderates — he just wanted some darn housing. The tech boom takes much of the blame for soaring housing prices. But the pro - development movement has less to do with tech as an industry, and everything to do with newcomers as a class. Brian Hanlon, a federation member who regularly attends Board of Supervisors meetings with Ms. Trauss, has a day job doing administrative work for the United States Forest Service. Two years ago, when he started worrying that his claim to an $835 -a -month room in a rent -controlled apartment might be in jeopardy, he reacted in classic San Francisco fashion. He started marching in anti -eviction protests next to people beating drums and signs that said things like "Tech = Death." But he quickly broke ranks. Many of his fellow protesters also opposed building new apartments — putting him at odds with them. "They want to be on the side of tenants, but they don't have any real plan for how do we become a welcoming metropolitan area for new people who don't have money," Mr. Hanlon said. "Their plans are only to allow current incumbent renters to stay in their place, presumably until they die and some rich person comes along." Reaching the Renters The progressive movement has played a guiding role in creating the quirky and picturesque San Francisco that many people love today. Progressives battled plans to crisscross the city with freeways and opposed urban renewal programs that destroyed black neighborhoods. They have fought for, and won, rent -control protections and funding for affordable housing, along with various open -space amenities that many newcomers take for granted. The question is how to handle a long -run demographic reversal in which cities across the country have regained population following years of "white flight" to the suburbs. After losing population for two decades through the 1970s, San Francisco resumed growth in the '8os and has only accelerated from there. http://www.nytime s.coml20 l 6/04/ l 7lbusinessleconomylsan-francisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-barf.... 4/18/2016 In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build - The New York Times Page 9 of 10 "There's that book, `What's the Matter With Kansas?"' said Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of SPUR, an urban policy research organization. "What's the matter with San Francisco? Why is it that in a city that's two-thirds renters we have adopted a housing policy that is horrible for renters?" The challenge for groups like BARF is that, politically speaking, they have a lot of persuading to do. The free-market talk might sound great to a recent Stanford graduate, but San Francisco is in a moment when corporate buses are regarded as instruments of a tech invasion bent on turning people who can't code into a food - delivering underclass. The idea that everything would be better if only the city threw up more tall buildings is a hard sell. Of the 11 propositions on San Francisco's ballot in November, seven were either directly or indirectly related to high home prices and the influence of the technology industry. Michael Hankinson, a Harvard Ph.D. candidate who is studying land -use and housing prices, surveyed voters for his dissertation and found renters skeptical that new development would do anything other than raise prices. For instance, a recent proposal to temporarily stop market -rate development in the city's Mission District, a gentrifying neighborhood popular with technology workers, failed citywide. But Mr. Hankinson found that a majority of renters favored it because they did not think that new development would do anything for them — and feared that it might, somehow, get them evicted. "BARF has to convince renters that neighborhood change will benefit them in the long run," he said. Today, when eviction is a hot party topic, most renters are unwilling to take that gamble. So Ms. Trauss is taking her campaign to the courts. In December she sued the city of Lafayette, Calif., an East Bay bedroom community, after it took a parcel that had been set aside for higher -density apartments and office buildings and rezoned it for single-family homes instead. She wrote the petition herself, saying the move violated the California Housing Accountability Act, a 198os law and "anti-Nimby" statute that limits cities' ability to downsize housing developments. Recently, she hired a lawyer to litigate the case. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/ l 7lbusinessleconomylsan-francisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-barf.... 4/18/2016 In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build - The New York Times Page 10 of 10 Asked about Ms. Trauss's lawsuit, Steven Falk, Lafayette's city manager, said the city actually faced another lawsuit over the same development. The second group is suing, he said, because they think it is too big. A version of this article appears in print on April 17, 2016, on page BU1 of the New York edition with the headline: Build, Baby, Build. © 2016 The New York Times Company http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/ l 7ibusinessleconomylsan-francisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-bar£ . 4/18/2016 r CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P5 MEMORANDUM Date: April 19, 2016 To: Geoff Fruin, Interim City Manager From: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Stan Laverman, Senior Housing Inspector Re: Systematic Inspection of University Impacted Neighborhoods and the Housing Exterior Loan Program This memo is to update you concerning the "stepped up" inspection program for the University impacted neighborhoods approved by Council this past September. During the fall of 2015 the Iowa City Housing Code was changed to better address exterior housing code issues. Along with increased enforcement in the University impacted neighborhoods, a new program was created to assist qualified homeowners and landlords with exterior improvements to their properties in this area. The Housing Exterior Loan Program (H.E.L.P.) is designed to financially assist qualified homeowners and landlords to upgrade the safety and appearance of the housing stock in these neighborhoods. Homeowners and landlords who qualify will be eligible for zero -interest loans for 50% of the cost of eligible improvements, up to $10,000. For rental property owners, repayment terms will be for five years. For income eligible homeowners, the loan will be a deferred payment loan, payable when the home is sold, changes ownership or converts to a rental property. There is $250,000 budgeted for this program. Please see the attached H.E.L.P. brochure for more information. City staff has started conducting walking surveys noting the exterior conditions of the residential properties located in the Dubuque Street corridor. Staff will follow up in person with the property owners/managers with any documented code violations. After the walking surveys have been completed in the Dubuque Street area City staff will move to other arterial streets located within the University impacted neighborhoods. City staff will monitor the use of the H.E.L.P program by the property owners in the University impacted neighborhoods and report back to the City Council before the start of the next budget cycle. The City of Iowa City's Neighborhood and Development Services Department has implemented a new program to help landlords and income -qualifying homeowners make exterior improvements to their homes and property. The Housing Exterior Loan Program (HELP) not only offers financial assistance, it also works to upgrade the safety and appearance of local housing stock and preserve the vitality of our neighborhoods. ■ Homeowners and landlords who qualify will be offered zero -interest loans for 50% of the cost of eligible improvements, up to $10,000. ■ Length of the loan: For rental property owners, repayment terms will be for five years. For owner -occupied homes where household income is less than 140% of the median income (see income chart), loans will be set up on a deferred payment basis. That means that no loan payments will be required as long as the home remains the owner's primary residence. Loans will come due immediately when the property is sold, changes ownership, or converts to a rental property. ■ Loan funds will be reimbursements that will be paid after the work is successfully completed and all supporting documentation has been submitted to the City. ■ Liens, in the form of mortgages or assignment of rents, will be placed on the home and/or rental property as collateral to secure the loan until it is paid. WA,eCt ,vo� veirwew oa4,v ? .,vwak* ■ Exterior painting, cleaning and repair ■ Siding repair or replacement ■ Roof repairs or replacement ■ Fascia and trim improvements ■ Awning repair or installation ■ Porch repair ■ Landscaping ■ Dumpster screening ■ Windows and door repair or replacement ■ Exterior accessories, such as address plates, mailboxes, and shutters ■ Sidewalk repair or other concrete or masonry repairs or replacement In some situations, HELP program funds may only be used for repairs and upgrades to the side of the home that faces the street. a:� ? 11oa ? You may qualify for our program if: ■ your residential property is within the UniverCity impact area (please see the property map on our web- site at www.icgov.org/UniverCity); ■ your property does not have any outstanding mechanic liens; ■ your property taxes are paid and up-to-date; ■ your proposed home improvements meet housing code and are ap- proved by City staff; ■ all applicable permits are ob- tained; and ■ if owner -occupied, the household income falls below 140% of me- dian income, as follows: INCOME GUIDELINES CHART HOUSEHOLD MAXIMUM INCOME SIZE LIMIT (140% of MI) 1 person.........................................$80,780 2 person ......................................... $92,260 3 person .......................................$103,740 4 person.......................................$1 15,220 102 1i r U For more info, or to apply for HELP, contact Neighborhood Services at: 319-356-5230 neighborhoods@iowa-city.org City of Iowa City Neighborhood Svcs. 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 r 04-21-16 ®4 CITY OF IOWA CITY APs -31MEMORANDUM Date: April 13, 2016 To: Geoff Fruin, Interim City Manager From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator7,.4 Y �^— Stan Laverman, Senior Housing Inspector Re: Flood plain and rental permit location map Background: Several months ago, the Board of Adjustment sent a letter to the City Council recommending that rental households be informed whether or not the dwelling they live in is in the floodplain (attached). At the time, we had no way of easily cross-referencing rental permit addresses with flood plain information. The goal was to better inform rental households of floodplain information, so they are better prepared in the event of a flood. Discussion: To accomplish to goal, staff created a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) map of rental permit addresses, and combined it with the Johnson County GIS map of 100- and 500 - year floodplains. While the process of building the dataset for almost 4,500 rental permit addresses to make them compatible with GIS was time-consuming (over 45 staff hours), we believe it will be helpful for future uses in addition to the flood plain concern. Once the GIS map was created, staff considered how to best get the information to the affected households. The City requires landlords to maintain an Information Disclosure and Acknowledgement Form which conveys information regarding maximum occupancy, trash/recycling obligations, parking, snow and lawn maintenance obligations, and noise/disorderly house concerns. Landlords are required to share this information with tenants, and landlords and tenants are required to sign the form to ensure the information has been conveyed. Staff proposes to add an additional item to this form with a link to the flood plain and rental permit map, so landlords and residents can easily see if the property is in the flood plain. Flood plain maps are indicative of possible flood risk, but flood risks for specific properties/structures must be field -verified. Being in the flood plain does not change any rules or regulations for existing properties. In addition, staff will `tag' rental permits if the property is in the floodplain, and have that information on hand for internal use, and/or if a tenant contacts us for the information. Modifying our permit information will be implemented as permits are renewed (approximately two years to complete) Financial Impact: The GIS map will require maintenance as rental permit addresses change. Staff anticipates updating the map annually. Now that ther dataset has been created, we anticipate 4-8 hours of staff time annually to update the dataset, produce the map, conduct quality control on the information, and place it on the website. Recommendation: Staff recommends amending Housing Code Section 17-5-14 regarding the Information Disclosure and Acknowledgement Form to require adding a notice of the availability of the flood plain and rental permit map, and a link to said map. Staff will proceed with preparing said amendment, unless directed otherwise. 02-0151r— At -our December meeting, .the Board, of Adjustment approved a motion to, recommend that the City,.Council consider,a policy to require,landlords to disclose to tenants when residential rental property is. s located in .the floodplain.. There are ;two .aspects to, .such . disclosure. The first is whether landlords are aware that a particular rental property is locateid. tithe, floodplain..While most. property..owners may know this based on -the additional insurance n;qulred. for properties in the floodplain, itis possible #hat'a property manager may not. For this reason, the Board recommends. that this infbrmafion be requested as part of the rental permit process. This would compel anyone applying for a rental permit to determine whether the property they manage is in the floodplain. The second aspect is disclosure by the landlord to the tenant who will occupy a property. This could be as simple as including an acknowledgement on the City's information and disclosure form—a document that accompanies all residential leases. This issue came to the attention of the Board in October, when we voted to approve the establishment of residential units above ground floor commercial for a property located in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone. The property in question is located in the 500 -year floodplain. The particular dwelling units approved by the BOA will be located many feet above the floodplain. elevation such that property damage is not likely an issue. However, itis possible that, during a flood, residents, may be, unable , to access their apartments for some condition of the approved special ezceptiori, the applicant is requin3d ttS disclose to tetime. As a nants that the,property,is,located.in the flaodp(ain. , lWile the- zoningcode requires All new buildings and additions to be constructed to floodplain standards, that does not alleviate, all risk.to, renters. While flooding on the creeks is brief, floods .along thi,16wa.River.may take weeps or even more than a month to subside. Again, while this may not put personal property at risk, it may present more than an inconvenience. This motion by the Board recommending that City Council consider a policy requiring landlords to disclose to tenants whether a property is located in the floodplain was passed by unanimous (5-0) vote. We encourage you to consider a proposal implementing such a policy to ensure that renters have the opportunity to weigh the potential risks that come with renting in the floodplain. Sincerely, Larry Bake, Chair Iowa City Board of Adjustment F I L ED -ft M 1� a ga 2016 JAN 21 Pik 4* 32 gaNt CITY OF IOWA CITY J anuary 19, 2016` 410 East Washington Street �+, �,r IOWA'Cf tr Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000' (319) 3S6-5009 FAX www.icgov.org Dear City Council, At -our December meeting, .the Board, of Adjustment approved a motion to, recommend that the City,.Council consider,a policy to require,landlords to disclose to tenants when residential rental property is. s located in .the floodplain.. There are ;two .aspects to, .such . disclosure. The first is whether landlords are aware that a particular rental property is locateid. tithe, floodplain..While most. property..owners may know this based on -the additional insurance n;qulred. for properties in the floodplain, itis possible #hat'a property manager may not. For this reason, the Board recommends. that this infbrmafion be requested as part of the rental permit process. This would compel anyone applying for a rental permit to determine whether the property they manage is in the floodplain. The second aspect is disclosure by the landlord to the tenant who will occupy a property. This could be as simple as including an acknowledgement on the City's information and disclosure form—a document that accompanies all residential leases. This issue came to the attention of the Board in October, when we voted to approve the establishment of residential units above ground floor commercial for a property located in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone. The property in question is located in the 500 -year floodplain. The particular dwelling units approved by the BOA will be located many feet above the floodplain. elevation such that property damage is not likely an issue. However, itis possible that, during a flood, residents, may be, unable , to access their apartments for some condition of the approved special ezceptiori, the applicant is requin3d ttS disclose to tetime. As a nants that the,property,is,located.in the flaodp(ain. , lWile the- zoningcode requires All new buildings and additions to be constructed to floodplain standards, that does not alleviate, all risk.to, renters. While flooding on the creeks is brief, floods .along thi,16wa.River.may take weeps or even more than a month to subside. Again, while this may not put personal property at risk, it may present more than an inconvenience. This motion by the Board recommending that City Council consider a policy requiring landlords to disclose to tenants whether a property is located in the floodplain was passed by unanimous (5-0) vote. We encourage you to consider a proposal implementing such a policy to ensure that renters have the opportunity to weigh the potential risks that come with renting in the floodplain. Sincerely, Larry Bake, Chair Iowa City Board of Adjustment r ='���•� CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P7 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Date: April 15, 2016 To: Geoff Fruin, Interim City Manager From: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Kris Ackerson, Community Development Planner Re: Entrepreneurship Workshops Introduction: This memorandum highlights an upcoming series of five workshops organized by city staff to help educate budding entrepreneurs. This series is in line with the City Council's Strategic Plan and addresses our objective to develop programs aimed to enhance small business development and retention with a focus on diverse communities. History/Background: Over the past year, the City has offered small loans to low income persons to assist them in small business start-ups or expansions under the Microl-oan Fund program. Despite receiving several inquiries about the program, we have received only three applications. After receiving feedback from the community, we identified that we're missing that initial first step before a person starts incurring debt and investing their time and resources in a business. Persons interested in starting a business must understand what all is involved to make a business successful and where they may turn for help. To address this need, our staff developed a team of project partners to present a series of free workshops (see attached) titled, "So you want to start a business." The workshop partners include: • Community CPA — presenter and promoter • Hills Bank and Trust Company— sponsor and promoter • Kirkwood Community College — presenter and promoter • MidWestOne Bank — sponsor and promoter • Sankofa Outreach Connection — promoter • University of Iowa Community Credit Union — presenter and promoter Although the workshops will be open to all, staff is making a special effort to encourage women, immigrants and persons of color to attend one or all the workshops. These workshops will also guide us in determining how best to utilize the additional $50,000 budgeted in FY17 for programs that support business and employment opportunities for diverse communities. If you have any questions, please contact me at 356-5230 or trace-hightshoeCa)_iowa-city.org. 3 SO4 you want to S Please RSVP! Workshops are free, but reservations are requested. Contact Neighborhood Services at 319-356-5230 or e-mail neighborhoods@iowa-city.org Workshop location: Kirkwood Community College (Iowa City campus), 1816 Lower Muscatine Road, Room 262 Workshop #1: Abracadabra! Turn Your Passion Into Profit Saturday, May 14 1 10 - 11 am Presenters: Angelo and Phillip Campos, co-owners of Tres Mentes Salsa in Des Moines Do you have an idea, interest or hobby that you'd like to pursue full-time? This workshop will teach you how. Workshop #2: Look Before You Leap: Legal Issues in Business Saturday, May 21 1 10 - 11 am When it comes to legal issues, you'll want to do things right the first time. Learn what you need to know! Workshop #3: a business Join us for 5 free workshops! We're committed to improving opportunities for women, immigrants and persons of color to start their own businesses. Diverse businesses support inclusive communities! Sign up for these free workshops to help launch your business successfully! Workshop #4: Choosing the Right Tax Structure Tuesday, May 31 1 7 - 8 pm The right tax structure will fuel your business, but the wrong one will bring it down. Learn what tax consider- ations you'll need to make for success. Workshop #5: Financial Statements: What They Say About Your Business Saturday, June 4 1 10 - 1 1 am A banker, an IRS auditor and a potential investor will all want to review your financial statements, and each is looking at different things. Learn who focuses on what and why each is so important. Licenses, Permits and Taxes, OH MY! Drawing for $100 Staples Gift Certificate! Tuesday, May 24 1 7 - 8 pm Go to as many workshops as you like — one or all five. Find out about the licenses and permits you'll need to If you attend at least four, your name will be entered operate and the tax issues you'll need to consider. into a drawing for a $100 gift certificate at Staples! OUR SPONSORS: ,� � �o NIIIS Bank 4 z, � ^���__� MidWes>r� )i x' 4'.�' MBank Z and Teat Cowankw_ _4A �� 3 CITY OF IOWA CIT Y pJ A ���`, �alt�Ofja (Jtrbrach Connedion UNESCO CITY OfLRERATURE COMMLJNITYCPA v, COM r 04-21- ,.®fir# C I T Y O F IOWA C I T Y m MEMORANDUM Date: April 20, 2016 To: Mayor and City Council \' From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk} Re: KXIC Radio Show At your April 19 work session, and follow-ups conversations, Council Members agreed to the following schedule for the Wednesday 8AM radio show. Wednesday April 27 — Dickens May 4 — Botchway May 11 — Mims May 18 — Thomas May 25 — Taylor June 1 — Throgmorton In addition we are adding a 7:15 — 7:45 AM the first and third Friday of each month: Friday May 6 — Botchway May 20 — Botchway June 3 — Mims June 17 — Dickens `* Please remember that KXIC is very flexible with taping the Wednesday sessions ahead of the show. It is the intent of the Friday interviews to be live. U: radioshowappts.doc '►-�ial�®rq��' CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: April 17, 2016 To: City Manager, City Council From: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending March 31, 2016 Introduction Attached to this memorandum are the City's quarterly financial reports as of March 31, 2016. The quarterly report includes combined summaries of all fund balances, revenues, and expenditures for fiscal year 2016 through the quarter end. These reports represent three quarters or 75% of the fiscal year. For the March 31, 2016 quarterly reports, the '2016 Revised' columns for both revenues and expenditures now include the revised budget totals from the proposed budget book that was adopted by the City Council in March. There are no current plans for another budget amendment in fiscal year 2016. Revenue Analysis This revenue analysis pertains to the revenue reports, Revenues by Fund and Revenues by Type, on pages 4-6. In these two reports, the actual revenues should appear near 75% of budget since -we are three-fourths of the way through the fiscal year. There are revenue totals in the quarterly report that are inconsistent with this benchmark for various reasons including timing and accruals to the prior year. One fund that varies from the 75% benchmark is the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund. Revenues for the CDBG fund are significantly below budget at 8.9%. This fund's revenues are below budget due to the delayed receipt of federal grant funds and private loan repayments that are expected but have not been received as of March 31. This appears to be a matter of timing. The Other Shared Revenue Fund also has a significant variance to the 75% benchmark. Its revenues are at -2.6%. These revenues are negative due to the repayment of grants to us by private parties that we subsequently repaid to the State of Iowa. There is also a $1 million+ hazard mitigation grant to purchase properties in the flood plain that has not been received yet. Other funds that have actual revenues substantially less than 75% of budget include the Parking Fund and the Governmental Capital Projects Fund. The Parking Fund revenue is at only 38.30% of budget, because the sale of the Court/Linn property for $5,500,000 has not yet taken place; not including this transaction, the Parking Fund revenues are at 77.8% of budget. The Governmental Capital Projects Fund revenues are at 16.4% of budget primarily due to the timing of state and federal grants for construction projects and also due to the timing of the sale of general obligation bonds. The City plans to sell the 2016 general obligation bonds in June this year. Another major factor contributing to actual revenues being less than 75% of budget is the timing of the property tax collections. The second half of property taxes will be received in April, and this will have a significant impact on the City's overall actual versus budget revenue comparisons. Other individual revenue sources worth mentioning include Construction Permits & Inspection Fee revenue which is shown at 110% of budget; this is a good sign as it is still early in the construction season. Presented just above that is the Franchise Fee revenue at only 53.9% of budget. These fees are primarily cable franchise fees and are received quarterly. Only two quarters or 50% have been earned so far this year, because the first payment of the year is accrued back to the prior year. Presented at 37.8% of budget is Building & Development revenue. This is low because the $1,000,000 of revenue expected from the sale of the Court/Linn property for affordable housing has not yet been received. The combined total actual revenues for all budgetary funds through March are $92,066,455 or 54.6°x6 of budget. Overall, the City's revenues are not substantially different than projected, and most of the anomalies and budget variances can be explained. Expenditure Analysis This expenditure analysis pertains to the expenditure reports, Expenditures by Fund and Expenditures by Fund by Department on pages 7-9. The analysis of the City's expenditures for fiscal year 2016 through March is similar to the analysis for the City's revenues. We generally expect the actual expenditure levels to be around 75°x6 of budget 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 the 75% benchmark include the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund (20.1°x6) and the Other Shared Revenue Fund (20.8%). These two funds have expenditure levels that are lower than expected. The reason for these budget variances is the same as the reason for their revenue variances explained in the revenue analysis above. The Debt Service Fund is also presented below the 75% benchmark at 25.2% of budget. This is due to the timing of the general obligation bond principal payments which are not due until June 2016. Another fund with a debt related variance is the Wastewater Fund (83.8%). This fund paid 100% of its bond principal payments in July 2015 which explains its high actual - versus -budget percentage. 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 Storm Water Fund (51.0%), The Governmental Projects Fund (18.9%), and the Enterprise Projects Fund (3.0%). There are projects in these funds that are not complete and are scheduled for the upcoming construction season. The last two expenditure variances that I will discuss are in the Self -Supporting Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) Fund (50.5%) and the Equipment Fund (57.3%). The SSMID Fund's expenditures are at only 50.5% due to the timing of the payout of these funds. The third quarter payment to the Iowa City Downtown District is scheduled in April, and therefore, it will not fall into the March 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. Altogether, the City's expenditures are not substantially different than projected or can be explained, and total expenditures for all budgetary funds are at 46.0% of budget. Conclusion Overall, the City's revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year are within budget or have reasonable or explainable variances. There are revenue or expenditure items, however, that are contingent or reliant on circumstances beyond our control, such as weather or private party decisions, and always face the potential of not meeting our estimates or expectations. Generally, there are no major concerns or shortfalls to report with the City's fund balances. Four funds have negative fund balances at March 31, which are expected to be eliminated through future grant or property tax receipts. Additional information is available from the Finance Department upon request. City of Iowa City Fund Summary Fiscal Year 2016 through March 31, 2016 Beginning Ending Restricted, Unassigned Fund Year -to -Date Transfers Year -to -Date Transfers Fund Committed, Fund Balance Revenues In Expenditures Out Balance Assigned Balance Budoetary Funds General Fund 10" General Fund $ 49,045,399 $ 29,889,339 $ 8,463,169 $ 35,308,051 $ 5,200,798 $ 46,889,060 $26,701,055 $ 20,168,008 Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev Block Grai 144,414 152,164 - 344,235 - (47,657) (47,657) 2110 HOME 132,858 509,885 680,040 (37,296) (37,296) 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 5,564,215 5,978,107 297,278 4,015,948 1,739,789 6,083,863 6,083,883 2300 Other Shared Revenue (109) (32,451) - 304,019 - (336,579) (336,579) 2350 Metro Planning Ora of J.C. 292,006 190,448 202,677 389,509 - 295,622 295,622 2400 Employee Benefits 1,592,570 6,151,067 - 837,333 7,041,950 (135,646) (135,646) 2510 Peninsula Apartments 105,146 54,587 - 34,380 - 125,353 - 125,353 26" Tax Increment Financing 835 662,360 - - 683,195 683,195 2820 SSMID-Downtown District - 168,747 148,542 20,205 20,205 Debt Service Fund 5"' Debt Service 6,444,718 7,717,747 5,900 3,837,117 10,331,248 632,221 9,699,027 Permanent Funds 6001 Perpetual Care 115,882 30 115,912 115,912 Enterprise Funds 710• Parking 3,713,076 4,144,034 2,359,367 719,190 4,778,553 385,583 4,392,970 715• Mass Transit 4,782,385 2,339,687 2,332,911 4,809,919 72,238 4,552,825 1,202,688 3,350,137 720• Wastewater 19,788,658 8,445,271 3,549,056 8,922,329 4,874,056 17,986,600 8,714,267 9,272,333 730* Water 12,332,979 6,362,593 1,508,036 6,026,839 2,483,737 11,693,032 3,715,400 7,977,632 7400 Refuse Collection•. 1,060,437 2,088,935 2,158,037 983,335 - 983,335 750` Landfill 24,052,855 4,427,701 1,091,704 3,055,854 954,406 25,582,000 22,752,212 2,809,788 7600 Airport 611,028 237,154 91,447 272,857 89,432 577,339 100,000 477,339 7700 Storm water 1,571,993 783,233 - 404,267 241,945 1,709,013 1,709,013 780' Cable Television 1.,571,324 - 1,571,324 0 0 79" Housing Authority 5,911,702 6,608,886 - 6,745,539 33,888 5,744,161 2,965,059 2,776,102 Capital Project Funds Governmental P%acts 12,886,726 3,816,312 4,664,511 10,671,991 367,301 10,328,258 10,328,258 Enterprise Projects 8,108,609 1,390,617 3,183,363 439,956 12,242,534 12,242,634 Total Budgetary Funds $159,799,706 $ 92,066,455 $25,390,052 $ 91,764,130 $25,390,052 $160,102,031 $67,168,485 $ 92,933,546 Non-Budastary Funds Capital Project Funds Internal Service Projects $ 465,596 $ 942 $ $ 387,227 5 - $ 79,310 $ $ 79,310 Internal Service Funds 810• Equipment 11,018,138 4,317,636 3,434,508 11,901,167 7,988,137 3,913,030 8200 Risk Managements 3,298,488 1,436,232 875,631 3,859,089 3,859,089 830' Information Technology 2,530,336 1,659,061 1,380,265 2,809,132 2,809,132 8400 Central Services 658,527 173,254 175,284 656,497 - 656,497 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 10,620,338 5,386,990 5,682,216 10,325,112 3,969,64; 8,355,471 8800 Dental Insurance Reserves 142,803 272,629 - 276,099 139,333 - 139,333 Total Non -Budgetary Funds $ 28,734,228 $ 13,246,644 $ $ 12,211,231 $ $ 29,769,639 $11,957,778 $ 17,811,861 Total All Funds $188,533,932 $ 105,313,099 $25,390,052 $ 103,975,361 $25,390,052 $189,871,670 $79,126,263 $110,745,407 K City of Iowa City Revenues by Fund Fiscal Year 2016 through March 31, 2016 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 1,438,232 (37,904) 97.4% General Fund 1,765,501 2,092,829 2,092,829 1,659,061 (433,768) 79.3% 10"' General Fund $ 46,753,570 $ 45,535,046 $ 48,614,309 $ 29,869,339 $ (18,744,970) 61.4% Special Revenue Funds 7,508,804 7,841,907 7,841,907 5,386,990 (2,454,917) 68.7% 2100 Community Dev Block Gran, 685,596 859,962 1,706,962 1,52,164 (1,554,798) 8.9% 2110 HOME 533,378 560,456 1,153,965 509,885 (644,080) 44.2% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 7,414,926 6,794,627 7,887,080 5,978,107 (1,908,973) 75.8% 2300 Other Shared Revenue 129,659 1,240,308 (32,451) (1,272,759) -2.6% 2310 Energy Eff & Cons Biock Grant 1,168 - - - 0.0% 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Cc 321,768 331,761 331,761 190,448 (141,313) 57.4% 2400 Employee Benefits 9,782,477 10,480,961 10,520,961 6,151,057 (4,369,894) 58.5% 2500 Affordable Housing Fund - - 1,000,000 (1,000,000) 0.0% 2510 Peninsula Apartments 73,697 70,119 70,119 54,587 (15,532) 77.8% 26" Tax Increment Financing 640,244 1,020,126 1,020,126 662,360 (357,766) 64.9% 2820 SSM1D-Downtown District 298,141 294,092 294,092 168,747 (125,345) 57.4% Debt Service Fund 5`"" Debt Service 13,651,221 13,230,050 13,230,050 7,717,747 (5,512,303) 58.3% Permanent Funds 6001 Perpetual Care 432 96 96 30 (86) 31.0% Enterprise Funds 71V Parking 5,619,653 5,328,876 10,828,876 4,144,034 (6,584,842) 38.3% 715` Mass Transit 4,419,840 4,206,668 4,523,468 2,339,687 (2,183,781) 51.7% 720` Wastewater 12,592,429 12,965,154 12,965,154 8,445,271 (4,519,883) 65.1% 730` Water 8,753,178 9,412,456 9,412,455 6,362,593 (3,049,863) 67.6% 7400 Refuse Collection 3,182,296 3,057,022 3,057,022 2,088,935 (968,087) 68.3% 750" Landfill 6,037,167 5,833,264 5,833,264 4,427,701 (1,405,563) 75.9% 7600 Airport 1,281,691 324,100 324,100 237,154 (86,946) 73.2% 7700 Storm water 1,374,913 1,140,978 1,140,978 783,233 (357,745) 68.6% 780" Cable Television 754,999 - - - 0.0% 79"" Housing Authority 8,091,662 8,055,240 8,633,411 6,608,886 (2,024,525) 76.6% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 17,267,580 19,661,327 23,265,528 3,816,312 (19,449,216) 16.4% Enterprise Projects 3,414,404 762,258 1,446,725 1,390,617 (56,108) 96.1% Total Budgetary Revenues $ 153,074,089 $149,924,639 $168,500,811 $ 92,066,455 $ (76,434,356) 54.6% Non-Budoetary Fund Revenues Capital Project Funds Internal Service Projects $ 100,760 $ 100,000 $ $ 942 $ 942 0.0% Internal Service Funds 810' Equipment 6,343,244 6,446,145 6,446,145 4,317,536 (2,128,609) 67.0% 8200 Risk Management 1,581,498 1,476,424 1,474,136 1,438,232 (37,904) 97.4% 830` Information Technology 1,765,501 2,092,829 2,092,829 1,659,061 (433,768) 79.3% 8400 Central Services 251,501 256,208 256,208 173,254 (82,954) 67.8% 8500 Health Insurance Reserves 7,508,804 7,841,907 7,841,907 5,386,990 (2,454,917) 68.7% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 362,316 377,699 377,699 272,629 (105,070) 72.2% Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures $ 17,913,624 $ 18,591,211 $ 18,488,924 $ 13,246,644 $ (5,243,222) 71.6% Total Revenues - All Funds $ 170,987,713 $ 168,515,850 $ 186,989,735 $ 105,313,099 $ (81,677,578) 56.3% 4 City of Iowa City Revenues by Type Fiscal Year 2016 through March 31, 2016 5 2015 2016 2016 2016 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budlaetary Fund Revenues Property Taxes $ 51,492,986 $ 52,033,986 $ 52,033,986 $ 29,942,207 $ (22,091,779) 57.5% Delinquent Property Taxes 3,366 - - 61 61 0.0% TIF Revenues 640,244 1,020,126 1,020,126 662,360 (357,766) 64.9% Other City Taxes 2,877,888 2,786,289 2,786,289 1,461,633 (1,324,656) 52.5% Genera! Use Permits 103,958 87,011 87,011 59,536 (27,475) 68.4% Food & Liquor Licenses 120,434 99,912 99,912 66,363 (33,549) 66.4% Professional License 16,704 16,610 16,610 9,965 (5,645) 60.0% Franchise Fees 750,167 727,698 727,698 392,454 (335,244) 53.9% Construction Permits & Insp Fees 1,537,002 1,280,144 1,280,144 1,407,826 127,682 110.0% Mise Lic & Permits 38,115 37,960 37,960 27,446 (10,514) 72.3% Licenses, Permits, & Fees 2,568,380 2,249,336 2,249,335 1,963,569 (285,746) 87.3% Fed Intergovemment Revenue 13,160,509 16,406,042 24,328,895 8,133,651 ("•.6,195,244% 33.4% 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 5,900,468 (1,936,648) 75.3% State 28E Agreements 1,753,673 1,684,894 1,820,083 2,058,908 238,825 113.1% Operating Grants 84,126 90,067 90,067 81,847 (8.220) 90.9% Disaster Assistance 61,259 86,927 41,831 (45,096) 48.1% Other State Grants 10,543,117 2,237,352 3,700,058 4,246,810 546,752 114.8% Local 28E Agreements 989,787 980,701 980,701 823,777 (156,924) 84.0% Intergovernmental 34,958,530 30,296,422 40,996,550 22,337,076 (18,659,474) 54.5% Building & Development 694,796 358,082 1,358,082 513,650 (844,432) 37.8% Poilce Services 226,621 31,335 31.335 79,720 48,385 254.4% Animal Care Services 9,945 10,000 10,000 7,880 (2,121) 78.8% Fire Services 11,404 7,500 7,500 8,590 1,090 114.5% Transit Fees 1,448,151 1,385,691 1,385,691 860,077 (525,614) 82.1% Culture & Recreation 741,912 805,961 $05,961 425,363 (380,598) 52.8% Library Charges 39 - 20 20 0.0% Misc Charges For Services 67,073 52,236 52,236 54,912 2,676 105.1% Water Charges 8,531,499 9,271,112 9,271,112 6,240,026 (3,031,086) 67.3% Wastewater Charges 12,180,738 12,555,993 12,655,993 8,237,638 (4,318,355) 65.6% Refuse Charges 3,925,946 3,446,256 3,446,256 2,342,662 (1,103,594) 58.0% Landfill Charges 5,043,246 5,269,970 5,269,970 4,044,836 (1,225,134) 76.8% Storm water Charges 1,147,390 1,140,000 1,140,000 782,325 (357,675) 68.6% Parking Charges 5,972 285 5,751,956 5,751,956 4,530,754 (1,221,202) 78.8% Charges For Fees And Services 40,001,045 40,086,092 41,086,092 28,128,453 (12,957,639) 68.5% Code Enforcement 322,537 415,641 415,641 170,391 (245,450) 41.0% Parking Fines 614,363 512,997 512,997 410,140 (102,857) 79.9% Library Fines & Fees 166,785 175,666 175,666 115,982 (59,664) 66.0% Contributions & Donations 547,781 413,318 1,121,279 211,809 (909,470) 18.9% Printed Materials 49,104 43,136 43,136 38,564 (4,572) 89.4% Animal Adoption 12,912 11,060 11,060 11,605 545 104.9% Misc Merchandise 66,801 59,036 59,036 50,208 (8,828) 85.0% Intra -City Charges 2,760,448 2,766,196 3,237,534 2,160,054 (1,077,480) 66.7% Other Misc Revenue 930,739 634,418 1,710,511 483,819 (1,226,692) 28.3% Special Assessments 604 979 979 758 (221) 77.4% Miscellaneous $ 5,472,074 $ 5,032,647 $ 7,288,039 $ 3,653,331 $ (3,634,708) 50.1% 5 City of Iowa City Revenues by Type Fiscal Year 2016 through March 31, 2016 6 2015 2016 2016 2016 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Interest Revenues $ 1,139,734 $ 742,838 $ 742,838 $ 400,984 $ (341,854) 54.0% Rents 1,291,672 1,192,640 1,192,640 899,895 (292,745) 75.5% Royalties & Commissions 105,454 80,634 80,634 86,759 6,125 107.6% Use Of Money And Property 2,536,860 2,016,112 2,016,112 1,387,638 (628,474) 68.8% Debt Sales 7,866,773 12,982,068 9,476,888 (9,478,888) 0.0% Sa;e OF Assets 2,316,495 494,150 8,469,982 1,804,146 (6,665,836) 21.3% Loans 2,339,448 927,412 1,077,412 725,961 (351,451) 67,4% Other Financial Sources 12,522,716 14,403,630 19,024,282 2,530,107 (16,494,175) 13.3% Total Budgetary Revenues $ 153,074,089 $149,924,639 $ 168,500,811 $ 92,066,455 $ (76,434,356) 54.6% Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues Cap"al Project Funds $ 100,760 $ 100,000 $ - $ 942 $ 942 0.0% Internal Service Funds 17,812,864 ' 8,491,211 18,488,924 13,245,702 (5,243,222) 71.6% Total Non -Budgetary Revenues $ 17,913,624 $ "8,591,211 $ 18,488,924 $ 13,246,644 $ (5,242,280) 71.6% Total Revenues -All Funds $ 170,987,713 $168,515,850 $ 186,989,735 $ 105,313,099 $ (81,676,636) 56.3% 6 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund Fiscal Year 2016 through March 31, 2016 Debt Service Fund 5"** Debt Senrce Permanent Funds 6001 Perpetual Care Enterprise Funds 710* Parking 715' Mass Transit 720` Wastewater 730' Water 7400 Refuse Collection 750• Landfill 7600 Airport 7700 Storm water 780' Cable Television 79** Housing Authority Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects Enterprise Projects Total Budgetary Expandltures Non-Budaetary Funds Expenditures Capttal 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 17,208,781 13,207,838 15,210,235 3,837,117 11,373,118 25.2% 0.0% 11,228,816 2016 2016 2016 2016 69.5% 6,556,267 6,879,486 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Budgetary Fund Expenditures 8,922,329 1,721,749 83.8% 7,646,628 8,423,501 8,606,087 General Fund 2,579,248 70.0% 2,922,269 3,086,438 2,975,446 2,156,037 10" General Fund $ 49,320,669 $ 50,327,585 $ 54,180,252 $ 35,308,051 $ 18,872,201 65.2% Speclal Revenue Funds 365,460 346,072 346,072 272,657 73,215 78.8% 2100 Community Dev Block Grant 535,735 753,955 1,711,569 344,235 1,367,334 20.1% 2110 HOME 387,564 551,612 1,145,121 680,040 465,082 59.4% 2200 Road Use Tax Fund 5,563,553 5,840,581 5,919,223 4,015,948 1,903,275 67.8% 2300 Other Shared Revenue 129,831 1,459,187 304,019 1,155,168 20.8% 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co. 541,601 610,325 610,325 389,509 220,816 83.8% 2400 Employee Benefits 976,606 951,539 1,091,539 837,333 254,206 76.7% 2510 Peninsula Apartments 59,957 48,206 48,206 34,380 13,826 71.3% 26** Tax Increment Financing 18,670 42,500 42,500 - 42,500 0.0% 2820 SSMID-Downtown District 296,141 294,092 294,092 148,542 145,550 50.5% Debt Service Fund 5"** Debt Senrce Permanent Funds 6001 Perpetual Care Enterprise Funds 710* Parking 715' Mass Transit 720` Wastewater 730' Water 7400 Refuse Collection 750• Landfill 7600 Airport 7700 Storm water 780' Cable Television 79** Housing Authority Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects Enterprise Projects Total Budgetary Expandltures Non-Budaetary Funds Expenditures Capttal 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 17,208,781 13,207,838 15,210,235 3,837,117 11,373,118 25.2% 0.0% 11,228,816 3,270,015 3,395,921 2,359,367 1,036,554 69.5% 6,556,267 6,879,486 7,250,374 4,809,919 2,440,465 66.3% 10,384,032 10,395,608 10,644,078 8,922,329 1,721,749 83.8% 7,646,628 8,423,501 8,606,087 6,026,839 2,579,248 70.0% 2,922,269 3,086,438 2,975,446 2,156,037 619,409 72.5% 4,677,884 4,437,980 4,699,796 3,055,854. 1,643,942 65.0% 365,460 346,072 346,072 272,657 73,215 78.8% 1,095,239 786,064 793,193 404,267 388,926 51.0% 687,397 - - - 0.0% 7,730,524 7,537,903 8,217,730 6,745,539 1,472,191 82.1% 24,859,198 36,301,340 56,597,763 10,671,991 45,925,772 18.9% 6,485,716 3,892,758 14,450,028 439,956 (14,889,984) 3.0% $ 159,678,838 $ 157,987,398 $ 199,688,737 $ 91,764,130 $ 79,024,551 46.0% $ 62,526 $ 100,000 $ 465,596 $ 387,227 78,369 83.2% 5,194,488 5,990,748 5,990,748 3,434,508 2,556,240 57.3% 1,435,706 1,329,373 1,329,373 875,631 453,742 65.9% 1,786,707 2,018,404 2,118,404 1,380,265 738,139 65.2% 308,846 308,458 315,258 175,284 139,974 55.6% 7,285,127 7,880,283 7,880,283 5,682,216 2,198,067 72.1% 354,318 359,275 359,275 276,099 83,176 75.8% $ 16,427,718 $ 17,986,541 $ 18,458,937 $ 12,211,231 $ 6,247,706 66.2% $ 176,106,556 $ 175,973,939 $ 24,8,147,674 $ 103,975,361 $ 85,272,257 47.7% 7 City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund by Department Fiscal Year 2016 through March 31, 2016 Budsietary Funds Expenditures General Fund 10" General Fund City Council City Clerk City Attorney City Manager Finance Po5ce Fife Parks & Recreation Library Senior Center Neighborhood & Development Services Public Works Total General Fund 2015 2016 Actual Budget 2016 2016 Revised Actual Variance Percent $ 97,273 $ 119,412 $ 121,412 $ 73,584 $ 47,828 518,724 576,888 576,888 378,844 198,044 690,901 712,939 712,939 482,035 230,904 1,805,223 2,260,704 2,339,031 1,597,419 741,612 3,751,801 4,097,972 4,057,257 2,836,433 1,220,824 12,389,622 12,892,439 13,015,803 8,847,419 4,166,384 7,598,771 7,754,662 7,795,901 5,338,525 2,457,376 7,528,887 8,147,163 8,192,787 4,932,596 3,260,191 5,908,777 6,150,211 6,280,211 4,346,331 1,933,880 834,813 898,419 937,254 582,566 354,688 6,958,307 5,326,434 8,333,300 5,026,570 3,306,730 1,137,570 1,390,342 1,817,469 885,729 951,740 49,320,669 50,327,585 54,180,252 35,308,051 18,872,201 Special Revenue Funds 2100 Community Dev, Block Grant Neighborhood & Development Services 535,735 753,955 1,711,569 344,235 1,367,334 2110 HOME Neighborhood & Development Services 387,664 551,612 1,145,121 680,040 465,082 2200 Road Use Tax Fund Public Works 5,563,553 5,840,581 5,919,223 4,015,946 1,903,275 2300 Other Shared Revenue Neighborhood & Deve!opment Services 129,831 - 1,459,187 304,019 1,155,168 2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co Neighborhood & Development Services 541,601 610,325 610,325 389,509 220,616 2400 Employee Benefits Finance 976,606 951,539 1,091,539 837,333 254,206 2510 Peninsula Apartments Neighborhood & Development Services 59,957 48,206 48,206 34,380 13,826 26" Tax Increment Financing Neighborhood & Development Services 18,670 42,500 42,500 42,500 2820 SSMID-Downtown District Neighborhood & Development Services 296,141 294,092 294,092 148,542 145,550 Total Special Revenue Funds 8,509,756 9,092,810 12,321,762 6,754,007 5,567,755 Debt Service Fund 5* Debt Service Finance Total Debt Service Fund Permanent Fund 6001 Perpetus! Care Parks & Recreation Total Permanent Fund 17 208,781 13,207,838 15,210,235 3,837,117 11,373,118 17,208,781 13,207,838 15,210,235 3,837,117 11,373,118 8 60.6% 65.7% 67.6% 68.3% 69.9% 68.0% 68.5% 60.2% 69.2% 62.2% 60.3% 47.6% 65.2% 20.1% 59.4% 67.8% 20.8% 63.8% 76.7% 71.3% 0.0% 50.6% 54.8% 25.2% 25.2% 0.0% 0.0% City of Iowa City Expenditures by Fund by Department Fiscal Year 2016 through March 31, 2016 E 2095 2016 2016 2016 Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent Enterprise Funds 710' Parking Transportation & Resource Managemen $ 11,228,816 $ 3,270,015 $ 3,395,921 $ 2,359,367 $ 1,036,554 69.5% 715' Mass Transit Transportation & Resource Managemen 6,556,267 6,879,486 7,250,374 4,809,919 2,440,455 66.3% 720' Wastewater Public Works 10,384,032 10,395,608 10,644,078 8,922,329 1,721,749 83.8% 730' Water Public Works 7,646,828 8,423,501 8,606,087 6,026,839 2,579,248 70.0% 7400 Refuse Collection Transportation & Resource Managemen 2,922,269 3,088,438 2,975,446 2,156,037 819,409 72.5% 750' Landfill Transportatlor. & Resource Managemen 4,677,884 4,437,980 4,699,796 3,055,854 1,643,942 65.0% 7600 Airport Airport Operations 365,460 346,072 346,072 272,857 73,215 78.8% 7700 Storm water PubiicWorks 1,095,239 786,064 793,193 404,267 388,926 51.0% 780• Cable Television City Manager 687,397 - - - 0.0% 79'" Housing Authority Neighborhood & Development Services 7,730,524 7 537 903 8,217,730 6,745,539 1,472,191 82.1% Total Enterprise Funds 53,294,716 45,165,067 46,928,697 34,753,008 12,175,689 74.1% Capital Project Funds Governmental Projects 24,859,198 36,301,340 56,597,763 10,671,991 45,925,772 18.9% Enterprise Projects 6,485,716 3 892 758 14,450,026 439,956 14,010,072 3.0% Total Capital Project Funds 31,344,914 40,194,098 71,047,791 11,111,946 59,935,845 15.6% Total Budgetary Expenditures $ 159,678,838 $ 157,987,398 $ 199,688,737 $ 91,764,130 $ 107,924,607 46.0% Non-Budoetary Funds Expenditures Capital Project Funds Internal Service Projects $ 62,526 $ 100,000 $ 465,596 $ 387,227 $ 78,369 83.2% Total Capital Project Funds 62,526 100,000 465,596 387,227 78,369 83.2% Internal Service Funds 810` Equipment Pubic Works 5,194,488 5,990,748 5,990,748 3,434,508 2,556,240 57.3% 8200 Risk Management Finance 1,435,706 1,329,373 1,329,373 875,631 453,742 65.9% 830" Information Technology Finance 1,786,707 2,018,404 2,118,404 1,380,265 738,139 65.2% 8400 Central Services Finance 308,846 308,458 315,258 175,284 139,974 55.6% 8500 Health Insurance Reserves Finance 7,285,127 7,880,283 7,880,283 5,682,216 2,198,067 72.1% 8600 Dental Insurance Reserves Finance 354,318 359,275 359,275 276,099 83,176 76.8% Total Internal Service Funds 16,365,192 17,886,541 17,993,341 11,824,003 6,169,338 65.7% Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures $ 16,427,718 $ 17,986,541 $ 18,458,937 $ 12,211,231 $ 6,247,706 66.2% Total Expenditures -AII Funds $ 176,106,556 $ 175,973,939 $ 218,147,674 $ 103,975,361 $ 114,172,313 47.7% E CITY OF IOWA CITY QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT January 1, 2016 to March 31, 2016 Finance Department Prepared by: Brian over Senior Accountant OVERVIEW The City of Iowa City's investment objectives are safety, liquidity and yield. The primary objective of the City of Iowa City's investment activities is the preservation of capital and the protection of investment principal. The City's investment portfolio remains sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet operating requirements that cash management procedures anticipate. In investing public funds, the City's cash management portfolio is designed with the objective of regularly exceeding the average return on the six month U.S. Treasury Bill. The Treasury Bill is considered a benchmark for riskless investment transactions and therefore comprises a minimum standard for the portfolio's rate of return. Since the city's investments are mostly between the six month and twelve month range, the yield curve for the 12 month U.S. Treasury Bill has been added to the chart. . The rolling average return on the six-month U.S. Treasury Bill for the prior 365 days was 0.25% and the 12 month rate was .40%. The investment program seeks to achieve returns above this threshold, consistent with risk limitations and prudent investment principles. The rate of return on the City's entire portfolio for the quarter was 0.507%. (See exhibit A) Investments purchased by the City of Iowa City for the third quarter of this fiscal year had an average return of 0.68%. Rates on new investment purchases in our operating cash portfolio for the third quarter were approximately 16 basis points higher than investments purchased at this time last year. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which banks lend to each other. In the March 16 meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, the decision was made to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate from % to Y2 percent. The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant only gradual increases in the federal funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run. However, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data. (See exhibit B) The quarterly investment report lists investments by fund, by institution, by maturity date, and investments purchased and redeemed. The decrease in investments between 2015 and 2016 was generally offset with an increase in cash on hand. New official state interest rates setting the minimum that may be paid by Iowa depositories on public funds in the 180 to 364 day range during this quarter were 0.05% in January, 0.05% in February, and 0.05% in March 2016. a m w U= � H ~ o 0 0 0 2 "= N U �. 9L, _ r 4�, m SL, 0,0 S aS >, -61 ca � a0 >, �L�aa CU I S � CD U d: co O O O O O O O uanloa jo of BIuoDaod a m w 0 0 0 0 M O ajar Isaaa}ul CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND SUMMARY BY FUND 3/31/16 3/31/15 FUND INVESTMENT INVESTMENT TYPE AMOUNT AMOUNT ALL OPERATING FUNDS $101,000,344.17 $120,824,704.80 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND $ - $ 2,000,000.00 BOND RESERVE FUND $ 12,198,881.00 $ 9,726,921.00 TOTAL $113,199,225.17 $132,551,625.80 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND LISTING BY INSTITUTION TOTAL $113,199,225.17 $132,551,625.80 3/31116 3/31/15 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT INVESTMENT DEPOSITORY NAME AMOUNT AMOUNT LIMIT BANK OF THE WEST $ - $ - $ 75,000,000.00 BANKER'S TRUST $ - $ - $ 20,000,000.00 CEDAR RAPIDS BANK & TRUST $ 10,775,000.00 $ 6,000,000.00 $ 20,000,000.00 FARMERS & MERCHANTS SAVINGS BANK $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 15,000,000.00 FIRST AMERICAN BANK $ - $ - $ 35,000,000.00 CBI BANK & TRUST $ 4,000,000.00 $ - $ 15,000,000.00 HILLS BANK & TRUST $ 11,000,000.00 $ 9,000,000.00 $ 25,000,000.00 IOWA PUBLIC AGENCY INVESTMENT TRUST $ 6,500,000.00 $ 7,500,000.00 N/A LIBERTY BANK $ - $ - $ 25,000,000.00 MIDWESTONE BANK $ 22,480,221.00 $ 45,305,071.63 $100,000,000.00 TWO RIVERS BANK $ 4,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 U OF I COMM CREDIT UNION $ 3,444,150.00 $ 9,746,700.00 $ 50,000,000.00 US BANK $ - $ - $ 65,000,000.00 WELLS FARGO SECURITIES $ 9,583,160.00 $ 11,519,051.47 N/A WELLS FARGO BANK $ 39,416,694.17 $ 37,480,802.70 $ 50,000,000.00 WEST BANK $ - $ - $ 35,000,000.00 TOTAL $113,199,225.17 $132,551,625.80 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENTS ON HAND DETAIL LISTING BY MATURITY DATE 31 -Mar -16 INSTITUTION INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST NAME TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE I PAIT I PAIT 27 -Sep -06 $ 1, 500, 000.00 0.01% HILLS BANK MONEY MRKT 30 -Mar -10 $ 9,000,000.00 0.20% WELLS FARGO SAV 20 -Apr -10 $ 10,000,000.00 0.35% WELLS FARGO SAV 25 -Jul -12 $ 5,416,694.17 0.15% WELLS FARGO SAV 14 -Apr -14 $ 24,000,000.00 0.25% UICCU CD 22 -Jul -14 24 -Jul -19 $ 2,600,000.00 2.01% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 29 -Apr -15 29 -Oct -17 $ 1,000,000.00 1.02% UICCU CD 26 -Jun -15 25 -Jun -17 $ 844,150.00 0.95% CR BANK & TRUST CD 18 -Aug -15 02 -Sep -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.52% CR BANK & TRUST CD 18 -Aug -15 09 -Sep -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.52% CR BANK & TRUST CD 18 -Aug -15 16 -Sep -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.56% CR BANK & TRUST CD 18 -Aug -15 18 -Aug -17 $ 775,000.00 0.68% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 30 -Sep -15 30 -Sep -17 $ 15,000,000.00 1.02% FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK CD 16 -Oct -15 29 -Oct -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.50% WELLS FARGO SECURITIES CD 16 -Oct -15 13 -Oct -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.57% CBI BANK & TRUST CD 16 -Oct -15 05 -Nov -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.62% CBI BANK & TRUST CD 16 -Oct -15 12 -Nov -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.62% WELLS FARGO SECURITIES NOTE 20 -Nov -15 15 -May -18 $ 499,510.00 1.04% WELLS FARGO SECURITIES NOTE 08 -Dec -15 09 -Dec -16 $ 2,083,900.00 0.78% HILLS BANK CD 16 -Dec -15 13 -Jan -17 $ 2,000,000.00 1.00% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11 -Jan -16 10 -Feb -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.91% WELLS FARGO SECURITIES NOTE 13 -Jan -16 30 -Jun -16 $ 4,999,750.00 0.51%_ IPAIT CD 05 -Feb -16 01 -Nov -16 $ 5,000,000.00 0.66% CR BANK & TRUST CD 09 -Feb -16 08 -Aug -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.82% CR BANK & TRUST CD 19 -Feb -16 24 -Aug -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.78% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04 -Mar -16 03 -Mar -17 $ 450,000.00 0.90% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04 -Mar -16 03 -Mar -17 $ 2,030,221.00 0.91% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04 -Mar -16 09 -Sep -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.71% TWO RIVERS BANK CD 18 -Mar -16 15 -Dec -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.82% TWO RIVERS BANK CD 25 -Mar -16 29 -Dec -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.82% TOTAL $ 113,199,225.17 CITY OF IOWA CITY INVESTMENT ACTIVITY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2016 TOTAL REDEMPTIONS $ (25,493,714.43) INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 03/31/16 $ 113,199,225.17 INVESTMENT PURCHASE MATURITY INVESTMENT INTEREST INSTITUTION TYPE DATE DATE AMOUNT RATE INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 12/31/15 $ 112,199,225.17 PURCHASES 01/01/16 TO 03/31/16 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 11 -Jan -16 10 -Feb -17 $ 2,000,000.00 0.910 WELLS FARGO SECURITIES NOTE 13 -Jan -16 30 -Jun -16 $ 4,999,750.00 0.510 IPAIT CD 05 -Feb -16 01 -Nov -16 $ 5,000,000.00 0.660 CR BANK & TRUST CD 09 -Feb -16 08 -Aug -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.820 CR BANK & TRUST CD 19 -Feb -16 24 -Aug -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.780 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04 -Mar -16 03 -Mar -17 $ 450,000.00 0.900 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04 -Mar -16 03 -Mar -17 $ 2,030,221.00 0.910 MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04 -Mar -16 09 -Sep -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.710 WELLS FARGO SAV 25 -Jul -12 $ 2,013,743.43 0.150 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 18 -Mar -16 15 -Dec -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.822 TWO RIVERS BANK CD 25 -Mar -16 29 -Dec -16 $ 2,000,000.00 0.822 TOTAL PURCHASES $ 26,493,714.43 REDEMPTIONS 01/01/16 TO 03/31/16 IPAIT CD 22 -Dec -14 08 -Jan -16 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.45% IPAIT CD 22 -Dec -14 15 -Jan -16 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.45% CEDAR RAPIDS BANK & TRUST CD 28 -Jan -15 29 -Jan -16 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.42% CEDAR RAPIDS BANK & TRUST CD 28 -Jan -15 05 -Feb -16 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.42% CEDAR RAPIDS BANK & TRUST CD 28 -Jan -15 12 -Feb -16 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.44% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04 -Mar -14 04 -Mar -16 $ (450,000.00) 0.64% MIDWESTONE BANK CD 04 -Mar -14 04 -Mar -16 $ (2,030,221.00) 0.64% IPAIT CD 09 -Mar -15 04 -Mar -16 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.37% WELLS FARGO SECURITIES NOTE 06 -Mar -15 11 -Mar -16 $ (2,013,743.43) 0.32% TWO RIVERS BANK CD 06 -Mar -15 18 -Mar -16 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.38% TWO RIVERS BANK CD 06 -Mar -15 25 -Mar -16 $ (2,000,000.00) 0.39% WELLS FARGO SAV 25 -Jul -12 $ (4,999,750.00) 0.15% TOTAL REDEMPTIONS $ (25,493,714.43) INVESTMENTS ON HAND AT 03/31/16 $ 113,199,225.17 Marian Karr From: Weismann, Amy <amy-weismann@uiowa.edu> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 1:23 PM To: jason.burns@iowacourts.gov; dorothy.whiston@gmail.com; insideoutreentry@gmail.com; robcrader@gmail.com; crissy@shelterhouseiowa.org; nancy@iowacityarea.com; vanhousen.stephanie@gmail.com; dbeards Iey@co.johnson.ia.us; Ipulkrab@co.johnson.ia.us; Sam Hargadine; jlyness@co.johnson.ia.us; HumanRights; Council; Jim Throgmorton; botchway.kingsley@iowacityschools.org; board@iowacityschools.org; latasha.deloach@iowacityschools.org; amy.nielsen@northlibertyiowa.org; frederick.newel)@thedreamcenter.org; icblackvoices@gmail.com; royceannporter@msn.com; salwah.scott@gmail.com; @icha; info@cwjiowa.org; Clark -Bennett, Robin; pharney@co.johnson.ia.us; jrettig@co.johnson.ia.us; mcarberry@co.johnson.ia.us; rsullivan@co.johnson.ia.us; Igreendouglass@co.johnson.ia.us; Heimer, Karen; Hartley, Carolyn; coalition. racial.justice@gmail.com; Finnerty, Diane L; Trefz, Stephen E; Cohen, Mary L; Malone, Kendra K Cc: kevin.kinney@legis.iowa.gov; robert.dvorsky@legis.iowa.gov; joe.bolkcom@legis.iowa.gov; vicki.lensing@legis.iowa.gov; mary.mascher@legis.iowa.gov; david.jacoby@legis.iowa.gov; Helen Miller; Wing, Adrien K; Farrell, Brian R Subject: April 22 criminal justice reform event at Ulowa: Please RSVP! Attachments: CJR event with link.pdf Dear Esteemed Community Members (again): Please take a look at our website and register via the RSVP "click here" link so that we can count you in! Thank you! http://uichr.orgleventlbui lding-a-foundation-for-criminal-j ustice-reform-in-iowa/ B .1 A. F d' f C' ' 1 f Wldigo�,� -.C:n,� lu>k. kf .Mi— A4vf72.Fu wura MZIV P/p (�.m++��n15' aaMndNn r-�1 r,M1.r IrpfKteL p5N15 aye hWud 4.i ur.. m o�1n.v+iu!ccr.rwm. ,5 m Ixa �Ki mro.a.+.a.,awt ai.n.:auc.,y. me � .wnh..l�. or wMne..11 nbm. OMMe. reh 5n M7 r tp11.IMYn�H rOM.Ftl Yyy aY.! NRIGHTS ui mg a oun anm on or nma Justice Re orm m Iowa uichr.org Community stakeholders and other interested parties are invited to join an initial discussion of ways to effect criminal justice reform at the local level through individual, organizational, and co... I have also attached a flier for your use and distribution to others, as you desire. We appreciate your support of this effort to facilitate some meaningful conversation among diverse stakeholders on this urgent topic. We hope to see you on April 22! With thanks, Amy Amy Weismann Assistant Director University of Iowa Center for Human Rights University of Iowa College of Law 319-335-0483 amy-we ismann(&uiowa. edu www.uichr.org From: Weismann, Amy Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 12:46 PM To: jason.burns@iowacourts.gov; dorothy.whiston@gmail.com; insideoutreentry@gmail.com; robcrader@gmail.com; crissy@shelterhouseiowa.org; nancy@iowacityarea.com; vanhousen.stephanie@gmail.com; dbeardsley@co.johnson.ia.us; Ipulkrab@co.johnson.ia.us; sam- hargadine@iowa-city.org; jlyness@co.johnson.ia.us; HumanRights; council@iowa-city.org; jim- throgmorton@iowa-city.org; botchway.kingsley@iowacityschools.org; board@iowacityschools.org; latasha.deloach@iowacityschools.org; amy.nielsen@northlibertyiowa.org; frederick.newel)@thedreamcenter.org; icblackvoices@gmail.com; royceannporter@msn.com; salwah.scott@gmail.com; icha@iowa-city.org; info@cwjiowa.org; Clark -Bennett, Robin; pharney@co.johnson.ia.us; jrettig@co.johnson.ia.us; mcarberry@co.johnson.ia.us; rsullivan@co.johnson.ia.us; Igreendouglass@co.johnson.ia.us; Heimer, Karen; Hartley, Carolyn; coalition.racial.justice@gmail.com; Finnerty, Diane L; Trefz, Stephen E; Cohen, Mary L Cc: kevin.kinney@legis.iowa.gov; robert.dvorsky@legis.iowa.gov; joe.bolkcom@legis.iowa.gov; vicki.lensing@legis.iowa.gov; mary.mascher@legis.iowa.gov; david.jacoby@legis.iowa.gov Subject: Invitation to participate in April 22 criminal justice reform event at Ulowa Dear Esteemed Community Members: On behalf of the UI Center for Human Rights, it is my pleasure to invite you to join in an initial, solutions oriented discussion about efforts to effect criminal justice reform at the local level through individual, organizational and community action. The priorities and ideas shared at this event will inform plans for a larger forum in 2017. On April 22, We invite you to join in a series of moderated roundtable discussions to share the priorities you have identified in your work for criminal justice reform, and/or in the criminal justice system, and to discuss with diverse stakeholders the possibilities for effectuating positive change here in Johnson County. Please join us! And please feel free to invite others in your respective networks with an interest in criminal justice reform who need to be at the table, too! For more information, contact Amy Weismann (amy-weismann(i�uiowa.edu) Building a Foundation for Criminal Justice Reform in Iowa April 22 @ 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm W207 PBB (Pappajohn Business Building on the University of Iowa campus) Tentative schedule: 1:00-1:15 Welcome, Introductions, Framing Remarks Professor Adrien Wing, UI College of Law, and Representative Helen Miller (D) (Ft. Dodge/ House District 9) 1:15-2:00 Social Determinants and Criminal Justice— roundtable discussion to identify key issues/stakeholders for local action Moderator: Stephen Trefz, Abbe Center 2:00-2:45 Policing, Courts & Sentencing — roundtable discussion to identify key issues/stakeholders for local action Moderator: Professor Carolyn Hartley, UI School of Social Work 2:45-3:00 Networking/discussion break 3:00-3:45 Corrections, Reintegration and Life After Prison — roundtable discussion to identify key issues/stakeholders for local action Moderator: Professor Mary Cohen, UI College of Education 3:45-4:00 Concluding Remarks and Next Steps Amy Weismann Assistant Director University of Iowa Center for Human Rights University of Iowa College of Law 319-335-0483 amv-weismann(duiowa. edu www.uichr.orp, Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to attend all University of Iowa - sponsored events. If you are a person with a disability who requires an accommodation in order to participate in this program, please contact Amy Weismann (amy-weismann@uiowa.edu), Assistant Director of the UI Center for Human Rights Building a Foundation for Criminal Justice Reform in Iowa April 22, Friday 1:00pm-4:00pm W207 PBB Community stakeholders and other interested parties are invited to join an initial discussion of ways to effect criminal justice reform at the local level through individual, organizational, and community action. Our efforts will inform a broader event in 2017. LIVING A SOCIAL JuSTI(E THEME SEMESTER THE UNIVER51TY OF IOWA Light refreshment will be served. Please click ileve io isv6;. t1l6E TTER-FOR HUMAN RIGHTS From: Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition <jcaffordablehomes=gmail.com@mail71.atl11.rsgsv.net> on behalf of Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition <jcaffordablehomes@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 5:55 PM To: Council Subject: Affordable Housing Conference June 17 Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County 12016 Affordable Housing Conference Page 4 of 5 Home Schedule Registration Location Sign up now for the Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition's conference on affordable housing policies and programs! Date: Friday, June 17, 2016 Time: 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Location: The Radisson Hotel 1220 1 st Ave Coralville, IA 52241 The conference will provide decision - makers and citizens with practical information and ideas, presented by housing practitioners from Iowa, the Midwest, and elsewhere in the U.S. Conference Goals • Provide examples of solutions to housing problems that are working around the region and country, and are applicable to Johnson County • Identify local policies and programs that are addressing the shortage of affordable housing. • Attract public, nonprofit and private decision makers and concerned citizens to attend and identify next steps to improve access to affordable housing. ALSO, Don't miss our PRE -CONFERENCE MIXER! WITH MUSICAL GUEST: KEVIN "B.F." BURT (Registration is not required) Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 Time: 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Location: The Mill Restaurant 120 E Burlington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 FREE SNACKS! Conference Sponsors Conference Speakers Rick Goodemann Executive Director, Southwest Minnesota Housing Partnership Eric Burmeister Executive Director, Polk County Housing Trust Fund Christine Hensley Des Moines City Council and Midwest Housing Equity Group Lance Henning Executive Director, Greater Des Moines Habitat for Humanity Amber Lynch City of Des Moines Planner and Project Manager, East Bank Coalition Anne Gruenewald President and Chief Executive Officer, Four Oaks, Cedar Rapids Kathryn Dorsey Program Manager, Department of Pediatrics, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine Marva Williams Economic Development Director, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Kevin Shields Community Affairs Specialist, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Kansas City Michelle Allen Inclusionary Housing Program Manager, Boulder, Colorado Doug Boothroy Director of Neighborhood and Development Services, Iowa City, Iowa Iowa ON Area I http://www.htfjc.org/ 4/19/2016 Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County 12016 Affordable Housing Conference M Association of REALTORS@ 4dets. Habitat , for Humanity Iowa Valley CITY OF IOWA CITY Human Rights Commission ® Great Western Bank, MokkV the Great' Page 5 of 5 11MidWe t0,rx1, Bank. 8 8 Housing Trust Fund Johnson' County Johnson County 4tHousin Fellowship opening dw ckrwr OfAdHrsar Carrrry, Livable Community http://www.htfjc.org/ 4/19/2016 0 Iowa City Area Development Group Extraordinary opportunities in unexpected places. For Immediate Release April 20, 2016 IP13 Iowa City Area Receives Inaugural Technology Community of Iowa Award The Technology Association of Iowa hosted the 11th annual LWBJ Prometheus Awards on Thursday April 14th at the Iowa Events Center in Des Moines. Over 1000 people attended the event to recognize companies, individuals and communities that support technology in Iowa. ICAD Group on behalf of the Iowa City Area (Iowa City, North Liberty and Coralville) won the Technology Community of the year for being a region that supports tech -based companies and uses information and communications technology to improve quality of life, education and workforce. The area was recognized for its support of entrepreneurial activity and local companies which are large users and creators of technology. The community was recognized for the unique tech -focused partnerships in the community including the three CoLab Coworking spaces, the coming MERGE space, the new Kirkwood Regional Center and the strong community partnerships with the University of Iowa through the Tippie College of Business, John Pappajohn Entrepreneurial Center and the Vice President for Research and Economic Development. This ongoing support has given rise to such high profile events as Entrefest, Mission Creek Tech + Innovation, the EDC's Innovation Expo, Startup Weekends, Flyover Fashion Festival and many more regular events to build the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Mark Nolte, President of the Iowa City Area Development Group, accepted the inaugural award in this category on behalf of the area. "We are honored to be a part of the true spirit of collaboration and willingness to act to make the area a place where young tech companies succeed faster because of our collective efforts." The Iowa City Area came out on top of an impressive slate of communities which included Ames, Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Des Moines, Fairfield and the Mason City /Clear Lake area. The 2016 Prometheus Award winners can be found here: https: / /www.technologviowa.org/`index.cfm?nodeID=85958&audiencelD=1 316 E Court Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 319.354.3939 IowaCityAreaDevelopment.com Marian Karr From: Geoff Fruin Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 3:58 PM To: Marian Karr Cc: John Yapp; Doug Boothroy; Tracy Hightshoe; Simon Andrew; Eleanor M. Dilkes Subject: FW: Rose Oaks Tenant Relocation Assistance Update Attachments: Rose Oaks Tenant Relocation Assistance Update 5.02.2016.docx Marian, Late Handouts Distf7buteo Can you include this in the late handouts or distribute at the table tomorrow? Thanks — S ��\� Geoff (Date) From: Crissy Canganelli [mailto:crissy@shelterhouseiowa.org] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 3:14 PM To: Geoff Fruin Cc: John Yapp; Doug Boothroy; Tracy Hightshoe; Kristopher Ackerson; Mark Sertterh; Debbie Peck Subject: Rose Oaks Tenant Relocation Assistance Update Hi Geoff: Our update is attached. Please let me know if there are any additional questions or concerns. Also should we plan on being at the Council meeting tomorrow? Crissy Canganelli Executive Director, Shelter House office: 319.338.5416 ext. 200 cell: 319.530.8706 fax: 319.358.7132 Shelter House To: Geoff Fruin, Interim City Manager, City of Iowa City From: Crissy Canganelli, Executive Director, Shelter House Re: Rose Oak Tenant Relocation Assistance Update Date: May 2, 2016 Shelter House began assisting tenants facing relocation due to redevelopment of the Rose Oaks apartment complex the week of April 11" . Since then, we have been staffing office hours on-site on Tuesdays and Thursdays providing one-on-one assistance with housing searches, resource referral, and general support related to moving related challenges. As of May 2"d we are joined by staff from the Salvation Army, Johnson County General Assistance, and the Crisis Center. With the support of these partners we will have an on-site presence every day (three hour blocks per day) of the week (Monday -Friday) with both daytime and evening availability. To date, we have met with, made contact, and provided information to 30 unique households. Of these: ■ Five have received direct financial assistance of which: o Four received payment for application fees o Two received security deposit and rent assistance. • One household moved to permanent.housing on Friday, April 29th. • One household is scheduled to move this week (pending inspection). ■ Nine households were provided moving supplies: tape, markers, trash bags and boxes. ■ Two households were assisted using the Shelter House cargo van to move their furniture/personal items. • An interpreter (paid for by the City of Iowa City) assisted four households with completing applications for financial assistance — they are all looking for other rental units in the community; one has received assistance with an application fee. As a point of clarification, financial assistance through Shelter House is not going directly tenants. It is issued to the new landlord, property manager, or requisite vendor on behalf of the assisted household. Additionally, we are only able to assist tenants as they seek assistance and ultimately follow through. Rose Oaks staff report that they started with 220 occupied units. 90 households have already left the complex. Another 30 have made commitments to move to other housing. Of the remaining tenants: • 26 households must move by the end of this week into other units on-site to accommodate the construction company that is to begin work gutting the first six buildings on the property. The owners are giving them FREE rent for the month of May for the inconvenience of having to move across the complex. o The interpreter was also able to assist Rose Oaks staff in helping some of the impacted households to understand the need to move to another unit on-site due to this part of the project renovation. Some tenants had complaints about the new units and the interpreter was able to relay this to Rose Oaks staff who plan to remedy the concerns (by finding a different unit for one family that did not like the smell of their new unit, and by having maintenance staff relocate the appliances from the current unit to the new unit for another family). IP14 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 7, 2016 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA HARVAT HALL — CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Wittig, Jamie Rosenfels, Eric Anderson, Chris Teigen, Brigette Ingersoll, Don Beussink, Julie Houston, Dick Tucker, Salaish Sarin, David Shafer, Helene Donta, John Roffman, Robert Rosenfels, Steve Schmidt, Adam Ingersoll, Bill Thomasson, Duane Musser RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA16-0001 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Residential (2 to 8 dwelling unit per acre) to Office Commercial for property located north of Melrose Avenue east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard. By a vote of 6-1 (Eastham voting no) the Commission recommends approval of REZ16-00003 a rezoning of approximately 26.98 -acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD -8) zone and a preliminary plat for Nepola Subdivision, a 3 -lot subdivision with 170 -senior dwelling units located on Camp Cardinal Road. W RM • •-�_1 Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM (CPA16-00001): A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan submitted by Saint Andrew Presbyterian Church to change the land use designation of property located north of Melrose Avenue and east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard from Residential 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre to Office Commercial. Miklo began the staff report noting the property in question was acquired by Saint Andrew Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 17 Presbyterian Church as part of a larger tract of property. The Church is building a new facility on the northern portion of the property, there is also a wooden ravine on the property and then this parcel. The Church does not need this parcel for its purposes so they are hoping to market the property for development. Miklo explained that when considering a Comprehensive Plan amendment the Commission is asked to consider whether circumstances have changed or there is new information about the area that wasn't available when the plan was adopted and that would lead to a good reason to change the plan. This particular property was shown as residential (density 2-8 dwelling units per acre) when it first appeared in the Comprehensive Plan in 1989. Since that Plan was adopted, there have been some changes in the area, the most significant was the construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard which was not anticipated in the 1989 version of the Comprehensive Plan. There has also been extensive development that has occurred in the area. First the Walnut Ridge Subdivision started in the early 1990's, and then more recently after Camp Cardinal Boulevard was built, Cardinal Ridge Subdivision was developed. With the construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard we are starting to see the formation of neighborhoods in the area and have a clearer vision of how the area will develop. Next, the Commission is to consider if the proposed amendment is compatible with the other policies of the Comprehensive Plan. There are a few specific policies that the Staff believe apply in this area, one is a policy of considering uses other than single -family near four lane highways such as interstate 80 or in this case Highway 218. In fact the subdivision regulations discourage development near the highway and there is a restriction of residential development within 300 feet of the right-of-way. Technically that 300 foot restriction does not apply to this property because right-of-way for Highway 218 ends with the entrance ramp and this property is beyond 300 feet. However this property is still exposed to the highway noise because of the location of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and the physical attributes of the property. Therefore Staff feels development of something other than residential is appropriate for this property given that policy. Another policy of the Comprehensive Plan is to create buffers or transitions from more intense uses to residential uses and the most appropriate zoning for this area if designated as "office" in the Comprehensive Plan would be Commercial Office (CO-1) zone. The zoning ordinance recognizes CO-1 as being appropriate adjacent to residential because it is generally low in intensity, it has height restrictions of a two-story building. Miklo noted that before this area could be developed it would have to go through a rezoning and a couple of the issues that might arise during a rezoning application can be addressed at that time. Conditions can be placed for requirements of landscaping screening and lighting standards if deemed necessary. Staff recommends that CPA16-0001 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Residential (2 to 8 dwelling unit per acre) to Office Commercial for property located north of Melrose Avenue east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard be approved. Hensch asked what type of facilities would be allowed by CO-1 zoning. Miklo stated most typically it would be an office building, medical office or financial office. An example in this area would be at the corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway where a Mercy Medical Clinic is located. Additionally there could be offices such as an insurance agent. The Commercial Office zoning does allow for some limited retail, like a small restaurant. A drive-thru restaurant would not be allowed. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 - Formal Meeting Page 3 of 17 Eastham asked if Staff considered Community Commercial (CC -2) zoning as a recommendation. Miklo explained that is something the Comprehensive Plan has addressed specifically, to not open up another interchange to CC -2 development. The policy has been to develop that at Highway 1 and Highway 218 because those uses tend to be more intense with more signage, lighting, etc. Eastham asked about the water and sewer service to this area. Miklo noted those services are available to this area. Freerks opened the public hearing. Bill Wittig (Elite First Realty & member of St. Andrew Church) stated the Church requested this Comprehensive Plan amendment. As the marketing agent for the property he recognized that no one will buy the property if they do not know what they can develop on the property. Wittig stated there have been meetings with Staff and with neighbors of the property and agreed this is a compatible use that is pretty restrictive and protective of neighbors. This change would make the property marketable. Any buyer that would be interested would still have to go through the zoning process, this is just allowing the Church to move forward with marketing the property. Hensch asked Wittig if there were any other types of uses that they considered. Wittig said the two previous offers for the property were convenience stores, but that was not agreeable with the neighbors. Jamie Rosenfels (125 Kennedy Parkway) stated her home would be directly across from this property. She noted she grew up in the country in rural Iowa and lived in the country for 50 some years. They decided to move to Iowa City eight and half years ago and spent several months looking at properties. When they were shown this property on Kennedy Parkway the open space around the property is what sold them on the property. They were told by their realtor that the open space would never be developed. Rosenfels noted she would consider moving if that open space was developed, the property has already become very ugly with the excavation that is going on. She is also concerned her property values will decrease, noting people want to live in her neighborhood because of the open space surrounding them. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to approve CPA16-0001 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Residential (2 to 8 dwelling unit per acre) to Office Commercial for property located north of MelroseAvenue east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Parsons seconded the motion. Eastham noted this proposed change in the Comprehensive Plan probably meets all the requirements and standards the Commission is to consider and CO -1 is an acceptable potential zoning for future development. He is bothered that homeowners buy properties after being told that surrounding areas will not be developed. That is usually untrue. Eastham struggles with how to address that issue, but notes his job on the Commission is to approve amendments if all the standards are met, and therefore apologizes to the neighbors who might have been told something else by their realtors. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 17 Freerks feels this is a good compromise for what could be developed in this area. Things have changed since the 1989 Comprehensive Plan for this area, development is surely going to occur and it's unfortunate that homeowners are told otherwise. She believes office uses are appropriate for the area. Martin noted that just last evening they were at a Planning & Zoning workshop and were encouraged to review their city's Comprehensive Plans so she read through the Plan today. This whole area is developing and that is not going to stop, and based on the Comprehensive Plan this is an acceptable use. It is a lovely area and there could be some really great uses for this property that would serve the community surrounding it. Theobald noted she will be supporting this amendment, but noted her concern of this area not including any multi -family housing and would eventually like to see that in this overall area of the city. Eastham noted that realtors do know what is going on with regards to future developments within the city and especially in this area so they should not be telling prospective buyers that development won't happen. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ16-00003/SUB16-00004): Discussion of an application submitted by Ryan Companies US Inc for a rezoning of approximately 26.98 -acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD -8) zone and a preliminary plat for Nepola Subdivision, a 3 -lot subdivision with 170 -senior dwelling units located on Camp Cardinal Road. Miklo noted that since the last meeting the applicant, Ryan Companies, has met with the adjacent neighbors and submitted a revised site plan and elevation drawings. The revised plans do include a notation on Outlot A indicating that future development would be restricted to the density allowed on 3.75 acres given that the rest of the density is being transferred to Lot 1 to accommodate the senior housing development. Also note the actual configuration and density on Outlot A will be subject to a planned development overlay zoning in the future so the actual number and how it's laid out on the property is yet to be determined. Miklo also stated the revised site plan does include additional landscaping on Outlot A and on the adjacent Saint Andrew property. As noted in the previous Staff report, Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning and the Nepola subdivision that accompanies it. Hensch asked Miklo to address the issue of the computation of the density on the 26.9 acres versus one of the letters received that state that is inappropriate because that land is not owned by the developer so it can only be calculated on the 6+ acres. Miklo explained the planned development applies to the entire property and it is true that the density of the 170 units is being concentrated on Lot 1. So 120 units of density is coming from Outlot A to Lot 1. The development of the remaining 3 acres of density left on Outlot A would be determined at a later date. If the planned development overlay was not being proposed then a conventional subdivision could be proposed under either the RS -5 or RS -8 zoning and theoretically if this was zone RS -8 that could approach 200 units. The proposed Planned Development Overlay allows that density to be clustered and that is what is being proposed. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 17 Parsons asked about all the development that is occurring along Camp Cardinal Boulevard and when was the last time significant traffic studies were done. Miklo said that when the Saint Andrew Church property was subdivided transportation planners did look at the area. Hetkeon stated the traffic study at that time was deemed appropriate. Miklo explained that Camp Cardinal Boulevard is an arterial street designed to handle significant traffic. Eastham asked if it were necessary to have the owners of Outlot A permission or approval for this particular request because of the transfer of density from Outlot A to Lot 1. Miklo said the City has received confirmation that the owner of Outlot A supports this rezoning and is accepting of the conditions that are placed on Outlot A. Eastham asked then if this were approved, and the density of 170 units were transferred to Lot A, what would be the allowable remaining density or number of units left that could be developed on Outlot A. Miklo said it would be roughly 30 units that would be potentially available as the maximum. Miklo said there would be a maximum cul-de-sac length of 900 feet in Outlot A so that will prevent the street from reaching the far ends of the property so that could limit the development to less than 30 units. Freerks continued the public hearing from the previous meeting. Eric Anderson (Ryan Companies US) recapped what he presented at the last meeting, the description of the project and reviewed the good neighbor meeting #1 response. He had shown the views from neighboring properties and from that there was a determination to have a second good neighbor meeting because there was some issues with the association mailing address. Therefore there was a second good neighbor meeting held a week ago Monday with Cardinal Ridge neighbors and some of the Walnut Ridge neighbors attended as well. At the last meeting there was a request from the Commission on the architecture of the building and what they will do to mitigate height. One of the project architects is here tonight to answer those questions. To recap the concerns of what they heard at the second good neighbor meeting, first was that the building was too big and would be seen by all the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. Anderson said they did a view from the bottom of Meadowlark Drive and was told that was the least impeded view and they were being disingenuous showing that view. It was also said their sight line view was incorrectly shown relative to the scale of the building, noise and light from the building would be offensive, and the trees they represented on top of the hill were much larger than their actual size. Finally they heard the homeowner's equity would be devalued from this project. Therefore Anderson said they would show pictures of the trees on the site, discuss the views from Cardinal Ridge and Kennedy Parkway, they will show two animations of the sight line views. First the trees on the property have been measured by a landscape architect to be 60-65 feet. They will be cutting their building into the grade 8 feet, so their 78 foot building would at the same height or so of those trees. Chris Teigen (Ryan Companies US) is the architect working on the project and can discuss the design of the building particularly some of the changes they have made in response to concern from the neighbors. He will also discuss the views they studied from Cardinal Ridge and Walnut Ridge. Teigen showed the view from the bottom of Cardinal Ridge, the one the neighbors did not think was a correct interpretation of the project, so then he showed a view from Kennedy Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 17 Parkway, the highest point in Cardinal Ridge. To obtain the various views of the property, they looked at the Johnson County GIS data, topography available from Google Earth, and field verification. Eastham asked if the trees in this area are fully developed. Teigen said yes, the photos were taken in the winter and they show both the effect in the winter as well as with a transparency overlay of when the trees will be in full foliage. Teigen next showed the animations where they took the topography and their architectural drawings and drove through the Cardinal Ridge neighborhood and Walnut Ridge. He then showed slides of the design of the building. He addressed the scale of the building, as that was a concern raised at the neighborhood meetings. The height of the building from the grade to the mid -point of the roof was originally submitted at 55 feet, the revised design submitted shows the removed of the pitched roof and addition of pavilions at each end of the building. These changes have made the sight line of the building to be at a similar height as houses in the area and it breaks down the mass of the building. The revised height of the building is 51 feet, with the pavilions being at 55 feet. Lastly, in the previous design they had a light color siding at the top of the building and they are replacing that with a darker more natural pallet material to blend in better with the surrounding trees. Anderson showed slides of the additional landscaping they are adding to the site. It is the equivalent of about 25 trees. They received permission from the Church and property owner Dr. Nepola. To summarize, Anderson pointed out this project is a good thing for Iowa City, there is a definitive need for senior housing in the market, this is a low -impact use, the number of trips generated from a 170 senior housing unit is less than a 140 single-family units by a long shot. Two-thirds of the residents will not have vehicles and the one-third that do rarely drive. Senior housing is not a noise generator, they will not be exterior lighting the building with exceptions of lights around the walkways which will meet the City's requirements. This development will be further away from single-family development than any other senior housing building in Iowa City. 850 feet to the closest house, other senior housing buildings have single family homes 30 feet and 250 feet away. Anderson noted that location of the development next to Saint Andrew Church allows opportunities to partner with the Church and they have had discussions on use of common areas. Dyer asked what will be the materials of the building. Teigen replied that the primary materials of the building will be a composite material or fiber cement. The roof will be a shingle roof and there is a two -foot masonry base around the bottom of the building. Freerks asked if the windows reflected on the drawings were accurate, it appears to have nice window coverage. Teigen replied that yes, the windows are driven by the number of units and there are specific needs for each unit to have a number of windows. Eastham noted there were comments the Commission received about the cost of the units in the building, noting the costs were fairly high. Anderson stated from an independent living standpoint the studios will be in the $2500 to $2600 range and a two-bedroom with den unit would be in the $4000 range. That provides two meals a day, housekeeping, transportation, utilities and taxes. On the care side of the facility, prices will depend on how much care is needed. It is based on the activities of daily living. The lowest level of care is $700 a month up to $2100 month on top of the unit costs. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 17 Hensch asked how those costs compare to a typical skilled care facility in the Johnson County area. Anderson said that skilled nursing was much more expensive and it is almost all Medicaid based and costs in the range of $10,000 to $12,000 per month. Eastham asked if this facility would accept people who are using Medicaid. Anderson said it would not, this facility is a market -rate facility. Hensch noted in the comments the Commission received there were also concern about the lack of walkways and pedestrian trails, etc. Anderson said that is typically something that comes as the project develops, and will be discussed at the site review. Miklo pointed out there is a proposed walkway system on the north side of the building. Anderson noted the average independent living resident is 72-85 years old and once you get into the assisted living goes up into the 90's. While these folks may be mobile, they are not going for long distances. He noted there will likely be an outdoor patio area for drinks/dining. Martin asked if there was connectivity from this project to the Church. Anderson said that yes, there would be a sidewalk system to the Church. Brigette Ingersoll (925 Meadowlark Drive) is the president of the Cardinal Ridge Homeowners Association and represents 116 properties. The Association owns two outlots that abut the north side of the Nepola property. The Association met with the developer in the good neighbor meeting and they did present the modification to their roof pitch but they were unwilling to compromise on the overall scale and number of units in the building which is probably the Association's biggest concern. They have submitted a written objection to this project, they are cognizant of the need for senior living in Iowa City and would be happy to see it in their neighborhood, but object to the overall scale and scope of this particular project. Three of the biggest reasons for the objection are the size and scale which is inconsistent for the surrounding neighborhood, that the rezoning application is incomplete and too broad and inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this neighborhood, and finally this particular development does not serve the public interest. Freerks asked if the Homeowners Association has discussed what they feel an appropriate size and scale for such a project should be. Ingersoll said it has not been thoroughly discussed but the general sense if there were one story less to this building it would fit into the neighborhood better and be more consistent with other senior living areas such as Melrose Meadows. Don Beussink (1054 Meadowlark Drive) is one of three board members on the Homeowners Association for Cardinal Ridge and also Eagle Ridge. Beussink spoke at the last meeting and requested more time to review some of the concerns the homeowners had voiced. Having had the extra time and meeting with the developers they have deepened their knowledge of the project it has become more and more obvious that the scale of the building is totally out of character to the surrounding neighborhood. Beussink stated this project is unprecedented by prior actions of this Commission and an action to approve this would essentially be equivalent to approving a structure virtually the size of Kinnick Stadium in the neighborhood. The field in Kinnick Stadium is 100 yards long which is smaller than this building, and one would have to include much of both of the end zones to make a size comparison. The Commission's prior actions are more in line of what the Homeowners Association feels should be done, for example Melrose Meadows. Melrose Meadows fits very nicely into the neighborhood it's located in, the entrance circle and front entrance is one-story and the scale is pleasant and it has 58 independent and 31 assisted living units. Additionally there is Walden Place which also in more Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 17 in line with the neighborhood look and feel. It is a two-story building with 102 senior living units. That seems more in line with what one might expect in a residential area. In summary the homeowners are not opposed to addressing the needs of seniors, but do feel the scale of the structure should be in line with previous decisions of the zoning commission and Beussink is confident that Grand Living can provide these services in a more appropriate structure and still achieve their financial goals. Julie Houston (1170 Meadowlark Drive) wished to touch briefly on the application itself. It is the position of the Homeowners that the application is overbroad and incomplete at this time. The primary reason is because there are essentially three applications here and only one has been presented for public hearing. The other part is the request to rezone the entire property which creates additional questions about storm runoff in a different direction, perhaps to the north instead of to the south, and questions about future environmental damage. These are things that should be addressed in a public hearing, and statements should be heard and responded to by the property owner who is not present. Houston noted that if that application to rezone the whole property had appeared alone, or first, it would make more sense. The developer is proposing a project before the parcel has even been subdivided. She feels a step has been skipped and the public hasn't been allowed to comment on that specific part. Houston also reiterated that the scale of the Grand Living structure was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which strives for consistency and predictability in the community. People purchase homes and rely on that predictability and stability and this project is so far outside a reasonable expected use as defined in the Comprehensive Plans. The Comprehensive Plan discussed mixed-use, perhaps small apartment buildings, there is no discussion of large 4-5 story buildings with 170 units within a low density residential area. The structure is also in violation of the stated goals of the Iowa Zoning Code, found in section 14-18-3, the structure visually dominates other structures in the area, it is not compatible with the styles of the homes in the area, it does not make any accommodations for low income seniors, and despite the claimed synergy with this building and Cardinal Ridge and Walnut Ridge there is a very large opposition with those neighborhoods. Houston reiterated the scale is inconsistent with the plan which envisions nothing larger than small apartment buildings. She also stated that although it was discussed earlier that traffic studies don't show issues, she noted it is very difficult to access Camp Cardinal Boulevard at certain times of the day and adding another 100 employees and seniors driving will add to that. Even if the employees work in shifts, are those shift changes going to be at times when others are commuting to work, or picking kids up from school. This project will overcrowd the land and unnecessarily increases the population in a very small area and fails to conserve open spaces and destroys the natural scenery with an excessively large structure. The proposed color of the building is in stark contrast to the environment around especially in the winter when there will be snow on the ground. Houston also noted that the trees will only be in full foliage five months out of the year and if you walk the property, the trees are not that dense. Hektoen stated that this is a complete application, it is for the entire 26 acres, and they do have the consent of the property owner to do this. She noted there is not a restriction on the owner to sell off a subdivided lot. Lot 1 and Outlot A are restricted to the total density of both lots and Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 17 those remain restricted regardless of the owner Hensch asked if this application was approved and there was future development on Outlot A would that have to go through the zoning process as well. Miklo replied it would. Dick Tucker (55 Butternut Court) had sent a letter by email this afternoon on behalf of the Board and Homeowners Association of Walnut Ridge objecting to this rezoning (the Commissioners acknowledged they had received the email). The letter addresses issues as to whether or not this rezoning is in fact consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it existed to date. The letter makes appropriate and specific reference to at least some language in the Comprehensive Plan which suggests that this usage is inappropriate for the Comprehensive Plan, it is inappropriate given what was believed and approved of when Walnut Ridge was approved as a subdivision and what would end up being a reasonable progression of housing density as one went west from Walnut Ridge. Up to this point, and this project, what has been approved other than single-family low density residential has been consistent with the language of the Comprehensive Plan. Tucker noted he was present at the second good neighbor meeting and at that meeting they were presented with the revised design of the building. He wants to emphasize again that the first floor of the proposed building is being built at 770 feet above sea level. That is equivalent to the highest points on this property and is higher than any of the ground in Walnut Ridge immediately adjacent to it. Tucker found it interesting on the picture shown earlier that suggested the line of sight from Kennedy Parkway from the top of Cardinal Ridge that a person standing there would be a 767 feet and the line of sight would appear to take you to 770 feet above sea level. The picture indicated the building would be behind trees which would also be at 770 feet. But at 770 feet, that is only the first floor of this proposed building. Whether the height of the building is 51.2 or 54.8 feet tall, it is that much taller than the trees. Tucker explained he does trial law for a living and he can make animation show anything he wants it to show. He asks the Commissioners to go and look carefully at this property, there is nothing screening this building to the south. He finds it interesting that some of the new trees they are proposing adding are immediately behind his lot, he didn't ask for that, he doesn't need it and he doesn't want it because that is not the point. The point is what this project will do to the neighborhood and community and it's not an appropriate use. Tucker looked at buildings in downtown Iowa City to find a comparison of height and scale and noted the Jefferson Building and Midwest One Bank buildings are 8 and 6 stories respectively. Imagine taking either of those buildings and extending them an additional 55 feet and that is what the size of this proposed building will be in respect to the neighboring properties as it will be on the highest ground in the area. Tucker believes it is an inappropriate use, but if the Commission decides it is an appropriate use then they need to decide if the scale is completely out of line for the good of the area and the good of the neighborhoods involved. Salaish Sarin (401 Butternut Lane) began by thanking the Commission of their time acknowledging it is a volunteer board. He stated his understanding is the Commission's mission is to assure that development occurs in a responsible manner and that the development is in line with the neighborhood. Sarin doesn't believe anyone at these meetings is opposed to developing senior living, he is an internist and does find it difficult placing people into nursing homes. The projected growth for elderly is very high in the next 15-20 years in Johnson County so there is a need for senior living. This would be high end senior living, it is about $6000 a Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 10 of 17 month to be in a nursing home in Johnson County. However, that all said, Sarin does not feel the size of this building is in line with the neighborhoods. So if the Commission's mission is to assure development occurs in a responsible manner and meets the needs of that area while matching what is already in the area. This does not meet those requirements, this building is quite large, and if it is indeed the size of Kinnick Stadium then that is unprecedented. The mission is not to help any developer have a profit margin of X, which is the developer's issue. The opposition is to the size of the development, a lot of people would like to see single family homes there but if it is deemed to see fit for senior living that is fine, but the size needs to be addressed. It is too large, it needs to be one or two stories smaller. Even from the animation the developer showed going down Butternut Court you could see the large size of the building. It doesn't fit in the neighborhood. David Shafer (1151 Meadowlark Drive) is on the Board of Directors for the Cardinal Ridge Homeowners Association and echoes the concern that a building the size of a football field could be completely obscured by randomly translucent trees, especially when there is a building the size of a mobile home on that hill that can be seen just fine right now. With this application Ryan Companies and Grand Living are asking for some major allowances and exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan. The enormous scale and size is unprecedented and the density is far outside the expectations of the neighbors and also the City's Comprehensive Plan. Therefore the City Code and the neighbors rightly ask will this serve the public interest. Specifically will it help address the shortage of affordable senior housing. His mother, Pam Shafer, is retiring today after a career as a social worker and for the past 10 years she has been the coordinator at West Over Manor in Cedar Rapids where she helps the seniors there and adults with mobility problems. Therefore he knows how important it is to provide affordable senior housing. At the good neighbor meeting on March 28 they heard that this facility is aimed at upper middle class seniors. That statement is perhaps generous with prices starting at $3000 per month for a studio apartment up to $6000 per month for a two-bedroom apartment and more than $7000 per month for memory care. He argues that is not in the public interest, wondering who could afford that, he could not afford that, and his parents could not afford that. Shafer asks that the Commission recommend against approving this application. Helene Donta (915 Meadowlark Drive) said her view will not be affected by this building but she opposes on the principal of the scale of the building and whether or not it really serves senior citizens in Iowa City. For the past five years she has had the privilege of taking care of her aging parents and has done a great deal of research regarding senior housing and particularly senior housing in Iowa City. Her mother currently resides a Briarwood, a small skilled nursing facility with 56 beds that takes tremendous pride in their quality of care. There are over 11 assisted living and skilled care facilities in the Johnson County area and new units are currently under construction in Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty. None are at the scale and size proposed by Grand Living, and none built so close to sensitive land areas. Currently the highest need in Iowa City is for skilled nursing care and continuity of care at an affordable price. There are only four facilities that provide skilled nursing care in this area and only one facility in Iowa City that provides the continuity of care facility that most seniors want (going from independent to skilled nursing without having to move) and that is Oaknoll. That it is why Oaknoll has a waiting list all the way to 2023 and is planning a second campus. Currently the two hottest trends in senior living are the continuity of care model and the stay at home model. The scale of the proposed Grand Living facility does not fit the model of what Iowa City needs in terms of senior housing. The scale of 170 units with the option of 30 more Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 11 of 17 was justified by Grand Living by providing the amenities they think seniors will like. These include a performance theater, seven restaurants, a pet grooming service, spa and pool, a woodshop, and a continuing education system. Iowa City is the 10th best place in the country for seniors according to a senior living survey. Iowa City and Coralville have many restaurants, pet grooming, city pools, three performance centers including Hancher, the Englert Theater, and the Coralville Performance Center as well as an award winning senior center and a world class university with outreach programs all within a three mile radius of the proposed location of the Grand Living housing unit. With all these amenities available within the community it would make sense to offer transportation rather than having them all onsite thereby reducing the scale of this facility to be more comparable to other senior facilities in the area. Senior housing is considered a great investment opportunity according to a 2008 article "The US Senior Housing Opportunity Investments Strategies" from the magazine Real Estate Issues. It states "to maximize return you need to build a facility of at least 140 units. You need to offer mostly independent care and some assisted living as they yield the highest return on investment. You need to stay away from skilled nursing care because it yields a negative return". Grand Living is based on this model, the facility looking more like a casino than a senior housing facility. A football field in length and rises four stories on top of a tall hill and will be seen for miles away. The facility is designed without regard to the general scale of the neighborhood nor the existing topography of the land but to solely maximize profits. Donta said her neighborhood is excited about the Vintage Cooperative that is under construction on Cardinal Boulevard because it represents a reasonable and thoughtful use of the land and meets the need of active seniors. It has 16 units, common areas, woodshop and ownership. This is the type of facility all can be in favor for. John Roffman (1314 Burry Drive) is on the building committee of Saint Andrew Church. They have been in contact with Ryan Companies for several months and have talked to them about what they have to offer with regards to programming and how the Church can cohesively live with them. Roffman is impressed with the Ryan Companies facilities regarding information from other sites around the country. He noted Saint Andrew Churcy sees a benefit of having Grand Living in the area. They have discussed sharing parking when both might have overflow events, the sharing of green space, and working together on controlling water runoff from the properties. As Ryan Companies mentioned they will be cutting into the hill 8 feet and the Church is required to bring that road into their property so that will impact how the Church's parking lot to the east will be laid out with elevations and so forth. Because the two properties are land -locked together, they need to work as partners and they have worked well together to maximize the topography. The Church originally met with Ryan Properties on the possibility of them buying the other Church property but Roffman noted that their other lot has a steep grade north to south so when you put a longer building on there you need a stair step building otherwise one end above ground while the other end is buried in the ground, so their land would not work. Roffman can appreciate what the neighbors say about size, but it's all relative. 16 house rooftops is not any less of a sight line difference than one long roof. Additionally whether its two stories or four stories, one will not be able to see over the top of the building. Ryan Companies has been cognizant of listening to the neighbors and trying to cooperate (like putting trees along the lot line). Again, whether it is two stories or four stories, one roof top or a hundred single family home rooftops it will change the view of the area. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 12 of 17 Robert Rosenfels (125 Kennedy Parkway) lives on the south ridge of Walnut Ridge and they will see that property from the ground up. From their home, trees will not screen that property from them at all. It will be a monstrosity. Steve Schmidt (Apex Construction) is the general contractor for Saint Andrew Presbyterian Church and his interest in the development of the Ryan Companies property is the logistics of the site development. What is proposed will work well for the Church, sharing in the property line development. It will work well for the City with the infrastructure from a contractor's view with utilities such as stormwater management being done coherently. It would be to the City's advantage for the road improvements and the utilities on the site to happen. Jamie Rosenfels (125 Kennedy Parkway) invited anyone who has not been out to the site to come out and see for themselves how it will look, from what is a beautiful empty field. There are no trees between her house and the proposed development. Additionally the only ones who are speaking in favor of this project are the ones who will profit from it. Adam Ingersoll (925 Meadowlark Drive) stated that at the good neighbor meeting using the word disingenuous was not unfair. Another example is when the applicant showed a picture of a tree that was 70 feet tall, there is only a few trees up there that are that tall, and it is not a dense fence of 70 foot trees. The reasonable argument is all the neighbors are here is because they are all hysterical, unreasonable and confused about what this is really going to look like. The other possibility is the graphics are misleading and they are trying to push this through. Ingersoll noted that when he bought his home he knew that the beautiful prairie land would be developed. You know better than to listen to what a realtor might say, they are working to sell the property. However, at most you think it will be more single family homes, possible multi- family or light commercial. They were thrilled to hear a church was going in there, it makes perfect sense for the neighborhood. They would have been thrilled to hear that senior housing was coming in if it were in the size and scope of Melrose Meadows. He believes that in any residential neighborhood there would be the same reaction to a development of this scale. A neighborhood with a ridge line of that height, and you put a 50 foot building that is 450 feet wide on that ridge, it will completely dominate the surrounding area. Bill Thomasson (963 Meadowlark Drive) stated that generally he is in favor of senior living projects, however he is not in favor of this one for two primary reasons. The planned use for the majority of this property is unclear. 27 acres total, 6 acres will be the senior living facility so 21 acres left and it is unclear what the planned final use of the property will be. That is 78% of the parcel, more than three quarters, and it is unclear what the intended use is. He understands there may be indicators that says this checks all the legal boxes, but really more than three quarters of the indicators are unknown. The second point is the scale of the building. 170 units on 6 acres and a building 450 feet long. The math density is 170 units divided by 6 acres is 29 units per acre. Therefore the neighbors that abut those 6 acres are going from a 4 unit per acre residential area to 29 units per acre. Then there are 21 acres left over yet to be determined on development, and of those 21 acres it was stated in the good neighbor meeting 40% were not buildable because they are environmentally sensitive areas. So that leaves about 12.8 acres that are buildable and even if you include the 12.8 buildable acres into the 6 acres it makes it 9 units per acre. That is still larger than the reasonable code of 8 units per acre. The sheer density math is upside down. Therefore Thomasson states he cannot support this particular project. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 13 of 17 Freerks noted that in the case of the sensitive areas they are protected with this particular plan. There are lots of other developments that could be proposed where those areas would not necessarily be protected. Many projects have been approved in the past where the majority of the woodlands are removed. Miklo stated that the areas that are shown on the map in grey that are the steep slope areas can only be disturbed with the approval of the Commission and Council. Freerks just wants the public to understand that there is potential that sensitive areas can be developed. The current application under review is stating 40% would be undisturbed, but that is only with that agreement. But that would not necessarily be the case if some other developer were to purchase the property. Hektoen noted that the purpose of allowing the clustering of density is to preserve sensitive features. Freerks noted that the reason the proposed application has the height and mass it is proposing is because it is taking the density of that whole area and allowing it to be in one space. Adam Ingersoll stated the problem with the grouping is putting 170 units in 6 acres, none of which is affordable for seniors, none of which is Medicaid eligible and it leaves on the buildable only 30 units of density which basically guarantees those won't be affordable housing either. Ingersoll noted that the Commission's leverage is the zoning in which they permit in areas. He pointed out that the portion of the area that is not yet under development and would be marketing it based on the zoning the Commission gives them. The property owners have already scraped the hillside and did so without a stormwater management permit in place causing a lot of environmental damage on that property and on neighbor's property. In fact they trespassed north of the property line, put in a silt fence that didn't work and a culvert that didn't work. The City Inspector, Julie Tallman, was out there today and saw numerous citations. Ingersoll feels that neighbors are being asked to take on faith that this zoning action will protect them from encroachment when that plus environmental damage has already occurred. Miklo confirmed that the inspection department did inspect this area and will cite it as in violation and seek corrective action. Eric Anderson (Ryan Companies) clarified a couple of points. From the standpoint of the application being incomplete he will defer judgment of that to the City Staff, Ryan Companies feels they do have a complete application. They worked closely with Staff when preparing the application. With respect to consistency of the plan and what the Comprehensive Plan states, Anderson started meeting with Staff over a year ago and looked at all the Iowa City options. He showed Staff the scale of buildings they are currently building in Florida and Sioux Falls South Dakota and were strongly encouraged that this location would be the place to build. As the project morphed he continued to meet with City Staff, including the City Manager and development staff, at least 10 times over the past year. He has taken their guidance to heart and follows their guidance. With regards to the violations, Anderson said that is not pertinent to the project he is working on. The title owner of that property is Dr. Nepola. Adam Ingersoll stated the deed holder of the property is Dr. Nepola, his partner who is acknowledged by the City Staff to whom they lodged the complaint is Dave Heck. Mr. Heck is a repeat offender with these issues and the stormwater management permit that was taken out Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 14 of 17 late and not complied with was Mr. Heck. Additionally this zoning action rewards them by increasing the value of their property and they have shown disregard for the environment and their neighbors. Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) came forward to answer any questions the Commission might have. Freerks asked if Musser was part of the grading that has already begun there. Musser stated it is not part of the application, MMS Consultants was involved with it last fall for Mr. Heck, helping him with the appropriate permits and meeting with City Staff. They did put in the silt fence, but it did not get seeded last fall due to the weather and there was some erosion runoff that was dealt with by City Staff. Eastham asked if MMS worked on the elevations and sight lines and animations. Musser replied that they did not. They did the original grading plan to establish the finished floor, but did not do any of the animations. Dyer asked about the 8 feet that will be scraped off property. Musser said the current grading plan for where the building is going to sit will be lowered 8 feet. It is very challenging to put the building on top of the ridge so in order to save on costs and retaining walls and not get into the trees they are lowering that ridge 8 feet. This will cause them to remove about 5.7% of the woodlands and staying out of all the protected slopes. Freerks closed the public hearing. Eastham moved the Commission recommend approval of REZ16-00003 a rezoning of approximately 26.98 -acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD -8) zone and a preliminary plat for Nepola Subdivision, a 3 -lot subdivision with 170 -senior dwelling units located on Camp Cardinal Road. Martin seconded the motion. Eastham voiced his doubts about this application. One, the cost of the units and if they are reasonable is not a question the Commission can answer however it is a question that City Council can answer or address. He noted this is a large building, four stories, and the applicants' contention is that because the building is located a considerable distance (800 feet) from surrounding residences the size of the building is not a factor. Eastham is not inclined to be persuaded by that, nor the animations that were created. He feels the Comprehensive Plan is very clear that this building in this location with the surrounding residential uses doesn't fit. Martin stated that looking at the larger area, there is industry to the west, on the other side of the highway, to the north a school, so she feels this does fit. There is 3/8 of a mile to the closest house and to her that does seem like a normal transition. Looking at the Comprehensive Plan and what else is around the area it appears fitting. She didn't feel it necessary to address the affordability of senior care, the housing around the area is not necessarily affordable housing, and that is more political. Hensch noted he spent quite a bit of time last weekend driving around the area trying to understand the issue of the sight lines and views from people in the neighborhoods. He also drove around the city and looked at Walden Place, Melrose Meadows, Oaknoll and Silver Crest and the scale of those buildings with respect to their neighborhoods. With particularly Oaknoll it Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 15 of 17 makes some of the arguments this evening not persuasive. Oaknoll is a huge facility and is set right in the middle of the neighborhood. He wanted the public to know he drove around looking at all these areas because he does take this all very seriously and respects everyone's point of view. He noted there is a development near his own home that wasn't there when he purchased it, and he doesn't like it, but it was out of his control. Parsons stated that with the steep slopes and all the environmental sensitive areas in the end clustering is the way to go instead of spreading all the density out. It will protect more of the nature of the slopes and the land area. It also falls within the R8 specifics so he does not have a major objection to it. Martin noted that the Commission just recently reviewed a rezoning for property east of 1 S, Avenue north of Hickory Trail where there was the opportunity to cluster apartments but instead it's all houses. She drives by that almost every day and sees now that it's unfortunate that it wasn't clustered. Freerks agreed that was a failure, a missed opportunity. Eastham noted that they tried to convince Council that a cluster would work better there but Council didn't agree. Theobald agreed with what has been said, she has looked at the Comprehensive Plan and also the aging population. The 2010 census had an increase in the population 55-64 of 81%, 65 and over 21 %. She also likes the clustering and that is preserves those areas. Dyer agrees that the building appears to be a little big, but clustering is the best way to use the land. The building may be visible but so will the ravines and the sensitive areas to be appreciated. Freerks acknowledged these decisions are always tough, especially when there are big open spaces that neighbors have grown to love. However, the decision is what is best for the land and the space and the community overall. She agrees that clustering is the best solution, it will create the best outcome. It is refreshing to have a development that will not cut down and grade everything. She does agree the scale of the building is quite large but all points of the project have to be weighed, and the fact that this building will be 850 feet from the closest home is a luxury that is unheard of. Freerks acknowledged that after the Commission renders a vote this evening, the neighbors may voice their concerns to the City Council. She noted there is a 20% threshold for property owners to submit a protest petition. Hektoen said that if owners of 20% or more of the land surrounding the property within 200 feet file a protest with the City Council that would trigger a super majority vote. Eastham clarified that he is definitely in favor of the planned development ordinance and that clustering is often time a solution to preserving areas that are attractive and sensitive and beautiful. However clustering often has the effect of producing large buildings and it doesn't have to do that, and he feels the entire 26 acres could be developed eventually and still protect the sensitive areas. Dyer pointed out that when she first looked at the building rendering she assumed they were brick because of the color, but the fact that they will be some type of engineered wood will make the building more similar to the houses in the area than if it were a masonry structure. Freerks agreed and noted the redesign of the roof top also makes the building more in line with the roof tops of the homes in the area. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 (Eastham voting no). Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 16 of 17 CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 17, 2016 Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 17, 2016. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Parsons noted that four of the Commissioners went to the Planning and Zoning workshop the evening before and he learned a lot. Miklo noted that Mark Signs would be joining the Commission on May 1. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. Z N N� 20 Q W CD 0 Z W N Eu I OZ� NON `6 w Z� ZQ Z J IL O Z H w w 0 co ZrI X X X X X X x ti X X x X x O X M (0co0"-""o M XXXXXXX c) N X X X X X X X N >'QZww w J w W O N x X x X X x T- U Q Y x avis Z Z Q W 2 X x x X X X x Q} Zpw Q W w Z w Q m Q x M N X X X X X X X r X X X X X w X r X X X X X r o X X X X X X X V- o X X X X- X x x x X x- X X O XXXXXXX O N X X X X X X X co co X x x X xco X p co VZXX xxxx ti 04XOXXxXx le , X x x x x x x r N X X X X X X X ti X X X x X x X w J W Co W x O U Z Q 0 Y avis V Q Y X Z Z Q w � wv)wZccxw U) N O >- LU co ZrI X X X X x X X W) �wC (0co0"-""o WG.00ln0000 �-X0000000 w >'QZww w J w W O °0�a 3: U Q Y x avis Z Z Q W 2 W xpC0 V 0ca w W Q} Zpw Q W w Z w Q m Q x LL. X CL a a� N L a) X.0 X N .+ O �c cn cn O. N -0 Q O Q 11 Z nn w n XOO LU Y