HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-16 Info PacketCITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org June 16, 2016
I131 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
JUNE 21 WORK SESSION
I132 Work Session Agenda
IP3 Memo from City Attorney: 1. Site Plan approval process for redevelopment of existing
multi -family structures, and potential amendments to mitigate the impact on existing
tenants. 2. Direct Regulation of Landlord Tenant Relationship by City
I134 Pending City Council Work Session Topics
MISCELLANEOUS
I135 Article from Interim City Manager: Achieving scale in affordable housing
I126 Memo from Neighborhood Development Services Dir. and Development Services Coordinator:
Update on Rose Oaks Redevelopment
I137 Email from Center for Worker Justice.: Joint (Forest View) Statement from Center for
Worker Justice, Blackbird Investments, and North Dubuque LLC
I138 Iowa City Municipal Airport 2015 Annual Report 1-1
I139 Bar Check Report — May 2016
I1310 Information: Celebrating Access for All
IP11 Copy of press release: Household hazardous waste collection event scheduled Friday,
June 17, at East Side Recycling Center
Information from Mayor: Analysis of Elementary School Snapshot Data;
Attendance Area Development 5-10-16 Board Action — Elementary
Attendance Area Development 5-12-16
[Distributed as Late Handout 6/21/16]
DRAFT MINUTES
IP12 Community Police Review Board: June 7
IP13 City Council Economic Development Committee: May 10
IP14 Housing and Community Development Commission: May 19
1, I = i
Im
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
IPI Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
JUNE 21 WORK S
IP2 Work Session Agenda
IP3 Memo from Cit)( Attorney: 1. Site Plan apps
multi -family structures, and potential ame
tenants. 2. Direcegulation of Landlord 1
IP4 Pending City Council ork Session Topics
MISC
IPS Article from Interim City Manag(
IP6 Memo from Neighborhood Dev(
Update on Rose Oaks Redeve
IP7 Email from Center for Worker
Worker Justice, Blackbird Inv
June 16, 2016
rocess for redevelopment of existing
is to mitigate the impact on existing
Relationship by City
EOUS
scale in affordable housing
Services Dir. and Development Services Coordinator:
Joint (Forest View) Statement from Center for
,and North Dubuque LLC
IPS Iowa City Municipal Airport 20j15 Annual
IP9 Bar Check Report — May 7ccess
6
IP10 Information: Celebrating for All
IP11 Copy of press release: Alousehold hazardous wa a collection event scheduled Friday,
June 17, at East Side/Recycling Center
DRAFT MINUTES
IP12 Communit/Community
Review Board: June 7
IP13 CityCounomic Development Committee: May 10
IP14 Housing a Development Commission: May 19
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Date
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1
Subject to change
June 16, 2016
Time Meetina Location
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
Monday, July 18, 2016
4:00 PM
Reception
Coralville
4:30 PM
Joint Entities 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, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Ir
"Oft
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
City Council Work Session Agenda
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall
5:00 PM
• Questions from Council re Agenda Items
• Staff presentation of a preliminary affordable housing action plan [IP # 3 Info Packet of 6/16]
• Review Council Member Cole proposal for Rose Oaks assistance
• Information Packet Discussion [June 9, 16]
• Council Time
• Meeting Schedule
• Pending Work Session Topics [IP # 4 Info Packet of 6/161
• Upcoming Community Events/Council Invitations
t
pvh
®,mom
Date: June 16, 2016
CITY OF 1 O WA CITY
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney
Re: 1. Site Plan approval process for redevelopment of existing multi -family structures,
and potential amendments to mitigate the impact on existing tenants
2. Direct Regulation of Landlord Tenant Relationship by City
ISSUE #1
Are there amendments to the City's site plan review process that would have the potential to
mitigate the impact of redevelopment on existing tenants?
1611 l"I''y COMM
Approval of a site plan is a process for assuring compliance with the City's zoning code and
other various City codes and regulations. Unlike a rezoning, the approving body does not have
the discretion to exercise its judgment on the best use of the property, but rather, reviews the site
plan with reference to existing codes. Public input in this process has the potential to create
unreasonable expectations on the powers available to the approving body. If a site plan complies
with the various technical codes, it must be approved. Certain code amendments, however, could
further the goal of mitigating the impact of redevelopment on current tenants. Increased notice
and public process may provide opportunities to allow tenants, service agencies and others to
plan for the impact on tenants and the availability of affordable housing and give tenants greater
opportunities to find alternative housing before the project is commenced.
ISSUE #2
What can the City legally do to minimize the harm of legal displacements of large numbers of
lower-income residents from large housing complexes? For example, can the City legally
require owners of housing complexes which exceed a defined number of residential units to
provide a specified number of months advance notice to residents of the owners' intent not to
renew leases? What else might the City be legally empowered to require?
There are a number of strategies available under Iowa law to address the needs of our residents
for affordable housing most of which involve either direct funding by the City or programs
created by the City to provide incentives to the private market to create affordable housing units.
The available options will be presented by staff at your June 21 work session. This memo will
address whether the City may directly regulate the landlord/tenant relationship.
CONCLUSION #2
The home rule schemes in the states of California and Washington allow cities like San
Francisco and Seattle to directly regulate the tenant/landlord relationship. The home rule scheme
in Iowa is far more limited. The private tenant/landlord relationship may be affected incidentally
by city zoning and building code regulation and enforcement but the City does not have the
authority to dictate the terms of the lease, the bases on which a tenant can be evicted or on which
leases are renewed, or the relocation assistance provided by a landlord to a tenant. Rent
abatement is an available enforcement tool not included in the City's housing code that the
Council may want to consider including as a remedy in the case of emergency orders when
immediate action is necessary to protect the health and safety of the occupants but vacation of
the unit is not necessary.
DISCUSSION # 1
On March 8, 2016 the City received an application from the current owners/managers of Rose
Oaks apartments seeking approval of a site plan to allow some of the existing multi -family
buildings to be demolished and reconstructed, and other existing multi -family buildings to be
remodeled. No rezoning is necessary for this work to be done, and no City financial assistance
has been requested.
The current City code requires that notice be posted on the property 24 hours after the
application for site plan approval has been submitted. The review and approval process is
administrative, performed by City Staff. Concerns have been raised regarding whether this gives
affected tenants adequate notice and time to resolve housing challenges that may result if the site
plan is approved and the project constructed.
BACKGROUND ON SITE PLANS
The Iowa Supreme Court has explained a "site plan" as follows:
The approval of a site development plan is not a rezoning. The site development plan is a
map showing the configuration of the property, the location and dimensions of the
proposed buildings, landscape data, engineering data and other factual information
relating to the intended development of the property. The site plan allows the city to
assure compliance with the city zoning regulations and other various city codes and
regulations.
Kane v. City Council, 537 N.W.2d 718, 722 (Iowa 1995) (Site plan approval is not a rezoning
and can be done by resolution of the city council rather than ordinance.) The site plan must be
approved "if the requirements of the ordinance and regulations are met." Johnston v.
Christenson 718 N.W.2d 290, 299 (Iowa 2006).
Title 18 of the Iowa City Code governs site plan applications. While the site plan review process
can require considerable review and amendment before approval given the various code
requirements, it is fairly ministerial, unlike the rezoning process. Submittal requirements differ
2
depending on whether the plan is a "major site plan" or "minor site plan". A "major site plan"
involves the construction or remodeling of developments with over 12 residential units or over
10,000 square feet of non-residential floor area. See Section 18-1-2(C). Notice must be posted
on the property within 24 hours of filing the application. See Section 18-2-1. The application
submittal requirements are set forth in 18-2-2, and include such information as the total number
and types of dwelling units proposed, the proposed uses for all buildings, and other technical
information necessary to determine whether the plan complies with the zoning code, such as
parking, landscaping, building setbacks, and stonn water runoff. The approval process is set
forth in 18-2-3. It currently requires that the City building official "review and approve, review
and approve with conditions, or review and deny" all site plan applications within 21 working
days after the application is filed. The code also allows for P&Z to perform the site plan review
in lieu of the building official if the building official or 20% or more of the property within 200
feet request P&Z review within 20 days after the notice is posted. The scope of P & Z's review is
the same as that of the building official.
Once a site plan is approved, a building permit may be issued. Persons aggrieved by a decision
of either the building official or P&Z may appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment.
Further appeal of the BOA'S decision is to the district court. See Iowa Code Section 414.10 and
Dahlen v. Iowa City P&Z and Shelter House, 2009 Iowa App. Lexis 1707 (2007). The City
Council is not involved in any component of a site plan approval. This plan review and approval
process has been in place since 1992.
The procedure for site plan approval varies among Iowa cities. In some, such as Davenport,
Council Bluffs and Dubuque, it is done entirely at the staff level. In others, such as Johnston, site
plan review and approval is done by the City Council. For example, the procedure for approval
of a site plan in Johnston includes review and a recommendation to Council from P&Z within 45
days from the date of the site plan application, followed by Council approval or disapproval of
the site plan. Yet in others, such as Cedar Rapids and Des Moines, the process varies with either
staff or Planning and Zoning Commission doing the initial administrative review and an appeal
allowed to the City Council. See Cedar Rapids Code of Ordinances Section 32.02.030; Des
Moines Code of Ordinances Section 82-206 through 82-219.
DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Foster Greater Communication
Title 18 of the City Code could be amended in several ways to foster greater communication
between the landlord and tenant where a site plan application has been made that will impact
existing tenants. Among those amendments may include imposing additional notice
requirements; encouraging a "good neighbor meeting;" extending the review period; and creating
an avenue for City Council to review and approve certain major site plans, or a subset of major
site plans. In contemplating such amendments, it is important to consider changes that are
narrowly tailored so that they do not chill reinvestment in multi -family properties and allow
redevelopment to occur at an objectively reasonable pace. In addition, because site plan review
is a limited review, Council review may create expectations on the part of the public that the
Council cannot fulfill.
3
Increase Notice Requirements
As mentioned above, the code currently requires notice to be posted on the property 24 hours
after the application for a site plan has been submitted. Council could amend Section 18-2-1 or
18-2-3 to require notice be mailed to all current tenants a certain number of days before the
application is submitted or the review period could be extended such that the application would
not be considered final until so many days after the notice is mailed. The City's current Good
Neighbor Program focuses on fostering communication before various development applications
come before P&Z or BOA. While it is not required, applicants are asked if a good neighbor
meeting was held at the time an application is submitted for such development activities as
rezonings, annexations, comprehensive plan amendments, and preliminary plat approvals. This
program could be expanded to include major site plans or a subset thereof.
Add Role of P&Z and/or Council
In lieu of the current Staff or P&Z review and approval process, the code could be amended to
require that certain defined site plans be reviewed by the P&Z Commission for its
recommendation to Council, and then Council approval by resolution after a public hearing is set
and held on such a resolution. Notice of both the P&Z meeting(s) and Council meeting(s) would
be posted as a public meeting, and published in the Press -Citizen. In the process of approving a
resolution, Council could impose certain conditions on the site plan approval in addition to
existing regulations that are reasonable and imposed to satisfy public needs being created
directly by the site plan, pursuant to Iowa Code Section 414.5. For example, site plan approval
for non -vacant buildings could be effective and the building permit issued on the date of the last
day of the longest remaining lease term. Per Iowa Code Section 414.5 such conditions,
however, would have to be agreed to in writing by the landlord before close of the public
hearing. It is important to keep in mind that the City cannot dictate lease terms to the landlord
and tenant and thus the City does not have the power to require relocation assistance or
modifications to lease terms. The City Council cannot prohibit a landlord from filing a forcible
entry and detainer action against the tenant with the Johnson County Clerk of Court (i.e., an
eviction) after the lease term is complete or from attempting to negotiate a voluntary buy out of
the lease. The City cannot act as an interpreter of the lease or the tenant's legal rights. It cannot
deny a site plan based upon the existence of a leasehold interest in the property.
I understand from NDS staff that since 2006 there have been site plans submitted for ten
remodels/reconstruction of existing multi -family buildings, including Rose Oaks. Of those, three
required rezonings by Council, leaving six such site plans with no associated rezoning. Because
tenant relocation is a concern only where a site plan involves changes to existing multi -family
projects, and the Council has considerably more discretion in approving a rezoning, the type of
site plans reviewed by Council could be limited to those major site plans for multi -family
residential projects for which a rezoning is not required. All other site plans would be approved
administratively by staff. Furthermore, it is advisable to put the approval authority squarely with
the Council, rather than have the Council stand as an appeal body. This avoids potential claims
that such authority has been specifically delegated to the Board of Adjustment pursuant to Iowa
Code Section 414.10; Holland v. City Council of Decorah, 662 N.W.2d 681, 688 (Iowa
4
2003)(city council exceeded its authority by allowing the filling of a portion of a flood plain for
the purpose of building a Wal-Mart because the council cannot bypass authority of a Board of
Adjustment; City cannot use its site development plan authority to circumvent or overrule a
decision by the BOA ).
Require Transition Plan
It has been suggested that the Council require a relocation plan or transition plan to ensure that
"the legal rights of tenants are not being infringed." (Council member Cole proposal). It would
be possible to require a major site plan application to include a description of the current leases,
including the number of leases and the terms of the leases, and a summary of the Landlord's plan
to coordinate the demolition/reconstruction with the terms of the leases. Such a requirement must
be based upon the City's Comprehensive Plan. Among the housing goals identified in the
IC2030 Comprehensive Plan are: "identifying and supporting infill development and
redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place;"
"improve and maintain housing stock in established neighborhoods;" and "maintain and improve
the safety of all housing." Depending on the location of the property shown on the site plan, a
district plan may be applicable, and may also include goals supporting a transition plan for
certain site plans. In reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, however, there is no focus on the need
to mitigate the impacts of redevelopment to the extent the City is legally able.
If it is Council's desire to require such a plan, the IC2030 Plan should be amended to more
directly state one of the City's goals is to mitigate the impacts of redevelopment of existing
housing on residents and the availability of affordable housing. The Title 18 purpose statement
should be amended to insert the planning principle(s) upon which such a "transition" plan is
based. For instance, the Plan could be amended to add the "smart planning principle" adopted by
the State of Iowa in Iowa Code Section 18B.2(2)(d), which supports City objectives, policies or
programs "that further the vitality and character of established residential neighborhood" and
"ensure an adequate housing supply that meets both the existing and forecasted housing
demand." In the event Council desires to pursue the requirement of a transition plan, further
discussion is necessary regarding when such a "transition plan" would be required, what should
be contained within such a plan, and how the plan would be used and enforced by the City.
Again, however, while such a plan would provide information to the Council and the residents, it
would not prevent a Landlord from exercising its legal rights, including those of eviction, a
decision not to renew existing leases or a negotiation with the tenants to buy out leases or
relocate tenants nor could a site plan be denied if the required information was provided. Again,
it would be important to make it clear what the purpose of the site plan review is and is not in
order to avoid creating expectations by tenants and the public that Council does not have the
ability to fulfill.
DISCUSSION #2
There are a number of potential regulatory strategies for addressing the displacement of low-
income persons from affordable housing. For example, one recommendation of the Johnson
County Affordable Homes Coalition is that the City require developers who are renovating
and/or demolishing rental units to provide relocation assistance to low and moderate income
9
residents who are being displaced, citing the City of Seattle Tenant Relocation Assistance
Ordinance. For another example, the City of San Francisco has a Residential Rent Stabilization
Ordinance (San Francisco Administrative. Code Chapter 37) which, among other things, places
limits on the amount of rent that can be charged by a landlord and the reasons for evicting a
tenant, establishes a Rent Board that conducts rental arbitration hearings, mediations and
investigatory hearings on claims of wrongful eviction, and a Just Cause for Eviction ordinance
(San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.9) that requires landlords to provide relocation
benefits for no fault evictions/lease nonrenewal. Oakland too has a rent control ordinance
(Oakland Municipal Code, Sections 8.22.010-.190) and just cause for eviction ordinance
(Oakland Municipal Code Sections 8.22.300-.390).' See also the report entitled "Development
without Displacement: Resisting Gentrification in the Bay Area" written by Causa Justa :: Just
Cause, which can be found on line at htti)://www.ciie.org/en/publications/reports..
While the term "home rule" is often used generically, in reality cities in the United States have
radically different powers depending on the state in which they are located as it is a state's law,
whether that be the state constitution, legislation, case law or a combination, that defines the
parameters of home rule for the cities in that state. For example, San Francisco and Oakland are
both "Charter Cities" under California law. A Charter City has "supreme authority" over
"municipal affairs". A charter city's law concerning a municipal affair will trump a state law
governing the same topic. Cal. Const. art. XI, Section5(a); See
http://www.cacities.org/Resources/Charter-Cities. Charter Cities set their own procedures for
adoption of ordinances and resolutions, have the power to tax, and can set penalties as long as
those do not exceed any limits in the City Charter, rather than being limited by State law.
Seattle is a "City of the First Class" in Washington State, which is granted many specific powers,
including the power to tax and the power to set fines for nuisances. Rev. Code Wash. Sections
35.22.280 (2) and (30). In addition, the Washington legislature specifically authorizes any city
to require property owners to provide a portion of the defined relocation assistance with the
remainder to be paid by the City. Rev. Code Wash. Section 59.18.440. Seattle's Tenant
Relocation Assistance Act was enacted pursuant to this State provision.
Some cities also have Real Estate Transfer Taxes ("RETTs). For example, Aspen Colorado
imposed a RETT prior to the amendment to the State's constitution to prohibit cities from
imposing such taxes. REITs have been suggested as a tool to discourage speculation and
flipping of property after minimal investment, maintain neighborhood affordability and provide
funds for affordable housing, relocation assistance and other displacement prevention activities.
(Development without Displacement: Resisting Gentrification in the Bay Area at p. 82) In Iowa,
a real estate transfer tax is imposed by the State and the revenue goes to the State.
In contrast to states that have given broad power to their municipalities, in Iowa City we operate
under a relatively restrictive home rule scheme with the following parameters:
3 In 1995 the California legislature passed a law known as Costa -Hawkins Rental Housing that establishes the
parameters of local rent control ordinances and requires that housing constructed after 1995 be exempt from
local rent control.
11
1. City law is trumped by State law, even on "municipal affairs". Iowa cities were granted home
rule by constitutional amendment in 1968. The Iowa Constitution grants cities the "home rule
power and authority, not inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, to determine their
local affairs and government...." Iowa Const. Article III, § 38A.
2. Iowa's statutory home rule provision is one of only eight states with the "private law
exception" to Home Rule: "the grant of home rule powers does not include the power to enact
private or civil law governing civil relationships, except as incident to an independent city
power." Iowa Code Section 364.1.
3. Iowa has adopted the Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act (IURLTA) and the
Manufactured Home Communities or Mobile Home Parks Residential landlord and Tenant Act
(Iowa Code Chapters 562A and 562B) which detail the rights and obligations of tenants and
landlords in Iowa.
4. The Iowa legislature has prohibited cities from "adopting or enforcing any ordinance
imposing any limitation on the amount of rent that can be charged for leasing private residential
or commercial property." Iowa Code Section 364.3(9).
5. Iowa cities may not levy a tax unless it is specifically authorized by state law. Iowa Const.
Art. III Section 38A; Iowa Code Section 364.3(4). The Iowa Supreme Court has distinguished
taxes from allowable fees as follows:
A tax is a charge to pay the cost of government without regard to special
benefits conferred. In other words, taxes are for the primary purpose of raising
revenue. A city may charge a fee to cover its administrative expenses in
exercising its police power. Thus, the reasonable cost of inspecting, licensing,
supervising, or otherwise regulating an activity may be imposed on those
engaging in the activity in the form of a license fee, permit fee, or franchise fee.
In addition, a municipality may charge a citizen when it provides a service to
that citizen. Benefits accruing to the public at large may not be assessed against
individual persons or properties.
Home Builders v. City of West Des Moines, 644 N.W.2d 339, 349 (Iowa 2002) (internal
citations omitted) (invalidating West Des Moines' ordinance imposing a park impact fee that was
not in -lieu of land dedication and was not required to be used in the neighborhood from which it
was exacted on the grounds that the park fee was a tax because it was a charge to pay the cost of
government without regard to special benefits conferred on the payers). The Court rejected as
unpersuasive the case law in other states upholding similar impact fees finding that in those cases
the state legislature had either "adopted an enabling statute permitting local government to
charge impact fees, or the taxing power of local government was not as severely circumscribed
under state law as it is in Iowa." Id. at 350.
6. Iowa cities may not provide a civil penalty for municipal infractions/nuisances in excess of
$750.00 or $1,000 for subsequent offenses (Iowa Code §364.3(6)) and cannot create criminal
7
penalties with the exception of simple misdemeanors for which the fine may not exceed $625.00.
Iowa Code § 364.3(2).
Given this home rule framework the City has limited options to directly regulate the relationship
between tenants and landlords. The best sources of regulation can be found in the Council's
zoning power and authority over health and safety matters related to housing conditions. As you
know, your zoning authority is very broad. When a rezoning that would eliminate low income
housing is requested the Council has the authority, after the required public process, to deny the
rezoning or impose conditions on the rezoning that would ameliorate the impacts on low-income
residents. Such would be the case if a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning was
requested to change the use of the Forest View land from residential to another zoning
classification. Such was not and is not the case at Rose Oaks because a site plan is not a
rezoning.
Similarly, the City may regulate the housing conditions of tenants and enforce those regulations
because of its power to enact and enforce a building code. In Lewis v. Jaeger, 818 N.W.2d 165
(Iowa 2012) the Iowa Supreme Court rejected a claim that Dubuque's emergency order requiring
the landlord to lock out a tenant who repeatedly left the gas stove on and the water running
posing an immediate danger to health and safety of the tenants was preempted by the NRLTA.
In doing so the Court examined the interaction of the NRLTA and Section 364.17 of the Iowa
Code that requires cities to enact and enforce housing codes. The Iowa Supreme Court described
the relationship between the City's police power over health and safety matters related to
housing and landlord/tenant law as "symbiotic" rather than "antagonistic". Id. at 178-79. The
Court reasoned that even though the IURLTA alone would not authorize the landlord to take
unilateral action to evict the tenant, Dubuque had the authority to take action to correct or abate
an emergency that requires immediate attention even if it has the derivative effect of displacing a
tenant. Id. In response to the argument that the NRLTA provided an exclusive remedy for
eviction of a tenant the Court concluded that the emergency order authorized by the Dubuque
housing code did "not involve legal remedies between landlords and tenants, but instead is part
of Dubuque's housing code enforcement scheme." Id. at 180.
The City's Housing Code is enforced primarily with notices of violations and municipal
infractions if the problem is not addressed. In addition to municipal infractions the Iowa Code
specifically allows the following enforcement mechanisms:
(5) An escrow system for the deposit of rent which will be applied to the costs of
correcting violations.
(8) Authority by ordinance to provide that no rent shall be recoverable by the owner or
lessee of any dwelling which does not comply with the housing code adopted by the city
until such time as the dwelling does comply with the housing code adopted by the city.
Iowa Code Sections 364.17(5) and (8).
Many years ago the City had a provision that allowed for rent escrow if the dwelling unit was not
compliant after the expiration of the notice of violation. I am told by the Director of
Neighborhood and Development Services (NDS) that it was cumbersome, administratively time-
consuming and rarely used and that the municipal infraction, which was authorized by the Iowa
Code in 1986, has resulted in a high compliance rate.
Iowa City has not used rent abatement as an enforcement tool. I have spoken to the Director of
NDS about this tool. Because the department's current enforcement results in substantial
compliance, Director Boothroy notes that it would not be used often and suggests that if Council
is interested in pursuing this tool it be explored as a remedy when an emergency order is
necessary to protect the health/safety of the occupants. Section 17-5-9 of the City Code allows
emergency orders as follows:
Whenever the inspector, in the enforcement of the housing code, finds that a condition
exists which requires immediate action to protect the health or safety of the occupants
and/or the general public, the inspector may, without notice or hearing, issue an order
reciting the existence of such a condition and requiring that action be taken such as the
inspector deems necessary to abate the condition. If necessary, the director may order that
the premises be vacated forthwith, and said premises shall not be reoccupied until the
order to make repairs has been complied with. Notwithstanding other provisions of the
housing code, such order shall be effective immediately or in the time and manner
prescribed by the order itself.
While emergency orders are used rarely, rent abatement could serve as an incentive to landlords
when immediate action is required and a vacation order is not necessary to protect the health and
safety of the occupants. This would be consistent with the building code provision of the state
code that requires enforcement procedures to "be designed to improve housing conditions rather
than to displace persons from their homes." Iowa Code Section 364.17(3)(b) and with the
IURLTA which requires the Landlord to comply with all aspects of the building code that
materially affect health and safety and allow the Landlord's failure to do so as a defense in a
Landlord's action for possession/eviction
I have shared the conclusions in this memo with the City Manager and NDS staff and understand
they will be providing a recommendation on whether to pursue these possible strategies at your
work session on June 21 when staff presents the preliminary affordable housing action plan.
Cc: Geoff Fruin, Interim City Manager
Doug Boothroy, Director Neighborhood and Development Services
John Yapp, Coordinator of Development Services
Tracy Hightshoe, Coordinator Neighborhood Services
Sue Dulek, First Assistant City Attorney
Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Assistant City Attorney
9
1 1 �
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO C" OF IOEUTURE
PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS
June 16, 2016
July 5. 2016
• Evaluate the implementation of a Form Based Code in one or two parts of the community
July 19, 2016
• Discuss creation of a Climate Change Task Force — Relates to item 6
• Undertake a project in FY 2017 that achieves a significant measurable carbon emission reduction
Strateeic Plan / Budget Related Topics:
1. Review and consider amending the City's Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Policy (Economic Development
Committee to make recommendation to full Council)
2. Consider amending the City's Annexation Policy to require the provision of affordable housing in new
residential/mixed-use areas
3. Provide timely and appropriate input on the ICCSD's planned 2017 bond referendum
4. Significantly improve the Council and staff s ability to engage with diverse populations on complex or
controversial topics
5. Evaluate and consider implementation of a plastic bag policy
6. Set a substantive and achievable goal for reducing city-wide carbon emissions by 2030, and create an ad-
hoc climate change task force, potentially under an umbrella STAR Communities committee, to devise a
cost-effective strategy for achieving the goal.
7. Identify and implement an achievable goal to reduce disproportionality in arrests
8. Identify a substantive and achievable goal for the provision of affordable housing in Iowa City and
implement strategies to achieve this goal
9. Determine scope of Council identified on/off street parking study
10. Determine scope of Council identified housing market analysis of core neighborhoods
11. Determine scope of Council identified complete streets study
12. Determine use of affordable housing funds resulting from the sale of the Court / Linn property
Other Topics:
13. Discuss marijuana policies and potential legislative advocacy positions
14. Permanent City Manager
15. Review the Child Data Snapshot (IP2 2/18) and discuss related strategies with local stakeholders
16. Discuss creation of an ad-hoc committee on social justice and racial equity
Achieving scale in affordable housing I City Observatory
From Interim City Manager
(httn://cityobservatory.owD(hnn://cityobservatory.orz/catekorv/reports)(htto://citvobsmatory.orWmtegory/subiects)
CityCommentary
(hUo://citvobservatorv.oryjmtezory/commentary) _
Main Subjects Reports ,Cotumentary Subscribe Search
(http://utyobse atorOMttg)//cityobser atoryltltgf,C'aitgobg�rth,� 4 3Wg/,yafitgobjr0aport3-brg/category/commentary/)
Achieving scale in affordable housing
M
There's little question that housing affordability is a growing problem in many cities around the country.
Rents have been rising faster than incomes, especially for low- and moderate -income households.
One of the most widely touted policy responses is "inclusionary zoning," which requires developers who
build new housing to set aside at least a portion (typically 10 to 20 percent) of new units that will be sold
or rented for less than the market price.
In many respects, inclusionary zoning seems like a win-win, free lunch policy: by making developers pay
for new affordable housing, these new homes don't directly cost taxpayers a dime. But developers have to
make up the cost of these below-market units somewhere, and typically it will be by passing the costs on
to the buyers of the market rate units in their development. At least one study* suggests that this results in
higher prices. In some cases, cities offer density bonuses to developers to ease the financial burden of
constructing below market units, but it's far from clear that the bonuses cover the additional costs, plus
the uncertainty and negotiation that attends these frequently discretionary approval processes adds to
costs.
But the larger problem with inclusionary zoning requirements is that they may simply not be un to the
scale of the problem. Although dozens of jurisdictions have enacted inclusionary zoning requirements,
they simply haven't produced many units of housing. Consider New York City's decade -old policy. In
many ways, New York ought to be a perfect place for inclusionary zoning, which tends to do best in hot
real estate markets. But in one of the nation's hottest housing markets, in its largest city, inclusionary
zoning Produced about 2.800 units of affordable housing its its first decade --about 280 per year, in a
metropolis of over eight million people.
Most inclusionary zoning programs are much smaller, and cities have less leverage with developers
because market -rate development is not nearly as profitable as it is in robust markets like New York. A
recent compendium of inclusionary zoning programs showed that only six cities nationally operated
inclusionary zoning programs that had produced more than 100 units per year, and just one jurisdiction—
Montgomery County, Maryland, a high income suburb of Washington, DC—accounted for nearly half of
all inclusionary zoning units.
http://cityobservatory.org/achieving-scale-in-affordable-housing/?utm content=bufferldab... 6/12/2016
The fundamental problem with inclusionary zoning is also its primary advantage: it asks for, and receives,
virtually no taxpayer money. But skimming off the top of developer profits is almost by definition an
inadequate source of funding for affordable housing, particularly in places like New York and San
Francisco where the need is most acute. All newly built housing is generally a fraction of one percent of a
city's housing market in any given year; housing that triggers inclusionary requirements is less than that;
and you then have to reduce that number by 80 to 90 percent to get to the 10 to 20 percent set-aside of
affordable units. It's not an accident that Montgomery County has built so much inclusionary housing,
relatively speaking—it's also built vastly more housing, period, than most cities, nearly doubling its
population since 1970. How many inclusionary housing advocates in other parts of the country are eager
for such a breakneck pace of development?
Solutions, then, are likely to require some actual tax money. One possibility: dedicate a portion of the
added property tax revenue from new real estate construction to subsidizing affordable housing. Portland,
Oregon has dedicated about a third of such revenues to affordable housing, and has built more than 2.300
units of affordable housing in one neighborhood near downtown—nearly as much as New York's
affordable housing ordinance has produced in the five boroughs of New York. Portland has dedicated $67
million on tax increment funds over the next decade to support affordable housing in the city's fast
changing neighborhoods. Also, unlike inclusionary zoning, using tax increment financing doesn't have the
undesirable side effect of driving up the price of market rate housing or constricting the supply of market
rate units.
Ultimately, a solution that addresses the scale of the nation's affordability problems will have to tackle the
nation's highly skewed subsidies to homeownership by higher income households. The combination of
the mortgage interest deduction, property tax deduction, capital gains exemption and the non -taxation of
imputed rents amounts to a federal subsidy to owner -occupied housing on the order of $250 billion per
Year, most of which goes to the nation's highest income households. There's a lot we could do: like
expand funding for rental vouchers which reach only 22 percent of those who qualify. Or tap the capital
gains that accrue to homeowners (in substantial part due to the constriction of housing supply by zoning
regulations. But it should be clear that feel good programs like inclusionary zoning are mostly a token
response to a problem of much more substantial dimension.
* See: Schuetz, Meltzer & Bean, Silver bullet or troian horse? The effects of inclusionary zoning on local
housing markets in the United States, Urban Studies 2011;48(2):297-329. The authors note that most
inclusionary zoning programs have had a modest scale relative to housing markets, and conclude:
"Results from suburban Boston suggest that IZ has contributed to increased housing prices and lower rates
of production during periods of regional house price appreciation. In the San Francisco area, 1Z also
appears to increase housing prices in times of regional price appreciation, but to decrease prices during
cooler regional markets. There is no evidence of a statistically significant effect of IZ on new housing
development in the Bay Area."
A
CITY OF IOW/ CITY IP6
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 16, 2016
To: Geoff Fruin. Interim
From: Doug Boothroy, Director
John Yapp, Development
Re: Update on Rose Oaks Re
Develo ment Services
for 7�y�-�
Introduction: The City Council had requested periodic updates on the Rose Oaks
redevelopment project. Additionally, the City Council will be reviewing Councilman Cole's
proposal for additional financial assistance at the June 21 work session. Staff has received an
updated matrix from Shelter House staff (attached), and has updates on the site plan and
permitting process.
Update on permitting process: The site plan was approved on Wednesday, June 15. The
initial site plan was submitted on March 8, so the overall site plan approval process took over
three months. Significant site plan review issues included sidewalks and accessibility, building
placement, trees and landscaping, multi -family development standards, stormwater
management, and review of water and sanitary sewer infrastructure. The site plan went through
seven iterations, with supplemental information being provided on utility design concerns.
The significance of the site plan approval is that permits may be issued for demolition and
construction of new buildings. Two demolition permits have been issued for Buildings 1400 and
2400 (the two northern -most 36 -unit apartment buildings, both of which are vacant). Three
additional buildings are planned to be demolished - the two remaining apartment buildings, and
the old clubhouse — demolition permits have not been issued for these buildings. The majority
of the buildings (the townhouse style buildings) on the site are proposed to be remodeled —
remodeling activity has commenced for the buildings on the west side of the property. Building
permits for new townhouse -style buildings proposed on the property, and a new clubhouse,
have not yet been issued.
Status of residents: According to Rose Oaks management, there are 55 households
remaining on-site. According to management of these 55 households, 25 have expired leases
and have not been asked to leave as long as they stay current on rent. Management has stated
that for those households with expired leases, they will be asking them move out on August 15t.
Households with valid leases who desire to stay may of course stay on-site, but may be asked
to move within the complex as buildings are remodeled, and would be given a month's free rent
if they move within the complex. Management has confirmed that they have served eviction
notices to households that have not been paying rent.
Financial assistance to residents: The attached matrix provided by Shelter House staff
describes the status of residents in relation to what assistance they have received to date.
Shelter House staff have indicated that they have used approximately $17,000 of the $30,000 in
funds granted to them by Rose Oaks to assist residents, and have used a small portion of the
$15,000 in HOME funds from Iowa City. Shelter House staff have noted that the funds granted
June 16, 2016
Page 2
by Rose Oaks are more flexible than with the federal HOME funds — one thing not reflected on
the matrix is that some funds have even been used to pay past debts for some residents so they
are able to, for example, open a new utility account at a new location. Shelter House has
indicated they are still working with several households at Rose Oaks, however the majority of
remaining households have not sought assistance despite numerous attempts to notify every
one of the available resources. Shelter House and partnering social service agencies have
made great attempt to reduce barriers to access needed assistance, including reducing the
application paperwork to a single page and providing translation services if needed.
Shelter House staff have let us know they do not feel additional funding is warranted to meet the
displacement needs of the remaining households. If additional resources are needed, Shelter
House will contact staff to explore targeted supplemental funding opportunities. Staff feels any
additional funding is best funneled through the established case management system, which
ensures accountability for the distribution of public dollars and also helps make certain the
expenditures are addressing the immediate housing needs of the households.
We remain grateful to Shelter House and other human service agency staff who have been
providing assistance to residents.
March Lease Expiration
Unit
Qualify for
Incentive?
Applied for Help?
Received Help?
Move Out Date Given
1
No
No I
information & housing lists
April Lease Expiration
Unit
Qualify for
Incentive? Applied for Help? Received Help? Move Out Date Given
2
No
3
No No information & housing lists
4
No Yes no request yet
5
No 8/1/2016
6
No Yes deposit & rent w/donor funds 8/1/2016
7
No
8
No Yes application fees x7
9
No Yes info & moving supplies 6/3/2016
May Lease Expiration
Unit Qualify for
Incentive?
Applied for Help?
Received Help? Move Out Date Given
10 No
11 No
June Lease Expiration
Unit
Qualify for
Incentive?
Applied for help?
Received Help?
Move, Out Date Given
12
Yes
Yes
interpreter & moving supplies
July Lease Expiration
Unit Qualify for Applied for Help? Received Help? Move Out Date Given
Incentive?
13 Yes 5/31/2016
14 Yes 7/31/2016
15 Yes Yes will pay moving truck on 8/1 w/donor funds 8/1/2016
16 Yes No information & housing lists 7/31/2016
17 Yes 7/31/2016
18 Yes 7/31/2016
19
Yes
20
Yes
21
Yes
August Lease Expiration
Unit Qualify for Applied for Help? Received Help? Move Out Date Given
Incentive?
22 Yes
23 Yes 6/15/2016
24 Yes Yes was approved - changed her mind 8/1/2016
25 Yes 8/31/2016
26 Yes
27 Yes 8/1/2016
September Lease Expiration
Unit Qualify for Applied for Help? Received Help? Move Out Date Given
Incentive?
28 Yes
29 Yes 6/1/2016
30 Yes has app information & housing lists
31 Yes No information & housing lists
32 Yes 8/1/2016
33 Yes Yes application fee x 2 & deposit 8/1/2016
34 Yes Yes application fee & search
October Lease Expiration
Qualify for
Unit Incentive? Applied for Help?
Received Help? Move Out Date Given
35 Yes
8/1/2016
36 Yes
37 Yes
38 Yes
November Lease Expiration
Unit
Qualify for
Incentive?
Applied for Help?
Received Help?
Move Out Date
39
Yes
I Yes
I interpreter & moving supplies
40
Yes
Yes
interpreter & moving supplies
41
Yes
8/1/2016
December Lease Expiration
Unit
Qualify for
Incentive?
Applied for Help?
Received Help?
Move Out Date Given
42
Yes
Yes
application fee x 2 & moving supplies- staff
time for housing search/apartment visits
6/10/2016
43
Yes
44
Yes
Yes
moving supplies; app fee and storage deposit
& rent for one month w/donor funds
45
Yes
46
Yes
47
Yes
8/1/2016
48
Yes
8/1/2016
49
Yes
50
Yes
Yes
housing info; deposit w/donor funds
8/1/2016
January Lease Expiration
Unit
Qualify for
Incentive?
Applied for Help?
Received Help?
Move Out Date Given:
51
Yes
Yes
application fee & search; deposit & rent w/
City funds
52
Yes
February Lease Expiration
Qualify for
Unit Applied for Help? Received Help? Move Out Date. Given .
Incentive?
53 Yes
54 Yes
55 Yes
56 Yes left msgs - no res onse 8/1/2016
57 Yes
58 Yes
59 Yes
60
Unit
Qualify for
Incentive?
Applied for Help?
Received Help?
Move Out Date Given
60
Yes
information & housing lists
61
Yes
62
Yes
Yes
paid application fee
63
Yes
64
Yes
Yes
information & housing lists
Already moved out
A
Yes
Paid rent & dep w/HOME funds
4/27/2016
B
Yes
Paid water dep w/donor funds
C
Yes
Paid utility bill w/donor funds
4/31/16
D
Yes
paid application fee
E
Yes
paid deposit & rent ;;/donor funds
8/1/2016
F
Yes
paid double deposit w/donor funds
8/1/2016
G
Yes
paid storage fee, moving truck, deposit & pro-
rated rent
6/15/2016
H
Yes
app fee/deposit/rent for temp room
8/1/2016
I
Yes
app fee/deposit/pro-rated rent w/HOME funds;
used SH van & staff time for moving (5 hrs)
6/13/2016
J
Yes
app fees x 4; moving supplies, storage shed rent
w/donor funds
no new rental yet
K
Yes
water deposit; utility bill and rent w/donor funds
6/3/2016
L
Yes
water dep. Double deposit w/donor funds & used
SH van & staff time for move (2 hrs)
6/8/2016
M
Yes
moving supplies, water deposit and pro-rated rent
w/donorfunds
From: Michelle <michelle@cwjiowa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:22 PM
To: Center for Worker Justice
Cc: Terry Dickens; Council; Kingsley Botchway; Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Pauline Taylor; John
Thomas; Jim Throgmorton; Mazahir Salih; Sergio Irund A -wan
Subject: For Immediate Release: Joint Statement from Center for Worker Justice, Blackbird
Investments, and North Dubuque LLC
Attachments: Joint Forest View Statement 6.14.16.pdf
Please see the attached for a joint statement from the Center for Worker Justice of Eastern Iowa, Blackbird
Investments, and North Dubuque LLC.
Por favor, vea el adjunto para una declaracion conjunta por El Centro de Justicia Laboral del Este
Iowa, Blackbird Investments, y North Dubuque LLC.
Michelle Hochne
Office Administrator and Communications Coordinator
Center for Worker Justice of Eastern Iowa
940 S Gilbert Court, Iowa City, IA 52240
email: michelle6kwiiowa.ore
phone: 319-594-7593
*se habla espanol
Joint Statement regarding Community Concerns at Forest View Mobile Home Park
June 14, 2016
A delegation of Forest View Mobile Home Park residents, elected officials, and community allies met with Forest View
property owners and developers on June 10 to discuss community concerns about the eviction of tenant organizer
Marcela Hurtado and her family, and the need for transparency and open communication about the proposed
redevelopment of the mobile home park. We believe the meeting was an important first step toward establishing open
and respectful communications.
Property owners expressed regret for the 60 -day eviction notice the Hurtado family received in late May and offered to
allow the family to stay in its home at Forest View. Unfortunately, the news came too late; the family had already moved
to another part of town in response to the notice. Instead, property owners agreed to reimburse the family for the
financial costs related to their relocation. All present affirmed the right of Forest View residents to communicate freely
with each other, with the public, and with property owners about their ideas and concerns relating to the development.
Moving forward, we have pledged to meet regularly to promote a Forest View development process that can protect
and serve the interests of residents, owners, and the community as a whole.
Signed by:
Center for Worker Justice of Eastern Iowa
Blackbird Investments
North Dubuque St LLC
Declaracidn Coniunta acerca de Preocuoaciones de la Comunidad sabre Forest View
14 de junio, 2016
Una delegacidn de residentes de Forest View Mobile Home Park, funcionarios electos, y aliados de la comunidad se
reuni6 con Forest View propietarios y desarrolladores el 10 de junio para discutir las preocupaciones de la comunidad
sabre el desalojo de organizadora de inquilinos Marcela Hurtado y su familia, y la necesidad de transparencia y
comunicaci6n abierta sabre el proyecto de remodelacidn del parque de casas mdviles. Creemos que la reunidn fue un
primer paso importante hocia el establecimiento de una comunicacidn abierta y respetuosa.
Los duen"os de la propiedad expresaron su remordimiento par el aviso de desalojo que la familia Hurtado recibid a finales
de mayo, y ofrecieron permitir que la familia permonece en su hogar en Forest View. Desafortunadamente, la noticia
Ilegd demasiado tarde; la familia ya se habia movido a otro parte de la ciudad en respuesta a la notificacidn. En cambio,
los propietarios acordaron reembolsar a la familia para gastos financieros relacionados con su reubicacidn. Todos los
quienes estaban presentes afirmaron que residentes de Forest View tienen el derecho de comunicarse libremente entre
ellos mismos, con el publico y con los propietarios acerca de sus ideas y preocupaciones relacionados con el desarrollo.
Para seguir adelante, nos hemos comprometido a reunirnos regularmente para promover un proceso de desarrollo de
Forest View que puede proteger y servir a los intereses de los residentes, propietarios y la comunidad en su conjunto.
Firmado par.
Center for Worker Justice of Eastern Iowa/Centro de Justicia Laboral
Blackbird Investments
North Dubuque St LLC
�w,
g
1 / I
,GcuOINIr
Executive Summary
This report is written to cover two periods in relation to the operations at the Iowa City
Municipal Airport. Activities and events (including construction) are reported via the calendar
year which covers the period from January 1 — December 31, 2015. Financial information is
presented in the fiscal year format which runs from July 1 — June 30. The Fiscal Year covers
information from Fiscal Year 2015 which ran from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015.
The Iowa City Municipal Airport is owned by the City of Iowa City, and operated by the Iowa
City Airport Commission. The Mayor and City Council of Iowa City, Iowa appoint members of
the Iowa City Airport Commission.
The Iowa City Municipal Airport houses 93 aircraft, which are maintained in: 59 T -hangars, 1
maintenance facility, 6 corporate hangars, 1 corporate building, 1 Fixed Based Operation (FBO)
maintenance hangar, and 1 FBO cold storage hangar. Two runways, of 5004 (Runway 7/25) and
3900 (Runway 12/30) feet, are used during approximately 36,000 operations annually. The
based aircraft consist of 7 jet aircraft, 7 multi -engine (piston) aircraft, 1 helicopter and the
remaining count of single engine aircraft.
Based on a 2009 Iowa Department of Transportation Economic Impact Study, the Iowa City
Municipal Airport contributes $11.2 million and 115 jobs in the local economy. Among Iowa's
100+ general aviation airports, it has the fourth largest economic impact in the State.
The Iowa City Municipal Airport operations budget for FYI shows income of $1,350,106 and
expenses of $1,049,269. General levy support for operations was reduced from $72,342 in FY
2014 to $68.4152 in FY 2015. Land sales contributed $930,843 to revenue and $679,144 was
used for debt payoff.
The Iowa City Municipal Airport received funds in FY2015 for capital projects from the Federal
Aviation Administration and the Iowa Department of Transportation. These funds financed
projects to maintain and enhance the facilities at the Iowa City Municipal Airport. FAA grant
funds allowed the Airport to continue the development of the Airport Master Plan update. Iowa
DOT funds were used to perform maintenance and rehabilitation of the fuel storage system and
replace and update electrical services and lighting for the North T -hangar area. Since January1,
2010 the Iowa City Municipal Airport has received over $10,000,000 in grant funds from the
Federal Aviation Administration and the Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Aviation,
and has used these funds for construction and maintenance of the airport facilities.
Beginning in 2002, the City of Iowa City and the Airport Commission collaborated to create and
market the Aviation Commerce Park. Funds from the sale of lots have been used to pay previous
airport related debt as well as construction of additional hangar units. As of January 2015, all
lots are either under obligation to a purchase agreement, or have been sold. Closing of these lots
will retire the airport debts from previous hangar construction projects
The Iowa City Airport Commission has completed its planned reconstruction and extension of
the runways at the Iowa City Municipal Airport. Projects continue to focus on enhancing
Iowa City Municipal Airport — Annual Report 2015 Page 2
services and community involvement. The following projects are planned in the next 5 years: 1)
A master plan update and obstruction mitigation project; 2) an expanded apron for parking
during high traffic events; and 3) additional hangar space to better accommodate all sizes of
aircraft using the Iowa City Municipal Airport.
AIRPORT BACKGROUND
The Iowa City Municipal Airport is located approximately 2 miles southwest of downtown Iowa
City. The Iowa City Airport Commission has immediate controlling responsibility for the Iowa
City Municipal Airport. The Airport Commission consists of five voting members, who are
directly responsible for the planning, operation, and budget management of the Iowa City
Municipal Airport. The Commission works collaboratively with Iowa City's elected officials
and staff to ensure safe, efficient, and effective use of the airport to support Iowa City and the
surrounding area.
The Iowa City Municipal Airport is one of the busiest general aviation airports in Iowa with over
35,000 flight operations annually. It is currently home to approximately 93 based aircraft located
in 59 T -hangars, and 6 corporate hangars. These aircraft are used for charter flights, corporate
activity supporting local business, flight instruction, rental, pleasure, and charity purposes.
Additionally, thousands of flights in and out of the airport support important community
activities such as the organ transplant program and Air Ambulance flights to and from The
University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics, as well as economic development for the area. Local
businesses that utilize the airport include Billion Auto Group, ITC Midwest, Kum & Go, Family
Video, Lear Corporation, and many others.
Existing airport facilities include two runways, the terminal building, a maintenance facility,
hangars, aircraft fueling facilities, aircraft parking ramp, tie down apron, and vehicle parking
area. Runway 7-25 serves as the primary runway with a length of 5004 feet. Runway 12-30
serves as a secondary crosswind runway with a length of 3900 feet. The airport terminal
building, built in 1951, includes a pilot's lounge with wireless internet access, a weather briefing
room, a lobby, a conference/class room, vending machines, a meeting room, and administration
facilities for airport management and a fixed based operator. The airport has a rotating beacon
and lighted wind indicator. The airport is equipped with a remote communications outlet (RCO)
and Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS).
The airport has been an important element in the Iowa City community since 1918 and in 1944
was placed under the control of the Iowa City Airport Commission by public vote. Since that
time, the airport has remained under the governance of the Airport Commission with fiscal
support from the City of Iowa City. The airport is included in the National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems (NPIAS). The NPIAS identifies the Iowa City Municipal Airport as a general
aviation airport. This designation means that the federal government currently provides funding
annually through the FAA for eligible capital improvement projects at the airport. The Iowa
Department of Transportation Office of Aviation's Aviation System Plan identifies the Iowa City
Municipal Airport as an Enhanced Service Airport. Enhanced Service airports are defined as
airports that serve nearly all general aviation aircraft and are economic and transportation centers
for the state.
Iowa City Municipal Airport — Annual Report 2015 Page 3
Several businesses and University of Iowa enterprises are stationed at the airport. Jet Air, Inc. is
the fixed base operator, with 58 employees at Iowa City and their other locations. The Iowa
City -based staff of 17 offers charter flights, flight instruction, aircraft sales, maintenance, fuel,
and sale of aviation related merchandise. Numerous faculty members at the University Oflowa
College Of Engineering use the airport for federally funded research on aviation technology and
atmospheric weather phenomena. This research is primarily based out of the Operator
Performance Laboratory located in building H and includes 7 full-time staff and 5 full-time
student workers. Care Ambulance operates a full time ambulatory service and patient transfers.
They have partnered with Jet Air as Jet Air Care to provide medical transport flights to and from
the Iowa City area.
AIRPORT VISION STATEMENT
"The Iowa City Municipal Airport, through the direction of the Airport Commission, will provide a safe,
cost-effective general aviation airport that creates and enriches economic, educational, health care,
cultural, and recreational opportunities for the greater Iowa City area."
AIRPORT MISSION STATEMENT
"The mission of the Iowa City Municipal Airport is to support the strategic goals of the City of Iowa City
and to meet the needs of its stakeholders."
AIRPORT AND THE COMMUNITY
In a continuing effort to develop and maintain a relationship with the community, the airport
hosts numerous community events throughout the year. Examples include:
SERTOMA Fly-in/Drive-in Pancake Breakfast
The SERTOMA fly -in pancake breakfast and car show headlines the annual events; this
event raises funds for use by the Service to Mankind (SERTOMA) organization. The
2015 SERTOMA breakfast took place on August 30. During the event, volunteers served
over 2500 breakfasts in a large hangar made available by Jet Air.
Iowa City Municipal Airport — Annual Report 2015 Page 4
EAA Young Eagles
The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) created the Young Eagles program in 1992
as an effort to get youth interested in aviation. Since then, over 1.9 million flights have
been donated by EAA members to encourage youth to get involved with aviation.
The Iowa City Airport hosted a Women in Aviation event organized by multiple groups.
The Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 33 and the Iowa 99s partnered with The
Iowa Children's Museum to host 75 Girl Scouts. They started their day with a tour of
The Iowa Children's Museum's aviation exhibits and then spent time at the Iowa City
Municipal Airport learning about flight planning and aircraft maintenance. The activities
were capped with the EAA's Young Eagles program which provided aircraft rides to the
youth for free.
Airport Master Plan Open House
As part of the Airport Master Plan preparation, the Airport Master Plan Advisory Group
held 2 open house meetings for the public to provide input into the master planning
process.
During these meetings, the Master Plan advisory group displayed draft information
regarding the activity levels of the Iowa City Airport and received feedback from pilots
and from community members regarding airport operations and draft plans regarding
future operations.
Iowa City Area Development Group
The Iowa City Municipal Airport hosted the Iowa City Area Development Group's
Annual Meeting in 2015. This brought many area companies and organization members
to the Iowa City Municipal Airport. ICAD staff presented the future of economic
development and celebrated the past achievements of the organization. 15 area
companies demonstrated future technologies that included 3-D printing.
Iowa City Municipal Airport — Annual Report 2015 Page 5
ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY
In 2009, the Iowa Department of Transportation conducted an Economic Impact Study for the
general aviation airports in the state of Iowa. That study determined that the Iowa City
Municipal Airport contributes 115 jobs and $11.2 million worth of economic activity. The 115
jobs which are linked to the Iowa City Municipal Airport distribute approximately $3.2 million
in annual payroll. Based on economic activity, the Iowa City Municipal Airport ranks as the 41b
largest general aviation airport in Iowa (IDOT "Iowa Economic Impact of Aviation 2009")
Employment
Summary of Economic
fowa City Monicipai Airport
DIRECT/INDIRECT
..
INDUCED
TOTAL
On -Airport Activity
37.5
26.5
64.0
General Aviation
40.0
11.0
51.0
Visitors
Total
77.5
37.5
115.0
On -Airport Activity and
General Aviation
$2,290,100
$1,398,800
$3,688,900
Visitors
r.
On-Gen=Aviation
$6,754,700
$4,452,600
$11,207,300
Visit
'Source: Iowa DO 1, "Iowa Economic Impact oI Aviation 2009
BUDGET
Relative to the findings of the state's economic impact study, the Iowa City Municipal Airport
provides an extremely good return for the city's investment in the airport. The Iowa City Airport
Iowa City Municipal Airport — Annual Report 2015 Page 6
Commission and staff continue to maintain an efficient operating budget, which provides the
necessary services and repairs to support the airport infrastructure. In FY2015, the City of Iowa
City contributed $68,415 towards operations at the Iowa City Municipal Airport. That was a
reduction from FY14's $72,342 level.
The Iowa City Municipal Airport operations budget for FY15 shows income of $1,350,106 and
expenses of $1,049,269. The airport received $930,843 land sale transactions which it used to
repaying airport debt as well as finance additional construction projects.
The Iowa City Municipal Airport receives operating revenue primarily from three sources: rental
income, fuel sales, and general levy support.
The Airport Commission examines and occasionally adjusts T -hangar rental rates on an annual
basis, comparing rates to those at airports within a one-hour drive time to the Iowa City area.
Fuel Sales Commission
$30,000
$25,000 --
$20,000
0$15,000 ■ Estimated
d$10,000 ■Actual
4'' $5,000 ❑Difference
$0
-$5,000 FY09 FY 0 FY FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
-$10,000
Fiscal Year
Airport usage information is best tracked from the fuel flowage fees for fuel purchased at the
airport. Fuel Flowage fees are paid by tenants that utilize the fuel storage system at the airport.
These fees are paid at a rate of $.10 per gallon of fuel. FY2008 represents the pre -recession peak
fuel commissions. That year the airport earned just over $21,000 in commissions. Following
projects which have increased runway length and enhanced the usability of the airport, as well as
a rebound in the charter and medical flight activities, the Iowa City Municipal Airport has, in the
last three years, realized increased revenue from fuel flowages fees. FY2015 brought in over
$27,000 from fuel commissions. This represents a slight overall increase in the fuel
commissions from FY2014. Comparing the different fuel types sold at the Iowa City Airport,
there was a 10% increase in the Jet A commission as compared to the aviation gasoline (100LL)
fuel. 100LL commissions continue to remain virtually flat. Personal and hobby aviation
continues to be hampered by high fuel prices and other economic challenges. The chart below
tracks the fuel sales by type over a calendar year.
Iowa City Municipal Airport — Annual Report 2015 Page 7
rr r
co
c 200000
R
100000
Fuel Sales by Type
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Calendar Year
GRANT SUPPORTED AIRPORT PROJECTS
0 10 LL
■ Jet A
■ Total Gallons
Major airport projects are funded through partnerships with either the Federal Aviation
Administration or the Iowa Department of Transportation. The 2011 FAA Reauthorization
brought with it some stabilization as it provided funding for 2012-2015, but it also brought
additional local costs for projects with federal participation. The reauthorization act ended a
series of 22 continuing resolutions which had allowed the FAA to continue operating following
the expiration of the previous authorization act in 2007. The change in the grant payment share
which lowered the maximum FAA participation to 90% from 95% of eligible project costs had
an impact as the local community now has to provide a higher percentage of the funds. The
Iowa City Airport Commission is currently tracking various congressional bills which would
continue the existing FAA programs through a short-term extension and their impacts to airport
operations.
Federal grants contribute 90% of the project costs and are typically associated with major
pavement rehabilitation and upgrades. State grants fund 70-85% of project costs, and are
typically associated with minor pavement and facility repairs and upgrades.
In 2014 with FAA grant support, the Iowa City Airport Commission began the process of
updating the Airport Master Plan. The Airport Master Plan is a strategic document that lays out
the goals and operation of the airport over a 20 year period, the last Master plan was completed
in 1996. This plan will be completed in 2016. During the process of creating this plan, the
Airport used a Master Plan advisory group consisting of City and Airport Administration
officials, Airport tenants, and neighborhood representatives. The plan is created using this group
and then forwarded to the Iowa City Airport Commission for final approval. The new Airport
Master Plan looks at existing conditions and future growth needs to establish a road map for the
Airport Commission and community to continue operating the airport as a community resource.
The Iowa City Airport Commission also received a FY2016 Iowa DOT Office of Aviation grant
to begin phased pavement reconstruction plan. This series of projects when completed would
expand the aircraft parking area by approximately 22,000 square feet and replace a similar sized
area of parking adjacent to the terminal building that contains original concrete from the 1950s.
Iowa City Municipal Airport — Annual Report 2015 Page 8
AVIATION COMMERCE PARK
The Airport, along with City staff, continues efforts to develop land available in Aviation
Commerce Park a/k/a North Airport Development. Funds received from the sale or lease of this
land have been used to pay off City incurred debt for costs associated with the improvements of
that land. The original loan for the infrastructure has been paid for by proceeds from the sale of
parcels in this area.
The Airport Commission and City Council entered into an agreement in FY2011 which
memorializes a plan for further sales of Aviation Commerce Park land to be used to accelerate
the payback of other building construction debt balances.
In Fiscal Year 2015, the final 4 lots of this area were sold. As a result of these final sales the
Iowa City Airport is now clear of all debt.
FUTURE AIRPORT ACTIVITIES/PROJECTS
The Iowa City Municipal Airport continues to plan for the future. Utilizing state and federal
grants, as well as local improvement money, the Airport continues to refurbish and replace
existing facilities and expand operational capability.
FAA Grant Pre -Applications are due annually in December. The Iowa City Airport Commission
has submitted its application for funding which includes projects being derived from the Airport
Master Plan. Additional FAA projects will include runway marking and lighting changes,
additional obstruction mitigation and expansion of the aircraft parking areas.
In August, The Iowa Department of Transportation awarded the Iowa City Airport a grant for
FY2016 projects at the airport. Future projects expected to seek grant funding include a
continuation of building lighting conversion to LED technology, replacement of hangar bi-fold
doors, and additional pavement replacement work.
State Grant Applications are due annually in the spring. The Airport has utilized funding from
the Iowa DOT Office of Aviation to finance repairs to hangars, taxiways, and other infrastructure
which would have a low priority on the FAA scale.
Following completion of the Airport Master plan, the Iowa City Airport Commission will update
its 5 -year strategic plan. The 5 -year strategic plan provides a segmented approach to achieving
goals and objectives of the Iowa City Airport Commission.
The Airport Commission will continue to maintain and strengthen its relationship with City
Council, staff, and the surrounding community by keeping a focus on the mutual goals for the
Iowa City Municipal Airport.
Iowa City Municipal Airport — Annual Report 2015 Page 9
Airport Staff
Michael Tharp, C.M., Operations Specialist
Airport Commission
Jacob Odgaard, Chairperson
Robert Libby, Secretary
Christine Ogren
Minnetta Gardinier
Julie K.W. Bockenstedt
Iowa City Municipal Airport — Annual Report 2015 Page 10
Iowa City Police Department
and University of Iowa DPS
Bar Check Report - May, 2016
Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges
Numbers are reflective of Iowa City Police activity and University of Iowa Police Activity
Business Name Occupancy
(occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008)
= University of Iowa
Monthly Totals
Bar
Checks Under2l PAULA
Prev 12 Month Totals
Bar
Checks Under2l PAULA
Under 21 PAULA
Ratio Ratio
(Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo)
2 Dogs Pub 120
0
0
0
7 0
0
0
0
Airliner 223
0
0
0
19 12
5
0.6315789
0.2631579
American Legion 140
0
0
0
(Atlas World Grill 165
0
0
0
Bardot Iowa
0
0
0
24 0
3
0
0-125
Baroncini—
0
0
0
(Basta 176
0
0
0
1 0
0
0
0
(Blackstone— 297
0
0
0
Blue Moose— 436
1
0
0
16 0
0
0
0
Bluebird Diner 82
0
0
0
Bob's Your Uncle *' 260
0
0
0
lBo-James 200
0
0
0
13 0
0
0
0
IBread Garden Market & Bakery ^
0
0
0
1 Brix
0
0
0
(Brothers Bar& Grill, [it's] 556
15
5
1
123 33
29
0.2682927
0.23Si724
]Brown Bottle, [The]— 289
0
0
0
]Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar` 189
0
0
0
(Cactus 2 Mexican Grill (314 E Burlint
0
0
0
1 0
7
0
7
]Cactus Mexican Grill (245 s. Gilbert)
0
0
0
3 0
4
0
1.3333333
(Caliente Night Club 498
1
0
0
6 0
0
0
0
(Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill 92
0
0
0
2 0
0
0
0
)CarlosO'Kelly's— 299
0
0
0
� Chili Yummy Yummy Chili
0
0
0
IChipotle Mexican Grill 119
0
0
0
]Clarion Highlander Hotel
0
0
0
]Clinton St Social Club
0
0
0
Tuesday, lune 14, 2016 Page 1 of 5
E
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
C
L
L
C
L
L
L
L
L
Iowa City Police Department
and University of Iowa DPS
Bar Check Report - May, 2016
Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges
Numbers are reflective of Iowa City Police activity and University of Iowa Police Activity
Business Name Occupancy
(occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008)
= university of Iowa
Monthly Totals
Bar
Under2l PAULA
Checks
Prev 12 Month Totals
Bar
I Unde21 PAULA
Checks
Under 21
Ratio
(Prev 12 Mo)
PAULA
Ratio
(Prev 12 Mo)
Club Car, [The]
56
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
Coach's Corner
160
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Colonial Lanes-
502
0
0
0
Dave's Foxhead Tavern
87
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
DC's
120
10
0
0
99
41
21
0.4141414
0.2121212
Deadwood, [The]
218
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Devotay-
45
0
0
0
1
Donnelly's Pub
49
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Dublin Underground, [The]
57
0
0
0
1
0
G
0
0
Eagle's, [Fraternal Order of]
315
0
0
0
Eden Lounge
1
0
0
26
E
1
0.3076923
0.0384615
IEl Banditos
25
0
0
0
IEl Cactus Mexican Cuisine
0
0
0
EI Dorado Mexican Restaurant
104
0
0
0
IEl Ranchero Mexican Restaurant
161
0
0
0
Elks #590, [BPO]
205
0
0
0
EnglertTheatre`
838
0
0
0
(Fieldhouse
178
4
1
0
54
8
2
0.1481481
0.0370370
FilmScene
0
0
0
First Avenue Club-
280
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
Formosa Asian Cuisine-
149
0
0
0
(Gabes-
261
1
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
(George's Buffet
75
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
IGivanni's-
158
0
0
0
IGodfather's Pizza
170
0
0
0
IGraze-
49
0
0
0
2 1
0
0
0
0
Tuesday, June 14, 2016 Page 2 of 5
C
E
E
E
E
C
(_
(_
E
C
E
E
E
E
C
E
E
E
E
C
L
E
E
C
E
E
Iowa City Police Department
and University of Iowa DPS
Bar Check Report - May, 2016
Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges
Numbers are reflective of Iowa City Police activity and University of Iowa Police Activity
Business Name Occupancy
(occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008)
= University of Iowa
Monthly Totals
Bar Under2l PAULA
Checks
Prev 12 Month Totals
Bar Under2l PAULA
Checks
Under 21 PAULA
Ratio Ratio
(Prey 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo)
Grizzly's South Side Pub 265
1
0
0
13 0
0
0
0
Hilltop Lounge, [The] 90
1
0
0
15 0
0
0
0
Howling Dogs Bistro
0
0
0
IC Ugly's 72
1
0
0
30 0
0
0
0
India Cafe 100
0
0
0
(Iron Hawk
0
0
0
(Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack 71
0
0
0
Jobsite 120
0
0
0
41 0
0
0
0
(Joe's Place 281
1
0
0
21 0
0
0
0
(Joseph's Steak House` 226
0
0
0
Linn Street Cafe 80
0
0
0
(Los Portales 161
0
0
0
(Martini's 200
5
0
0
58 15
1 3
0.2586207
0.0517241
(Masala 46
0
0
0
j
IMekong Restaurant- 89
0
0
0
'
Micky's— 98
0
0
0
3 0
0
0
0
(Mill Restaurant, [The]— 325
0
0
0
1 0
0
0
0
Moose, [Loyal Order of] 476
0
0
0
Motley Cow Cafe` 82
0
0
0
Noodles & Company—
0
0
0
Okoboji Grill— 222
0
0
0
(Old Capitol Brew Works 294
0
0
0
(One -Twenty -Six 105
0
0
0
(Orchard Green Restaurant- 200
0
0
0
]OyamaSushi Japanese Restaurant 87
0
0
0
]Pagliai'sPizza— 113
0
0
I 0
Tuesday, June 14, 2016 Page 3 Of 5
C
E
C
C
E
C
E
E
C
E
C
C
C
L
C
E
C
C
E
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Iowa City Police Department
and University of Iowa DPS
Bar Check Report - May, 2016
Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges
Numbers are reflective of Iowa City Police activity and University of Iowa Police Activity
Business Name Occupancy
(occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008)
= University of Iowa
Monthly Totals
Bar
Checks Under -21 PAULA
Prev 12 Month Totals
Bar
Checks Under2l PAULF
Panchero's (Clinton St)- 62
0
0
0
Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr)- 95
0
0
0
Pints 180
3
0
0
49
0
0
Pit Smokehouse` 40
0
0
0
Pizza Arcade
0
0
0
Pizza Hut- 116
0
0
0
Players 114
0
0
0
Quinton's Bar & Deli 149
0
0
0
4
0
0
Rice Village
0
0
0
Ride
0
0
0
Ridge Pub
0
0
0
Riverside Theatre- 118
0
0
0
Saloon- 120
0
0
0
1
0
0
Sam's Pizza 174
0
0
0
Sanctuary Restaurant, [The] 132
0
0
0
(Shakespeare's 90
0
0
0
5
0
0
Sheraton
0
0
0
(Short's Burger & Shine- 56
0
0
0
1
0
0
''. Short's Burger Eastside
0
0
0
Sports Column 400
7
3
2
81
57
22
Studio 13 206
0
0
0
8
0
0
Summit. [The] 736
7
2
3
89
36
44
Sushi Popo 84
0
0
0
Szechuan House
0
0
0
Takanami Restaurant- 148
0
0
0
Taqueria Acapulco
0
0
0
Under 21
PAULA
Ratio
Ratio
(Prev 12 Moi
(Prev 12 Mo)
0
0
0 C
0 0
0 0
0.7037037 0.2716049
0 0
0.4044944 0.4943820
Tuesday, June 14, 2016 Page 4 of 5
E
C
E
C
E
E
E
C
E
C
C
C
C
Iowa City Police Department
and University of Iowa DPS
Bar Check Report - May, 2016
Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges
Numbers are reflective of Iowa City Police activity and University of Iowa Police Activity
Business Name Occupancy
MonthlV Totals
Prev 12 Month Totals
Under2l PAULA
(occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008)
=University of Iowa
Bar
Checks Under2l PAULA
Bar
checks Under2l PAULA
Ratio ROHO
(Prey 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo)
TCB 250
2
0
0
42
0
0
0
0
Thai Flavors 60
0
0
0
Thai Spice 91
0
0
0
Times Club @ Prairie Lights 60
0
0
0
Trumpet Blossom CafL& 94
0
0
0
Union Bar 854
10
3
0
106
40
38
0.3773585
0.3584906
VFW Post#3949 197
0
0
0
Vine Tavern, [The] 170
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
Wig & Pen Pizza Pub- 154
0
0
0
Yacht Club, [Iowa City]` 206
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
Yen Ching
0
0
0
Z'Mariks Noodle House 47
0
0
0
73
14
6
1013
250
179
0.2467917
0.1767029
Totals
Off Premise
0
0
4
0
8
87
0
0
Grand Totals
10
266
* includes outdoor seating area c
exception to 21 ordinance .._.
�^ a
us
Cr1
Tuesday, lune 14, 2016 Page 5 of 5
NOTHING I,S IMPOSSIBLE
CELEBRATING ACCESS FOR ALL
26 Yeats of the Americans With Disabilities Act
EVERYONE WELCOME
Saturday, July 23rd -- 10am to 12pm — Ped Mall -- Iowa City
Speakers Entertainment Refreshments
Household hazardous waste collection event scheduled Friday, June 17, at East Side Recy... Page 1 of 2
IP11
Receive Updates Enter Email Address 60
P
Household hazardous waste collection event
scheduled Friday, June 17, at East Side Recycling
Center
City of Iowa City sent this bulletin at 06/14/2016 12:11 PM CDT
O SHORE Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.
°��°, IOWA CITY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: June 14, 2016
Contact: Jen Jordan
Phone: 319-887-6160
Household hazardous waste collection event scheduled
Friday, June 17, at East Side Recycling Center
The Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center will sponsor a mobile household hazardous waste
collection event from 8 to 11 a.m. this Friday, June 17, 2016, at the East Side Recycling Center, 2401
Scott Blvd. SE in Iowa City. There is no cost to participate.
Residents of Iowa City and other communities and rural areas in Johnson County, as well as residents
of Kalona and Riverside, may dispose of one box of household hazardous waste per household,
including oil-based paint, household cleaners, non -alkaline batteries such as rechargeable or cell
phone batteries, sharps, motor oil and other automotive fluids. No latex paint will be accepted at this
event. For a complete list of the items that can be dropped off for disposal, visit the hazardous waste
section of the City's website at www.icoy.org/esrc.
All businesses and/or residents with more than one box of household hazardous waste, or those with
materials that will not be accepted at the mobile event, should call 319-356-5185 to make an
appointment for disposal at the Iowa City Landfill's permanent household hazardous waste collection
facility.
For more information, call the Recycling Coordinator at 319-887-6160 or emailiennifer-iordan(c iowa-
city.org.
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/IAIOWA[bulletins/I4f4f96 6/14/2016
From Mayor Throgmorton
Late Handouts Distributed
Analysis of Elementary School Snapshot data Wallib
(Date)
Beginning with 2014-15, the district creates school "snapshots' which present a variety of information about each
school. The snapshots are available at http://www.iowacityschools.org/pages/ICCSD/Community/School Snapshots.
The following are graphical and statistical representations of the relationships between various information available in
those snapshots. Where the pattern of the plotted points appear to form a linear relationship, the R value may be
meaningful. For instance, in the first graph of building reading proficiency percent versus building free or reduced price
lunch (FRL) percent, the R' value is 0.8884. This indicates that 88.84% of the variability in building reading proficiency
can be explained by the building FRL percentage. The downward slope of the regression line indicates this is a "negative"
relationship, meaning the higher the building FRL percentage, the lower the building reading proficiency percentage.
Note that this is only a very brief analysis and others may wish to dive deeper into potential variable bias, residual plot
patterns, etc. There could be other factors that a more robust analysis may identify.
Maintained by Dr. David Dude, Chief Operating Officer Last modified: 4/2/2015 1:46 PM
Reading % Proficient
Math % Proficient
100
loo
••
90
90
•y�,
80
� -.0
80
7•Y�..... �.* •
0
60
�•"'•y
o
60j•
50
•
50
•
m
40
c
40
30
5
30
m
20m
y=-0.50742+96.092
20
y= -0.4984x+98.479
10
R' = 0.8884
10
R'= 0.8659
0
0
0
20 40 60 80
0
20 40 60 80
Building FRL %
Building FRL %
Reading % Proficient
Math % Proficient
100
100
•
90
90
8
80
v
70
....r..........
T a
'u
70
0
60
• ••.-'�
60
•
50
•
50
•
40
c
40
30
30
m
20
y= -0.7915x+93.218
m
20
y= -0.9139x+98.355
10
R' = 0.504
10
R' = 0.6791
0
_—_._-_. ___ _.. - - _. _. _.____
0
0
10 20 30 40 50
0
10 20 30 40 So
Building Mobility Rate
Building Mobility Rate
Maintained by Dr. David Dude, Chief Operating Officer Last modified: 4/2/2015 1:46 PM
Reading % Proficient
100
90•
.. 80 • ....t•........ •
w 70.. .....
0 6050
•
ae
c 40
v
•� 30
20 y = 1.6705x - 76.681
R2 = 0.3711
10
0 --- _ ---------------
80 85 90 95 100
Building Stability Rate
100
90
80
w 70
U
0 60
50
c 40
30
Reading % Proficient
•
....... • ........
m
2p y = 3.0925x + 16.052
10 R2 = 0.1896
17 18 19 20 21 22
Average K-2 Class Size
Reading % Proficient
23
100
90 • •
+, 80 �.....1•.............•
.............
......
U
60 • • •
50 •
40
30
m
20 y = 1.7075x + 37.136
10 R2 = 0.0818
0 --------------------... _ _ __.
19 21 23 25 27
Average 3-6 Class Size
Math % Proficient
100
90 • • �...•"'•�
So • !► r
a 70 ••,,...�
5 60
a 50 •
a°
c 40
30
m 20 y = 2.0377x - 107.87
10 R2 = 0.5579
0
80 85 90 95 100
Building Stability Rate
Math % Proficient
Page 2 of 5
100
90
•
• • 1.........
80
_. •
w
70 ........
•........
U
60
• •
a
50
c
40
v
.3
30
m
20
Y=2.891x+22.777
10
R2 = 0.1674
p
17
18 19 20 21 22
23
Average K-2 Class Size
Math % Proficient
100
90
• •
•
80
...... .....•.....:..... •
...•.
y
70 .............
u
60
• •
a
2l
50
•
40
_c
30
20
y=2.0193x+32.467
R2 = 0.1156
10
0
19
21 23 25
27
Average 3-6 Class Size
Page 2 of 5
Reading % Proficient
100
90 •
•• i
80.......j..........................................y
m 70 ••
0 60 • • •
22 50 •
c 40
v
•� 30
m
20 y = 0.0598x + 77.162
10 R' = 0.0018
0
0 10 20 30 40
Boundary Area (Square Miles)
Reading % Proficient
100
90 • •
••
y, 80 • � •
a 70 ��•..
0 60 • •
•
50 •
40
v
n 30
CO
20
y = -2.2833x + 98.881
10 R' = 0.4323
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
%Special Education Students
Reading % Proficient
100
90 • •
80••.. •
A 70 ....•...... ...•
o 60 • •
•
e 50 •
40
30
20 y = 11.758x - 1051.5
10 R2 = 0.3857
o`------------_.--- ---.__ _
94.5 95 95.5 96 96.5 97 97.5
Average Daily Attendance Rate
Math % Proficient
100
to
90 • • •
c gp N.............�
w 70
0 60 • •
a 50 •
ae
c 40
-2
30
m
20
10
0 ----
0
....................
y = 0.1994x + 78.913
R' = 0.0202
10 20 30
Boundary Area (Square Miles)
Math % Proficient
100
90
• ••
80
w 70
'u
`0 60
• •
i 50
•
ae
40
30
m
20
y = -1.3876x + 93.241
10 R2 = 0.1613
0 L
0 5 10 15 20
%Special Education Students
Math % Proficient
40
25
100
90 OP.• .116
80
m 70 ... •
U
o 60 • •
0 50 •
aQ
c 40
v
-� 30
m
20 y = 30.652x - 942.57
10 R2 = 0.3199
0
94.5 95 95.5 96 96.5 97 97.5
Average Daily Attendance Rate
Page 3 of 5
Average Daily Attendance %
100
99
98
97 •
•...�.� •
•
95 ....•...........�
o •
94
93
92 y= -0.0195x+96.737
91 R' = 0.4716
90 --- — -
0 20 40 60 80
Building FRL %
Average Daily Attendance %
100
99
98
97 ! •
96 • ll
..........�....�
...• •
0 95 • • °• •
94
I
93
92 y = 0.0724x + 89.336
91 R2 = 0.2501
90 -- --- -----
8o 85 90 95
j Building Stability Rate
Math % Proficient
100
90 • t •.. •
a 70 • •
o 60 • •
a 50 °
a°
c 40
v
30
m
20 y = -0.004x + 81.849
10 R' = 0.0017
0
0 200 400 600 800
Enrollment
Average Daily Attendance %
Reading % Proficient
100
98
90
80
° •
go
....'.....j"
m
u
70
..............
• •
0
60
• •
r
50
y= -0.0363x+96.743
f
40
90
a
z
30
0 10 20 30 40
M
20
y = 0.0092x + 73.986
Average Daily Attendance %
10
R'=0.0091
99
0
98
0
200 400 600 800
0 95
• •
Enrollment
Average Daily Attendance %
100
99
98
97 •
•...�.� •
•
95 ....•...........�
o •
94
93
92 y= -0.0195x+96.737
91 R' = 0.4716
90 --- — -
0 20 40 60 80
Building FRL %
Average Daily Attendance %
100
99
98
97 ! •
96 • ll
..........�....�
...• •
0 95 • • °• •
94
I
93
92 y = 0.0724x + 89.336
91 R2 = 0.2501
90 -- --- -----
8o 85 90 95
j Building Stability Rate
Math % Proficient
100
90 • t •.. •
a 70 • •
o 60 • •
a 50 °
a°
c 40
v
30
m
20 y = -0.004x + 81.849
10 R' = 0.0017
0
0 200 400 600 800
Enrollment
50
92 y = 0.0008x + 95.699
91 R'= 0.0269
-_ 90 _--. __..__. _.._____.___._—_
100 0 200 400 600 800
Enrollment
Page 4 of 5
Average Daily Attendance %
100
99
98
97
96
•�. •.f. • • •
• •... �....� •
0 95
• •
a 94
93
92
y= -0.0363x+96.743
91
R' = 0.3807
90
0 10 20 30 40
Building Mobility Rate
Average Daily Attendance %
100
99
98
97
96
° ....�....Y.....i
0 95
• •
4 94
93
50
92 y = 0.0008x + 95.699
91 R'= 0.0269
-_ 90 _--. __..__. _.._____.___._—_
100 0 200 400 600 800
Enrollment
Page 4 of 5
Mobility %
45
40 y=0.4129x+4.6981 •
35 R2 = 0.7309
w 30
' 25 • • •
20 •'' •
15 • •
•
10
•: j •
5 ••
0
0 20 40 60 80
Building FRL %
Class Size (K-2)
25
.w • •
w •
h 15
N
N
l0
V
eo 10
i
a
5
y = -0.0338x + 21.126
R2 = 0.1982
0
0 20 40 60 80
Building FRL %
Mobility %
45
40 •
35 •
w 30 •
m
. 25'•.,•
a 20
15 •
•
10 y= -23119x+233.25'•.,
5 R2 = 0.8834 •
p
80 85 90 95 100
Building Stability Rate
Stability %
100
98
• •
96 j
�•�
I
w 94
�'•
> 92
•
i''•
•
•
•
90
88
86
y= -0.1485x+97,763 •
•
84
R2 = 0.5725
•
82
0
20 40
60 80
Building FRL %
Class Size (3-6)
30
25
..•.....%. •.....3. •.............
•
N 20
• •
V1
N
2 15
V
oc
10
5
y = -0.0329x + 24.884
R2 = 0.133
0
0
20 40
60 80
Building FRL %
FRL %
80
i •
70
• y= -0.0213x+44.792
60
•
R2=0.0141
50
•
m 40
........ •
..........
30
t
m
20
•• ••
•
•
10
• •
0
200 400
600 800
Enrollment
Page 5 of 5
4
Shimek ES
Mann ES
Lemmas ES
Longfellow ES
Lucas ES
Hoover (American Legion) ES
Twain ES
Wood ES
Alexander ES
Grant ES
Penn ES
Garner ES
Van Allen ES
Wickham ES
Kirkwood ES
Curahri0e Central ES
Lincoln ES
Borlaug ES
Horn ES
Weber ES
Hills ES
White
p % Range
171
90.00%
90100%
164
84.54%
8090%
298
82.55%
8090%
229
86.74%
8090%
193
62.06%
60.70%
219
60.83%
6070%
124
55.11%
5060%
161
35.08%
3040%
109
28.84%
20-30%
237
85.87%
8090%
489
84.02%
8090%
388
77.29%
70-80%
407
82.39%
8090%
332
80.39%
8090%
123
31.70%
3040%
152
53.85%
50.60%
109
57.37%
5060%
183
46.10%
4050%
224
55.72%
50-60%
286
58.25%
5060%
66
53.75%
506096
Hispanic
k % Range
4
3
16
8
20
90
50
76
46
2
14
25
24
12
55
34
55
5
20
8
66
From Mayor Throgmorton
Attendance Area Development 5-10-16
Board Action - Elementary (page 24)
African Amer
4 % Range
10
21
36
IS
90
23
50
197
211
11
63
70
36
19
182
131
22
101
97
151
7
Nature Amer
if % Range
p
4
4
10
8
6
26
1
23
12
25
13
18
27
60
27
50
4
106
59
45
1
Asian
% Range
2.11% 0-10%
2.06% 010%
2.77% 010%
3.03% 010%
1.93% 0-10%
7.22% 0109E
0.44% 010%
5.01% 010%
3.17% 0109(
9.06% 010%
2.23% 010%
3.59% 010%
5.47% 010%
14.53% 10203
6.96% 0109E
10.68% 10-209
2.11% 010%
16.70% 20309
14.68% 10209
9.16% 0109E
0.63% 0-10%
Low SES
M % Range
22
37
77
67
151
169
154
330
286
17
83
133
107
8
276
218
78
127
180
162
120
ELL
e % Range
1 0.53% 0-10%
4 2.06% 010%
11 3.05% 010%
5 1.89% 010%
20 6.43% 010%
88 24.44% 20309
53 23.56% 20309
118 25.71% 20309
104 27.51% 20303
1 0.36% 010%
13 2.23% 010%
17 3.39% 010%
13 2.63% 010%
4 0.97% 010%
75 19.33% 10209
23 4.91% 0309E
45 23.68% 20309
74 18.64% 10203
77 19.15% 10203
76 15.48% 10209
Late Haddouts Distributed
(Date)
Special Education
4 % Range
10
8
17
SS
26
35
27
51
42
yy 5
35
34
27
13
16
37
14
20
19
9
18
0-10%
10-20%
2030%
30-40%
4050%
5060%
6070%
7080%
8090%
90-100%
From Mayor Throgmorton
ATTENDANCE AREA DEVELOPMENT 5-12-16 (page 6)
All Students
White
Hispanic
African Amer
Native Amer
Asian
Unk/Other
Low SES
ELL
Special Education
Elementary School Students
Alexander Elementary
Borlaug Elementary
Coralville Central Elementary
Garner Elementary
Hills Elementary
Hoover Elementary
Horn Elementary
Kirkwood Elementary
Lemme Elementary
Lincoln Elementary
Longfellow Elementary
Lucas Elementary
Mann Elementary
Penn Elementary
Shimek Elementary
Twain Elementary
Van Allen Elementary
Weber Elementary
Wickham Elementary
Wood Elementary
White
Hispanic
African Amer
Native Amer
Asian
Unk/Other
Low SES
ELL
Special Education
Junior High School Students
7th
8th
NCIHS
NWJHS
SEJHS
White
Hispanic
African Amer
Native Amer
Asian
Unk/Other
Low SES
ELL
Special Education
FUTURE CAPACITY
High School Students
9th
10th
11th
12th
CHS
WHS
THS
White
Hispanic
African Amer
Native Amer
Asian
Unk/Other
Low SES
ELL
Special Education
FUTURE CAPACITY
rwc R..Rn
4639
2998
64.63%
60-70%
580
12.50%
10-20%
868
18.71%
10-20%
18
0.39%
0-10%
175
3.77%
0.10%
0
0.00%
0-10%
1887
40.68%
40-50%
474
10.22%
30-20%
449
9.68% 17
-SO%
2555
115
4.50%
50.60%
4
0.16%
0.10%
6
0.23%
20-30%
1
0.04%
0-10%
4
0.16%
30-20%
258
10.10%
60-70%
1
0.04%
10-20%
0
0.00%
20-30%
398
15.58%
0-10%
94
3.68%
0-10%
323
12.64%
0-10%
417
16.32%
40.50%
217
8.49%
0-10%
1
0.04%
10-20%
195
7.63%
0-10%
193
7.55%
10-20%
0
0.00%
4
0.16%
5
0.20%
319
12.49%
1668
65.28%
60-70%
322
12.60%
10-20%
468
18.32%
10-20%
11
0.43%
0-30%
86
3.37%
0-30%
0
0.00%
0-30%
R1087
42.54%
40-50%
346
13.54% 1
10-20%
203
7.95%
0-30%
690
345
50.00%
50.60%
345
50.00%
0.10%
2
0.29%
20-30%
17
2.46%
0-10%
671
97.25%
30-20%
415
60.14%
60-70%
104
15.07%
10-20%
138
20.00%
20-30%
3
0.43%
0-10%
30
4.35%
0-10%
0
0.00%
0-10%
294
42.61%
40.50%
64
9.28%
0-10%
82
11.88%
10-20%
864
79.86%
0-10%
1394
361
25.90%
50.60%
333
23.89%
0.10%
336
24.10%
20-30%
364
26.11%
0-10%
1282
91.97%
30-20%
39
2.80%
0-10%
73
5.24%
40.50%
915
65.64%
60-70%
154
11.05%
10-20%
262
18.79%
10-20%
4
0.29%
0-10%
59
4.23%
0-10%
0
0.00%
710%
506
36.30%
30-40%
64
4.59%
0-10%
164
11.76%
10-20%
1593
87.51%
WHC WRance
5563
2986
53.68%
50.60%
434
7.80%
0.10%
1513
27.20%
20-30%
10
0.18%
0-10%
620
11.15%
30-20%
0
0.00%
0-10%
2266
40.73%
40.50%
661
11.88%
30-20%
375
6.74%
0-30%
3099
253
8.16%
80-90%
420
13.55%
0-10%
427
13.78%
10.20%
8
0.26%
0-10%
173
5.58%
0.10%
3
0.10%
50.60%
490
15.81%
0-10%
316
10.20%
20-30%
2
0.06%
1 0-10%
20
0.65%
10-20%
12
0.39%
0.10%
8
0.26%
30
3
0.10%
0.10%
1
0.03%
1 0-10%
12
0.39%
0-10%
73
2.36%
0.10%
26
0.84%
419
13.52%
420
13.55%
13
0.42%
1596
51.50%
50-60%
246
7.94%
0-10%
890
28.72%
20-30%
7
0.23%
0-10%
360
11.62%
10-20%
0
0.00%
0-10%
1379
44.50%
40-50%
490
15.81%
10-20%
160
5.16%
0-10%
813
392
48.22%
80-90%
421
51.78%
0-10%
114
14.02%
10.20%
566
69.62%
0-10%
133
16.36%
0.10%
447
54.98%
50.60%
61
7.50%
0-10%
216
26.57%
20-30%
2
0.25%
1 0-10%
87
10.70%
10-20%
0
ODE%
0.10%
325
39.98%
30
73
8.98%
0.10%
65
8.00%
1 0-10%
866
93.88%
0-10%
1651
432
26.17%
80-90%
415
25.14%
0-10%
399
24.17%
10.20%
405
24.53%
0-10%
262
15.87%
0.10%
1319
79.89%
0-10%
70
4.24%
30-20%
943
57.12%
50-60%
127
1 7.69%
1 0-10%
407
24.65%
20-30%
1
ODE%
0.10%
173
10.48%
10.20%
0
0.00%
0-10%
562
34.04%
30-40%
98
5.94%
0-10%
150
9.09%
0.10%
1684
98.04%
IHc %t
ur\V 11Y\14VY\J Y{JIIIVY{VY
(Date)
2952
2385
80.79%
80-90%
116
3.93%
0-10%
316
10.70%
10.20%
12
0.41%
0-10%
123
4.17%
0.10%
0
0.00%
0-10%
565
19.14%
30-20%
56
1.90%
0-10%
191 1
6.47% 1
0-10%
1851
0
0.00%
2
0.11%
1
0.05%
591
31.93%
0
0.00%
1
0.05%
80-90%
4
0.22%
0-10%
2
0.11%
10-20%
0
0.00%
1 0-10%
126 1
6.81%
0-10%
0
0.00%
0-10%
0
0.00%
20-30%
0
0.00%
0-10%
530
28.63%
0-30%
2
0.11%
0.10%
1
0.05%
0-30%
490
26.47%
3
0.16%
97
5.24%
1 1
0.05%
1518
82.01%
80-90%
65
3.51%
0-10%
180
9.72%
0-10%
5
0.27%
0-10%
83
4.48%
0-10%
0
0.00%
0-10%
340
18.37%
10-20%
44
2.38%
0-10%
101
5.46%
0-30%
426
223
52.35%
203
47.65%
384
90.14%
35
8.22%
7
1.64%
342
80.28%
80-90%
24
5.63%
0-10%
43
10.09%
10-20%
3
1 0.70%
1 0-10%
14
3.29%
0-10%
0
0.00%
0-10%
89
20.89%
20-30%
4
0.94%
0-10%
40
9.39%
0-30%
745
57.18%
0.10%
675
176
26.07%
185
27.41%
180
26.67%
134
19.85%
53
7.85%
598
88.59%
24
3.56%
525
77.78%
70-80%
27
4.00%
0.10%
93
13.78%
1 10.20%
40.59%
0-10%
26
3.85%
0.10%
0
0.00%
0-10%
136
10.15%
20-30%
8
1.19%
0.10%
50
7.41%
0-30%
1500
45.00%
--'-
0-10%
10-20%
20.30%
30.40%
40-50%
50-60%
60-70%
70-80%
80-90%
90-100%
DRAFT IP12
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — June 7, 2016
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 4:04 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Donald King, Joseph Treloar
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
STAFF ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Royceann Porter, Mazahir Salih
Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford
None
None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #16-2
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by King, seconded by Treloar, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended.
Minutes of the meeting on 05/18/16
Minutes of the meeting on 05/23/16
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by King, seconded by Treloar to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section
21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by
state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that
government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal
information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities,
boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports,
except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications
not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its
employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government
body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could
reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that
government body if they were available for general public examination.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent. Open session adjourned at 4:05 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 5:39 P.M.
CPRB
June 7, 2016
Page 2
Motion by Treloar, seconded by King to accept CPRB Complaint #16-2 as amended and
forward report to the City Council.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subiect to change)
• June 14, 2016, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (CANCELLED)
. July 12, 2016, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (CANCELLED)
. August 9, 2016, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• September 13, 2016, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
Motion by Treloar, seconded by King to to cancel the special meeting on June 14, 2016 and
the regular meeting on July 12, 2016, due to a lack of board business and quorum issues.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent.
Treloar thanked Jensen for her time served on the Board. Tuttle stated she would contact
members regarding the August meeting date to make sure there was a quorum after
appointments were made to the Board for the upcoming vacancies.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by King, seconded by Treloar.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent.
Meeting adjourned at 5:45 P.M.
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2015-2016
(Meetin¢ Date)
KEY: X =
TERM
5/20
6/16
7/20
111
10/12
12/16
1/20
1/25
2/17
1112
4/26
5/18
5/23L6/7NAME
EXP.
Melissa
9/1/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NM
X
X
XJensen
Joseph
9/1/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NM
X
O/E
XTreloar
Royceann
9/1/16
O
O/E
O/E
O
X
O
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
Porter
Mazahir
9/1/17
OB
O
O
X
O
O/E
O
X
O
NM
X
X
O/E
O/E
salih
Fidencio
9/1/15
X
X
X
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Martinez
Donald
9/1/19
---
---
---
---
X
X
X
X
O
NM
X
X
X
X
King
KEY: X =
Present
O =
Absent
O/E =
Absent/Excused
NM =
No meeting
--- =
Not a Member
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5041
June 7, 2016
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #16-02
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #1602 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation.
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(1):
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review.
This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B) (2).)
N
b
-� Cn
To: City Council
Complainant
City Manager
Equity Director
Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police
t
Officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #16-02
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #1602 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation.
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(1):
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review.
This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B) (2).)
4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief
reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if:
a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or
b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or
c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or
local law.
5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public
report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a
clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either
"sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(3).)
6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authw typo Ckcipline`Rhe
officer involved.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE -
The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on February 8, 2016. As required'by Section
8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation.
The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on April 29, 2016. The Police Chief also provided a copy
of audio or video recordings of the incident.
Prior to the meeting on May 23rd, Board members reviewed audio or video recordings of the incident.
The Board met to consider the Report on May 23, 2016 and June 7, 2016.
The Board voted on 05/23/16 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: On the record
with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(1)(A).
FINDINGS OF FACT
On 02/06/16, at about 11:55 p.m., the Complainant was met by officers at her residence and taken in a
squad car to the Police Department, allegedly to look at some pictures pertaining to an armed robbery
that occurred on 02/06/16 where the Complainant worked.
About 10 minutes into the interview at the police station, Officer A made a statement about how they
had information from many sources and it was important that the Complainant be honest. At this point
the interview changed into an interrogation as questions were much more direct. A reasonable person
in the Complainant's position would not have felt free to leave.
Approximately 19 minutes into the interview, the Complainant made the statement to officers "I need a
lawyer. You're interrogating me too much, and I already told you I don't know anything about that."
Officer A responded with "what did you say" and the Complainant repeated that she needed a lawyer.
Officer A disregarded her request for a lawyer and continued to interrogate the Complainant.
Later in the interrogation (after the Complainant had requested a lawyer), Officer B asked Officer A to
tell the Complainant to put her cell phone down. Officer B then took the phone and began looking
through it. Officer B then returned the phone to the Complainant. At the end of the interrogation,
Officer A took the phone from the Complainant and said she could pick the phone up on Monday.
When the Complainant later met with the investigator from Internal Affairs as part of the CPRB
complaint process, Officer A (who was one of the officers named in the complaint) was also present in
the room.
ALLEGATION 7 — Questionable Interview and Interrogation tactics.
At the beginning of the interview, the Complainant was not told she was free to leave at any time.
When the interview became an interrogation, the officers should have advised the Complainant of her
Miranda Warning Rights. The Miranda Warning is necessary when a "custodial interrogation" takes
place. A reasonable person in the Complainant's place would not understand they were free to leave at
any time. During the interrogation the officers left the room and left the Complainant alone in the room.
She was in an office within the Police Department, which is not open to the public. She was also
without transportation because she was taken to the station by the officers.
When the Complainant requested a lawyer, the Interrogation should have immediately ended, but
officers continued to interrogate the Complainant.
Allegation: Sustained
ALLEGATION 2 — Unlawful Seizure of the Complainant's cell phone.
As discussed above, the Complainant requested a lawyer early in the interrogation, but was denied.
Had the officers honored the request, the interrogation would have ended immediately and the officers
would not have asked for her phone.
Allegation: Sustained
COMMENTS
If an interpreter was needed when the Complainant met with the investigator from Internal Affairs,
someone other than one of the officers named in the complaint should have been used.
E
�
a'
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MAY 10, 2016
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, 12:00 P.M.
Members Present: Rockne Cole, Susan Mims, Jim Throgmorton
Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Wendy Ford, Geoff Fruin, Tracy Hightshoe
Others Present: Tom Banta (ICAD); Nancy Bird (ICDD); Matt Swift and Jill (Big Grove);
John Rapson; Dick Dorcweiler; Steve Locher; Rebecca Neades (ICACC);
Mitchell Schmidt (Gazette)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
Cole moved to recommend the request to the full City Council for financial assistance of
$40,000 for facade improvements to Big Grove Brewery, located at 1225 S. Gilbert Street.
Throgmorton seconded the motion.
The motion carried 3-0.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mims at 12:00 P.M.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the April 12, 2016, meeting were reviewed.
Cole moved to approve the minutes as presented.
Throgmorton seconded the motion.
The motion carried 3-0.
Fruin spoke to Members regarding this request, noting that in 2013 the Riverfront Crossings
Master Plan was adopted for this area. This section of Gilbert Street is included in the Master
Plan and the request for facade improvements would be a very positive thing for this area. He
spoke to the value of improving one of the older buildings in this area and about Big Grove's
plans for it. Matt Swift then addressed Members, stating that they are excited about the
opportunity to bring Big Grove Brewery to Iowa City. They plan to use a high-tech brewing
system that will enable them to brew in an efficient manner. There will be a tap room addition in
the rear of the building which will open up toward the park behind the building. Mims stated that
she was very pleased to see this application and the plans that Big Grove has for this building.
Cole agreed with Mims, stating that this area of Riverfront Crossings could use a development of
this type. He believes it will become a destination. Throgmorton also agreed that the project will
be a plus for the area. He then asked for some clarification of the plans in the packet — he
wanted to know more about a mezzanine area that is shown on the drawings and how it
integrates with the rest of the floor plan. Swift explained where noting that it will be business
offices and located above the main floor area of the building. Fruin then spoke briefly to the park
development to the west, noting that Council will be seeing some plans soon regarding what is
projected for this area.
EDC May 10 , 2016 2
PRELIMINARY
Cole moved to recommend the request to the full City Council for financial assistance of
$40,000 for facade improvements to Big Grove Brewery, located at 1225 S. Gilbert Street.
Throgmorton seconded the motion.
The motion carried 3-0.
Ford noted after last month's meeting, staff thought that they should lay out a plan for a policy
review. Staff is suggesting that they conduct a series of focus groups that would involve small
groups of constituents who have or would be likely to have involvement with the TIF process.
This could include developers, architects and engineers, taxing entities, the Chamber of
Commerce, the local development group, and the Iowa City Downtown District, etc. Input could
then be gathered from these various groups, all in an effort to help guide changes to the
economic development and TIF policies. Ford stated that staff envisions that these focus groups
would be attended by at least one staff member and one member of the Committee. During this
time, Ford noted that the Economic Development Committee would continue to meet monthly,
with staff presenting various metrics for consideration. Once these focus groups have met and
ideas have been gathered, staff would present a recommendation for a new economic
development/TIF policy to a larger gathering of the focus groups before making a final
recommendation to the EDC.
Mims stated that she likes this idea, that she believes they need to gather input from key
stakeholders that are involved in development and potential TIF requests. She added that she
agrees with Ford, that they need something that will be workable both for the City, the taxpayers
of the City, and also the business owners and developers. Throgmorton stated that he has a
slightly different view, though he agrees with the importance of gathering input from key
stakeholders. He believes they need to expand the set of stakeholders. He suggested adding the
Center for Worker Justice, the Black Voices Project, and the City Federation of Labor, in
conjunction with the non-profit housing groups in the area. Throgmorton stated that he believes
these groups have a strong interest in what he considers 'social justice,' which needs to be a
component of the economic development policy. Continuing, Throgmorton added that he
believes they need a separate stakeholder group consisting of environmental organizations. In
regards to the focus group discussions, Throgmorton further clarified how he believes they can
help participants better understand such policies as TIF and economic development. He also
spoke to the current policies and what he believes they need to change, such as providing
incentives for ensuring that they are continually producing a walkable city. Regarding incentives,
Throgmorton stated that he believes they need to provide them for projects that directly benefit
lower-income residents, such as providing job opportunities.
Cole stated that he wants to emphasize that we should honor the current policy but that he
believes they need to move forward as soon as possible with making changes, especially in light
of several upcoming projects and TIF requests. He stated that he agrees with Throgmorton, that
they must have labor involved in the process. Cole stated that he has four areas of concern
where he would like to see changes made. One is the affordable housing issue, and he believes
they have started to move in the right direction here. Environmental standards is another area he
believes will be important. Cole stated that he believes they should have some smaller
committees focusing on these important areas. Continuing, Cole spoke to the issue of high-
quality design and the need to further delve into this area as well. As for the review process with
TIF, Cole would also like to see this changed. He would like a process that would allow a
developer to appeal a staff 'no'decision, when staff discourages approaching the EDC or Council
EDC May 10, 2016 3
PRELIMINARY
with a request for TIF. The appeal would go to the Council for judgment. In terms of timeframes,
Cole agreed with Ford's outline.
Mims stated that she does not see how they can update the policies in a very timely manner if
they are also going to be educating stakeholders — that this would be a more prolonged process.
Regarding the topics that Cole and Throgmorton raised, Mims said that these are pretty much
already included in the current TIF policies and perhaps just need a bit more specificity. As for
the social justice piece, she does not see how some of these additional stakeholders are going to
provide significant input to the development of the policies, other than to say what they would like
to see happen, from their point of view. She believes that one of the biggest things in making
changes to these policies is that they will need to be workable in the end. She spoke to the
balance that she believes is needed with these types of policies.
Cole then spoke regarding the Center for Worker Justice and how they work closely with the
Iowa Policy Center and the Labor Center at the University of Iowa. He stated that he has found
that they are able to bring a lot of policy weight to proposals that they would make, which he
believes would be very beneficial in this circumstance. Cole stated that at the end of this process
he would like to make three concrete improvements that have been vetted by the community for
the next two to four years. He wants these changes to be significant and workable, as well as to
facilitate development.
Mims asked if staff's recommendation, as laid out in the memo, with the addition of some of the
additional stakeholder groups as mentioned by both Throgmorton and Cole, would be acceptable
to the other Members. Throgmorton stated that he believes it is absolutely crucial that a range of
stakeholders be involved in this process, that they should have a say as to what should be
developed in the city, that they should have a say as to what incentives are provided and for what
types of development they are provided for.
The discussion continued, with Mims asking the other Members how they would like to proceed
from here. Throgmorton stated that basically the recommendation of staff is a good one, and that
his suggestion is to add to the stakeholder groups that would be involved. He also believes it to
be crucial for staff to be collecting useful information about what measures could reasonably be
expected to encourage developers to produce structures that are, for example, very energy
efficient. Cole then spoke to affordable housing, noting that while this area is critical, he goes
back to three areas: environmental, quality jobs, and quality design. He believes that if they could
measurably improve these three areas and have the stakeholders focus on these, that it would
not be an overwhelming process. He also stated that he believes they should not rule out upfront
money for TIF when it comes to things like affordable housing and sustainability. Fruin then
spoke briefly to Cole's appeals process comment, noting that a developer can request TIF from
Council even if they have been discouraged from doing so at the staff level. He added that a few
years ago they had a request that proved not to have a financial gap and the developer followed
staff's recommendation not to proceed with a request because there was no gap. The developer
could still have approached Council to make his case.
Throgmorton then referred to his memo in the meeting packet. Elaborating on it, he said he
believes the density bonus provision needs to be compatible and consistent with whatever the
economic development policy becomes in order for things to move forward in the manner they
believe it should. Mims noted that these bonus provisions are totally separate from the TIF policy.
Mims spoke to how past Councils have handled TIF requests, giving some background on these.
Cole then asked how staff plans to solicit participation in the aforementioned focus groups. Fruin
responded that he and Ford would basically come up with a list of these participants, but that if
Members have any suggestions to let them know. Members then agreed that staff will look at
EDC May 10 , 2016 4
PRELIMINARY
setting up focus group dates and once these are known, Members can decide which groups they
can sit in on.
STAFF REPORT:
Ford spoke briefly to the upcoming workshop series 'So You Want to Start a Business' that she
and Hightshoe are working on. This weekend will be the first of five programs being offered at
Kirkwood Community College. Right now there are approximately 25 people registered for each
of the five sessions. Hightshoe also noted new changes the microloan loan program. This
program is geared to low income entrepreneurs (making 80% or less of median income) with
loans up to $10,000 at an interest rate of 3%. The City will continue as loan guarantors, in a
partnership with MidwestOne Bank.
COMMITTEE TIME:
Throgmorton asked where the public can find the City's economic development policy on the web
site. Ford noted that it is at icgov.org and in the upper right hand corner, where the search field is,
they can type in 'economic development policies.' The page will then come up with the links to
that document.
OTHER BUSINESS:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Cole moved to adjourn the meeting at 1:04 P.M.
Throgmorton seconded the motion.
Motion carried 3-0.
EDC May 10 , 2016 5
PRELIMINARY
Council Economic Development Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2016
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
TERM
N
A
a+
NAME
EXP.
it
N
o
J
Rockne Cole
01/02/18
X
X
X
Susan Mims
01/02/18
X
X
X
Jim
01/02/18
X
X
X
Throgmorton
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
IP14
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MAY 19, 2016 — 6:30 PM
DALE HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, Christine Harms, Bob Lamkins, John McKinstry,
Harry Olmstead, Dorothy Persson, Emily Seiple
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
Syndy Conger, Matthew Peirce
Kris Ackerson, Tracy Hightshoe
Charlie Eastham
Byler called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
APPROVAL OF APRIL 21, 2016 MINUTES:
Olmstead moved to approve the minutes of April 21, 2016 with minor edits.
Lamkins seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Eastham addressed the Commission and noted that in the agenda packet there is a crime free
release addendum document that is apparently from Southgate Property Management and
wondered if that would be on the agenda for discussion this evening. Byler said it is not on the
agenda, there had been a question raised so Staff attached this documentation as informational.
Since it is not on the agenda the Commission cannot have substantial discussion regarding the
document. Eastham noted for the Commission's interest he read the addendum and assumes
Southgate is using this document, however that should be clarified, and also this addendum
should be compared to the HUD Office of General Council Standard for Fair Housing Act to the
use of criminal records by providers of housing and real estate -related transactions. Eastham
stated in his opinion this document is not in compliance with the HUD directive and standards.
Eastham suggests the Commission take some steps to review this addendum, perhaps referring
it to the Human Rights Commission or to the Council for review especially if Southgate is using
this addendum for any properties that have received public assistance monies. Byler suggested
Eastham contact Staff to discuss, but also suggested that the Commission put this topic on a
future agenda for discussion.
STAFF/COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Ackerson noted that typically during the summer they do not hold Commission meetings every
month, so likely the next meeting will be in July. However, City Manager will be presenting to the
City Council a list of funding strategies and ways to move forward regarding affordable housing
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2016
Page 2 of 5
and Staff is anticipating that to done in the beginning of June. Therefore if the Commission
wishes to meet in June, please let him know. Olmstead noted that if they do meet in June
perhaps to change the time to after 7pm due to a social gathering for the Johnson County
Affordable Housing Coalition at The Mill that evening. Hightshoe encouraged Commission
members to go the work session where the Council outlines affordable housing strategies and
possible financing sources.
Hightshoe also mentioned the "So you want to start a business" series started last Saturday and
they had 30 attendees, and 1/3 of those were persons of color. The next workshop already has
over 40 people signed up.
Byler said because there will be at least two agenda items, they should hold a June meeting.
Persson agreed and noted the Human Rights Commission will also be having another one of
their educational sessions which is very beneficial.
Byler noted some handouts that were provided by Seiple that are housing statements from
various housing organizations throughout the community that they will be submitting to City
Council. Byler said that when talking to City Staff the focus is mainly on sources of funding for
land banking. He questioned if as a Commission do they want to make a statement to officially
submit to the Council in the minutes or to affirm any of the statements from other organizations
Persson feels that the Commission should make a statement to Council to take a very serious
look at all these proposals.
Byler agreed noting that the document that the Affordable Homes Coalition put together is
extensive and well written so perhaps the Commission should endorse this proposal to Council.
McKinstry stated he is familiar with the Coalition and the Consultation of Religious Communities
and is comfortable supporting both those proposals.
Persson noted that the League of Women Voters also puts together solid documents, and they
are all coming from reputable groups in the community.
Byler mentioned while he supports the CRC proposal, he doesn't necessary support all four
bullet points in the document feeling some might be detriments to housing in general getting
built.
Persson and McKinstry both stated that over the past twenty years the supply of affordable
housing had decreased while the demand has increased.
Olmstead suggested they look at combining the Affordable Housing Coalition along with the CRC
proposals in a recommendation because there are items in the CRC that do not appear in the
Coalition's document.
Olmstead moved that the Commission accept the recommendations of the Iowa City Affordable
Housing action plan and the CRC's action plan.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2016
Page 3 of 5
Persson amended the motion to add an encouragement for Council to consider these documents
very seriously.
Olmstead seconded the amendment
Seiple noted that in the documents they reference covenants and feels that is something new
and why have an ordinance if the covenants can override the ordinance. Ackerson said it is a
property rights issue to create an understanding amongst all the neighbors about what the
neighborhood wants to allow. Hightshoe said the reference to covenants is to state that
subdivisions cannot restrict covenants so much to disallow affordable housing, but is unsure if
that can be achieved, can the City tell a developer what they can or cannot do with their property
She said they will ask the City Attorney for clarification on this.
Lamkins noted he is uncomfortable approving anything because they just received these
documents at this meeting and have not had adequate time to review them. Hightshoe agreed
and said perhaps it should be on the next agenda for discussion after review.
Olmstead withdrew his motion
Persson withdrew her amendment.
Olmstead noted his concern about residential TIFs and feels that should also be discussed at the
next meeting. He also has concerns about the ADA requirements of 30%.
Ackerson said he would email out the PowerPoint presentation and notes that were prepared on
this topic so that can also be reviewed and then discussed at the next meeting.
DISCUSS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES:
Byler stated that he met with Ackerson and Hightshoe to discuss this topic. The question is if the
Commission would like to encourage all the groups that apply for funding make longer term
capital plans. Byler's idea was to find one engineer that the City could split the costs with the
non -profits to create a five-year capital improvement plan. Having the same engineer do all the
plans for the non-profit partners would help the Commission have all the information to make
informed funding decisions.
Lamkins asked what the benefit for the non-profit would be to spend the additional money since
their applications still need to be considered amongst all the others. Byler said that the
Commission would likely give more credence to the applications where the five-year capital plan
was included so that would be the incentive for the non-profit. The benefit is for the engineer to
help clarify for the non-profit what their priorities and plans should be. What has happened is if
the City doesn't fund a particular application, the next year the same organization will reapply,
but for a completely different project whereas if they had a five-year plan the City could prioritize
funding's and make sure monies are available for projects in future years. Additionally Byler
noted that the cost estimates that the non -profits present in their applications are inaccurate and
having the engineering firm would help correct that issue as well.
Olmstead is concerned that non -profits are unable to afford even half of the engineering firm
cost.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2016
Page 4 of 5
Persson acknowledged that having an engineer's help is beneficial to the non-profit as well as
the Commission to make sure the project is complete and appropriate for the non-profit.
Byler also noted he believes having a five-year capital plan helps non -profits plan their
fundraising goals and in turn can help with receiving City funding if they can provide matching
funds.
Olmstead asked about using a City engineer so the non -profits don't have to pay for the services.
Ackerson said that the City engineers charge their time to the particular capital improvement
project they are working on. If they do not have a project to bill, it would be a cost the City would
have to absorb. Additionally having an engineering firm that regularly does capital improvement
plans would lend a different level of expertise rather than using a city engineer.
Olmstead suggested another idea would be to tap into the university's engineering school.
Seiple suggested even finding an engineer who would volunteer their services.
Byler said a request for proposal would be sent to the local engineering firms and the
engineering school could be included in that. Because of the nature of the project, there may be
some firms that will offer their services at a discount. Byler will put together the request for
proposal and send it out to see if this is even feasible.
ADJOURNMENT:
Olmstead moved to adjourn. Persson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried
7-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
Attendance Record
Name
Term Exp.
6/18/15
9/17/15
10/22/15
11/19/15
1/21/16
2/18/16
3/10/16
4/21/16
6/18/15
Bacon Curry, Michelle
9/1/2016
X
X
O/E
0/E
X
0
O
—
---
Byler, Peter
9/1/2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Conger, Syndy
9/1/2018
---
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
0/E
Harms, Christine
9/1/2016
---
—
---
---
---
---
—
X
Jacobson, Jim
9/1/2017
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
---
—
Lamkins, Bob
9/1/2016
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
McKinstry, John
9/1/2017
---
---
---
---
---
---
—
X
Olmstead, Harry
9/1/2018
---
---
---
X
X
X
X
X
Peirce, Matthew
9/1/2018
---
---
---
---
X
X
X
X
O/E
Persson, Dottie
9/1/2016
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
0/E
X
Seiple, Emily
9/1/2018
--
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Key:
X = Present
0 = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant