The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-12-22 Info Packet`ft._., - CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org December 22, 2016 IPI Council Tentative Meeting Schedule MISCELLANEOUS IP2 Email from Council Member Thomas: Washington St. Intersections at Dubuque and Washington IP3 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Maintenance Worker, Streets IP4 Information from City Manager: Joint Emergency Communications Services/FY2016 Annual Report, Financial Statement IP5 Copy of Press Release: City's proposed FY2018 budget and proposed five-year Capital Improvement Program plan now available I136 Copy of Press Release: Equity and inclusion training available to local businesses DRAFT MINUTES IP7 Board of Appeals: December 7 IPS Community Police Review Board: December 15 '® lot CITY OF IOWA CITY Date City Council Tentative Meeting ScheduleIPI Subject to change December 22, 2016 Time Meeting Location Tuesday, January 3, 2017 5:00 PM Special Formal/Executive Session Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Saturday, January 7, 2017 8:OOA-5:OOP Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 10, 2017 1:00-7:00 P Budget Work Session (CIP) Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 17, 2017 5:00 PM Iowa City Conference Board Mtg. Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, January 30, 2017 TBA Joint Entities Meeting Penn Elementary 230 N. Dubuque, NL Tuesday, February 7, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 21, 2017 5:00 PM Iowa City Conference Board Mtg. Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 21, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, April 4, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, April 18, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 2, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting IP2 From: John Thomas Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 11:27 AM To: Council Subject: FW: Washington St. Intersections at Dubuque and Washington From: John Thomas Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 11:25 AM To: Kingsley Botchway; Rockne Cole; Terry Dickens; Susan Mims; Jim Throgmorton; Pauline Taylor Cc: city-council@iowa-city.org Subject: Washington St. Intersections at Dubuque and Washington Dear City Council, Subject: At the Work Session on January 3, I will ask City Council to consider exploring all -way stop signs at the intersections of Washington/Dubuque and Washington/Linn at a Work Session in the near future. Background: As the Washington Street Project has begun to reopen to pedestrian and vehicle traffic, I thus far have found the change in the flow at the Dubuque and Linn intersections an improvement. The change is due to the use of all -way stop signs, temporarily put in until the new traffic signals are ready to be installed. Since traffic and pedestrian flow at the intersections will fluctuate, one question is whether stop signs work well under varying conditions. While all -way stop signs are not new to the Downtown (Linn/College, Linn/Iowa, as well as nearby Madison/Washington and Madison/Jefferson), each intersection may behave differently. As part of the Washington Street project, we have a unique opportunity to test over a period of time whether the community, including persons with disabilities, is fully comfortable with the stop signs before making a decision. Since the Iowa City Downtown District is an important stakeholder in this matter, I discussed it last week with Nancy Bird and Mark Ginsberg to get their perspective. They are comfortable with considering the stop signs, and will have an opportunity to discuss it with the Exec Committee on January 18th, and the full Board on January 26th. I r IP3 W.G4l wrt®gym'-� CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.Icgov.org December 20, 2016 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Worker I — Streets Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Maintenance Worker I — Streets. Ethan Krob IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Jesse Case From City Manager IP4 Joint Emergency Communications Services Association FY2016 Annual Report Table of Contents Message from Executive Director..........................................................................................................................3 Vision/Mission/Purpose........................................................................................................................................4 Overview..................................................................................................................................................................5 Policy Board of Directors/Organizational Chart..................................................................................................6 PersonnelAllocation...............................................................................................................................................7 Trainingand Events................................................................................................................................................8 Awards....................................................................................................................................................................9 Statistics.................................................................................................................................................................10 Telecommunications.............................................................................................................................................16 EmergencyMedical Dispatch...............................................................................................................................17 BudgetSummary....................................................................................................................................................18 7 Message from Executive Director December 12, 2016 Dear Policy Board and 28E member entities; I am pleased to present the 2016 annual report of the Joint Emergency Communications Center. This report contains 12 months of statistics for fiscal year 2016. Fiscal year 2016 was the sixth (6s') year of operation for the Joint Emergency Communications Center. We have continued to streamline and improve our processes as we work with the member agencies to process emergency calls quicker and dispatch them more efficiently. A few notable accomplishments from fiscal year 2016 was the implementation of ProQA for Emergency Medical Dispatching, the final phase of an upgrade of our Viper E-911 phone system and an upgrade of our logging recorder. The phone system upgrade was a two phase project that occurred over two years utilizing grant funds from the State of Iowa wireless carryover grant. The logging recorder upgrade was also paid for using wireless carryover grant funds. The ProQA implementation was paid for using E-911 surcharge funds. We experienced an approximate 4% increase in the number of overall emergency and non -emergency telephone calls in fiscal year 2016, which resulted in an approximate 6% increase in the number of calls for service that were created in fiscal year 2015. We continued to see cellular 911 call volume increase with an approximate 10% increase in calls over fiscal year 2015. Wireline 911 calls decreased by approximately 10% compared to fiscal year 2015, which was the lowest amount of calls received in the past 5 years. In fiscal year 2016 came along the largest increase in VoIP calls (287%) that we have seen in the past 5 years. We continue to look forward to the challenges that will be presented to us in the future and continuing to provide the highest level of emergency communications to the residents of Johnson County. Sincerely, Tom Jones Executive Director Vision To serve and support the public safety communications needs of our customers in the most efficient and responsive manner possible. Mission Statement To provide all residents of Johnson County a single answering point for processing their calls for emergency and non -emergency assistance for police, fire, medical and general service responders. To provide primary communications for all public safety agencies responding within our jurisdictional boundaries through use of 2 - way radios, telephones and/or teletype equipment. To maintain up-to-date and continuous training for all employees to insure prompt, professional and efficient services. Services Provided by the JECC • Enhanced Wireless and Wireline 911 services to all Citizens of Johnson County. • Radio Communications/Computer Aided Dispatch to 5 Law Enforcement Agencies. • Radio Communications/Paging Communications/Computer Aided Dispatch to 14 Fire Departments, Johnson County Ambulance Service and Johnson County HAZMAT team. • Radio Communications only to the following: • University of Iowa Department of Public Safety • Iowa Department of Corrections High Risk Unit • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Iowa DNR -Lake McBride and Conservation • Johnson County Conservation • UIHC • Mercy Hospital • VA Hospital • North Liberty Public Works • Coralville Public Works • Johnson County Secondary Roads • University of Iowa Parking and Transportation • Activates and monitors the Johnson County Outdoor Warning Systems. • Notification and monitoring point for Severe Weather activity for the National Weather Service -Quad Cities • Alert Iowa 4 Overview The Joint Emergency Communications Center of Johnson County (JECC) is the clearing house for all 9-1-1 calls and all Emergency Communications for Johnson County. With nearly 140,000 citizens, Johnson County is Iowa's fourth most populated county and covers 632 square miles. The JECC serves as the epicenter for emergency communications for all citizens of Johnson County. The Johnson County Emergency Management Agency (EMA) is also located in the same facility. The JECC serves the public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year with specially trained dispatchers to answer all emergency calls for assistance. These operators receive and/or transmit emergency telephone, radio, alarm, and other types of data over multiple computer systems, then analyze it in a timely manner for the purpose of relaying the information between citizens and fust responders during emergencies in order to preserve life and property. Another important responsibility of Emergency Communications Personnel is the accurate entry and removal of wanted persons, articles and vehicles in NCIC. This includes providing, on demand, the results of NCIC queries made by field units. Joint Emergency Communications Services Association Policy Board of Directors Susan Mims Rod SUN van Iowa CRY Council Johnson County Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC) Organizational Chart Office Assistant Part -Time N etwork Analyst Dispatcher II Day Shift JECSA Policy Board Executive Director Emergency Communications Coordinator Evening Shift Supervise Dispatcher II Afternoon Shift 3 U ser Advis ory Committee Part -Time Dispatchers Dispatcher II Night Shift Dave Wilson Johnson County EMA Director JECSA Policy Bnerd 7 Memhers Chris Hoffman Geofi Frrin L.cnnv RllkraoeK john Lundell Viee-Chair Chxnpersen North Liberty ower Cdy Johnson Caunly Coralville Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC) Organizational Chart Office Assistant Part -Time N etwork Analyst Dispatcher II Day Shift JECSA Policy Board Executive Director Emergency Communications Coordinator Evening Shift Supervise Dispatcher II Afternoon Shift 3 U ser Advis ory Committee Part -Time Dispatchers Dispatcher II Night Shift Dave Wilson Johnson County EMA Director Personnel Allocation - FY2016 Job Title Management Administrative Operations Total Executive Director 1 1 Emergency Communications Coordinator 1 1 Evening Shift Supervisor 1 1 Network Analyst 1 1 Office Assistant — Part -Time 1 1 Dispatcher II 24 24 Dispatcher II / Part -Time 4 4 Total 33 7 Training and Events The dedicated 911 Dispatch Staff continue to promote the 911 Center in a positive way through participation in a number of volunteer events: • Johnson County Fair • UIHC Emergency Medicine Resident Training Program • Citizens Police Academy • MATS Training • Iowa City Chamber of Commerce Community Leadership Program • UIHC Paramedic Program Orientation • Non -Profit fund drives during the holiday season The 911 Dispatchers took advantage of a number of training opportunities in fiscal year 2016 including: • APCO/NENA Spring and Fall Conference • CJIS Training • Police Legal Sciences • Pipeline Safety & Awareness • WENS — Emergency Communications Network • APCO Certified Training Officer Training • Emergency Medical Dispatch Certification Class • Emergency Medical Dispatch Quality Assurance Class • Basic Iowa System Training • State of Iowa 40 Hour Dispatch Class • APCO Active Shooter Training • Advanced Telecommunicator Training • PSTC "The Golden Rule" (Location, Location, Location) (Punctuality) • ProQA Training • AQUA Training for EMD -Q's • Cardiac/Respiratory/Death Protocol Advancement Series 91 Awards Iowa APCO Team Telecommunicator of YearAward 2015 (Dispatchers: Lori S., Tiffany R., Kelsey M., Rick G. and Logan H.) The staff of the Johnson County Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC) was presented with the Team Telecomunicator of the Year Award for 2015 at the Iowa APCO Spring Conference in Des Moines on April 12, 2016. The team was presented with the award for their teamwork displayed during a tragic shooting that occurred at a local shopping mall. The team of dispatchers immediately took control of the situation, utilizing their skills and abilities of quick thinking and prioritization to assure that everyone remained safe and get a description of the suspect. The primary law dispatcher's calm voice on the radio brought reassurance to responders. During this incident, there was such a high volume of emergency 911 calls being placed that calls rolled over to our backup PSAP in Cedar Rapids. In total over there were over fifty-three (53), 9-1-1 calls that were answered in a 12 minute period from the start of the incident. Of those 53 calls, forty-one (41) were in the first 3 minutes. During those first 3 minutes, 21 calls were answered by Jonson County and 20 calls were answered by Cedar Rapids. Over the next 90 minutes, the staff received and processed a total of 215 phone calls. In addition to the phone calls in the first 3 minutes, three dispatchers handled a total of 46 radio transmissions from responding officers. Calls of this magnitude bring a great deal of stress and anxiety to the dispatchers and responders both personally and professionally. This group of Dispatchers did not waiver from their responsibilities of keeping both the public and public safety responders informed and safe. Statistics — FY2016 Vi FY2016 Wireline to Wireless Comparison Wireline 911 Calls line) 7% Call Type Total Percent Wireline 911 Calls 5,860 11.7% Wireless (Cellular) 911 Calls 42,623 85.1% VolP 911 Calls 1,601 3.2% Total 50,084 100% This summary shows the total of Emergency 911 calls received in fiscal year 2016. 10 FY 2016 Call Type Categories Alarm Line 2.7% Emergency (911) 39.3% Categories Volume Percent Emergency (911) including VoIP 50,084 39.3% Non -Emergency (Routine) 73,841 58.0% Alarm Line 3,462 2.7% Total 127,387 100% This summary shows the overall total volume and percentage of call types received in fiscal year 2016. 11 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 36,253 Bill 5 -Year Emergency 911 Call Volume Comparison 38,763 36,073 36,943 7,148 6,545 202 227 ' 279 ' 413 FY13 FY14 FY15 ■ Wireline 911 Calls (Landline) ■ Wireless 911 Calls (Cellular) ■ VolP 911 Calls 42,623 5,860 1,601 FY16 Call Type FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Wireline 911 Calls (Landline) 10,636 10,976 7,148 6,545 5,860 Wireless 911 Calls (Cellular) 36,253 36,073 36,943 38,763 42,623 VolP 911 Calls 202 227 279 413 1,601 Totals 47,091 47,276 44,370 45,721 50,084 We continued to see cellular 911 call volume increase with an approximate 10% increase in calls over fiscal year 2015. Wireline 911 calls decreased by approximately 10% compared to fiscal year 2015, which was the lowest amount of calls received in the past 5 years. In fiscal year 2016 came along the largest increase in VOIP calls (287%) that we have seen in the past 5 years. 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Daily Call Volume Per Hour of the Day 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 00 00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 61 0000 00 00 .00 00 00 00 00 00 .00 00 00 00 00 00 .00I 00* 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 .00. Off. 00. o ti ti ,3 a h y � � a do titi. tiff. tis. tin. tis. tib. tip' tis. ti9. do tiv tiv tis. In fiscal year 2016, our highest call volume was between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. 12 Call Taking Standards A ringing 9-1-1 line is considered the highest priority until proven otherwise. Quick reaction and answer time is essential. We continue to meet the National Emergency Number Association (VENA) Call Answering Standard Recommendation of: • 90% of all 9-1-1 calls shall be answered within ten (10) seconds. • 95% of all 9-1-1 calls shall be answered within fifteen (15) seconds. • 95% of all 9-1-1 calls shall be answered within twenty (20) seconds. JECC dispatchers answered 92% percent of 9-1-1 calls within ten (10) seconds. The average call answer time was six (6) seconds for all 911 calls answered. From time to time there are situations that are out of our control that can affect our call answering time. These situations include times where simultaneous emergency lines ring into the center and there are more lines ringing than there are staff to answer them. This is very common when accidents along the interstate occur and during severe weather events. 9-1-1 Call Answer Time, in seconds for FY2016 102 100 100% 99% 98% ............................ 96% .................... 94% ............ 92% 92% 90% -- 88% .............. 0-10 0-20 0-30 13 Statistics - Calls for Service The Joint Emergency Communications Center processed approximately 127,387 emergency and non- emergency telephone calls for service in fiscal year 2016. During the fiscal year, these phone calls in addition to field initiated activity resulted in the creation of 181,236 Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) incidents processed by JECC staff. Overall we experienced an approximate 4% overall increase in the number of overall emergency and non -emergency telephone calls in fiscal year 2016, which resulted in an approximate 6% increase in the number of calls for service that we created in fiscal year 2015. The Joint Emergency Communications Center professionally handles calls for 15 Public Safety Agencies throughout Johnson County and surrounding counties. CAD Incidents - FY2016 w 20,000 15,364 15,779 16,390 15,498 14,526 14,15915,019 15,407 15,407 15,547 14,857 15,000 13'283 000 0 105,000 m 0 U tA *The number of calls for service processed is not a direct result of the number of telephone calls that we receive. Our staff also creates calls for service for officer initiated activity and incidents received via radio or teletype from surrounding counties. 14 LAW ENFORCEMENT FIRE/MEDICAL COMBINED ACTIVITY Monthly Cumulative Monthly Cumulative Monthly Cumulative Total July 13,448 13,448 1,916 1,916 15,364 15,364 August 13,985 27,433 1,794 3,710 15,779 31,143 September 14,306 41,739 2,084 5,794 16,390 47,533 October 13,464 55,203 2,034 7,828 15,498 63,031 November 12,559 67,762 1,967 9,765 14,526 77,557 December 12,321 80,083 1,838 11,633 14,159 91,716 January 11,386 91,469 1,897 13,530 13,283 104,999 February 13,203 104,972 1,816 15,346 15,019 120,018 March 13,343 118,015 2,064 17,410 15,407 135,425 April 13,275 131,290 2,132 19,542 15,407 150,832 May 13,673 144,963 1,874 21,416 15,547 166,379 June 12,834 157,797 23,439 14,857 181,236 TOTAL 157,797 _[_2,023 157,797 23,439 23,439 181,236 181,236 *The number of calls for service processed is not a direct result of the number of telephone calls that we receive. Our staff also creates calls for service for officer initiated activity and incidents received via radio or teletype from surrounding counties. 14 Statistics - Radio System Usage The Joint Emergency Communications Services Association (JECSA) for Johnson County owns and operates a 7 -site, Harris Linear Simulcast P25 Radio System. In fiscal year 2016 there were approximately 5,048,832 total push to talk (PTT) radio calls processed on the system utilizing up to 255 talk groups. This includes talk groups from the Linn County radio system that were utilized on the Johnson County system. July -lune Push To Talks - FY16 600,000 s 500,000 F 400,000 F 300,000 N 200,000 a 100,000 0 �J e� et zi et e� to �J � c• ma z *January statistics were not available due to archiving before they could be downloaded. 15 Push to Talks Air Time (Seconds) Duration (Minutes) July 467,446 1,831,272 30,521.20 August 468,619 1,823,841 30,397.35 September 509,308 1,993,861 33, 231.01 October 509,637 2,003,503 33,391.71 November 443,350 1,739,644 28,994.07 December 433,854 1,698,422 28,307.03 January February 426,650 1,647,551 27,459.18 March 437,742 1,686,953 28,115.88 April 440,238 1,702,744 28,379.06 May 491,946 1,775,476 29,591.27 June 420,042 1,647,808 27,463.47 TOTAL 5,048,832 1 19,551,074 1 325,851.23 *January statistics were not available due to archiving before they could be downloaded. 15 Telecommunications In fiscal year 2016, we continued to see more growth in incoming cellular 911 calls verses landline 911 phone calls. There is also an increasing number of VolP (Voice over Internet Protocol) calls that come into the 911 Center as that technology is expanding into the homes. The heaviest volume of calls that we receive continue to come in on the non -emergency number 356-6800. Please remember that 911 should only be used for true emergencies. 911 and the non -emergency number 356-6800 are dedicated telephone lines that provide emergency dispatchers with the ability to see phone numbers, addresses, and names to assist them in pinpointing a caller's location. This is called Automatic Location Identification or ALI. The Joint Emergency Communications Center also supports VolP calls. Some examples of VolP phone companies are Mediacom and Vonage. When placing a call to 911 using this technology, caller information may or may not appear on the dispatchers screen. It is important for all subscribers of this technology to ask their providers how 911 calls are handled with their company. We also continue to explore new technologies and Next Generation 911 (NG911) services such as receiving text messages to keep up with the technological advances in the field of 911 communications. Callers with Language Barriers The Joint Emergency Communications Center utilizes Language Line Services to assist dispatchers with over - the -phone translation services in over 200 different languages for non-English speaking callers. Our call takers conference in the caller with a translator to assist them with information gathering from the caller to determine what type of emergency they are reporting. This service is accessed by calling an 800 number with the caller on the line and you are connected to a translator within minutes. Communications with Impaired Callers The Joint Emergency Communications Center personnel are trained to answer and process calls from TTY users. Deaf, hearing and/or speech impaired callers receive the same level of service from our telecommunicators. Personnel use a TTY system that is integrated into the phone system to process these calls and then relay the information to the appropriate agency for the emergency type and location. 16 Emergency Medical Dispatch The Joint Emergency Communications Center (JECC) utilizes the Medical Priority Dispatch System's Emergency Medical Dispatch Program (EMD) to handle requests for emergency medical assistance. All of our dispatchers are EMD certified. The EMD program is a set of cards that direct the dispatcher to ask the caller a series of questions based on the nature of the medical emergency. This enables the dispatcher to determine the most appropriate medical response priority. EMD also provides written Post -Dispatch and Pre -Arrival instructions to give to callers when appropriate and possible. In November 2015, we migrated from the card sets to the ProQA Dispatch Software. ProQA is the computerized version of the Emergency Medical Dispatch protocols. ProQA helps emergency dispatchers move smoothly through the protocols and assists in quickly identifying the appropriate response code for each case. It also guides dispatchers in providing all relevant Post -Dispatch and Pre -Arrival Instructions, as well as important case completion information. Included in this process is a Quality Assurance program. All certified EMD dispatchers receive ongoing feedback on their performance based on guidelines established by the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch and EMS, Ina The purpose of Quality Assurance is to provide a non -punitive means of assisting staff in maintaining a high level of performance. We also implemented the AQUA quality assurance/quality improvement software in conjunction with ProQA. AQUA automates the entire emergency dispatch case review process and assists in data entry, compliance scoring, record keeping and reporting. With AQUA, we can measure and document the quality of service that our call takers are providing to callers while also evaluating our level of compliance to International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (IAED) standards. AQUA has also streamlined the quality assurance process to allow the Quality Improvement Team to review 100 calls a month, compared to the 25 calls a month prior to implementation. Since the migration to ProQA and the use of AQUA, we have seen a 38% increase in the percentage of compliant calls according to IAED standards over using the previous card system. Our staff receives individual and group training and education throughout the year based on the overall findings of these reviews. All staff also has access to a variety of self -education tools to help them maintain their skills. In order to maintain their certification with the EMD program, all staff is required to recertify every two years. This includes the successful completion of a written examination, twenty-four (24) hours of training and CPR certification. 17 rte Y�er Sp�ogz Ortionz o[o language Tabs AEo,[PAraoQA (V�=rsm yl� 9: Cartliac or Respiratory Arrestl Death s �:oa E KG pWC6 DLS Smnnnary --ouniaYs.no tirue 0 Send: 9-E-10 m 1. The cartliac arrest was witnessed or lust ocwrretl. 3 0 Det.. Ro� (.Aefi ed) D 1 EXPECTED DEATH ummAionable(z through z) B 0 Override 1 OBVIOUS DEATH urpueskonable (a through h) D 0 Override 1 INEFFECTIVE BREATHING 2 OBVIOUS or EXPECTED DEATH ques8onattle (a thtrough h, z through z) E 0 Overntle 1 Not breathing al all First RespondeCAnrbulance Code3 2 UNCERTAIN BREATHING 3 Hanging 4 Strangulation 5 Suffocation NIRENARY ONAE wn, Gender unknown, Not Colscious, Not Breathing. A9eunknoow MPDS 130831 912512915 C: NAE Cotle: 9-E- 1: Not breathing atall 9fi01 n STD 4529 Melrose AVe, 319356.6780 evaluating our level of compliance to International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (IAED) standards. AQUA has also streamlined the quality assurance process to allow the Quality Improvement Team to review 100 calls a month, compared to the 25 calls a month prior to implementation. Since the migration to ProQA and the use of AQUA, we have seen a 38% increase in the percentage of compliant calls according to IAED standards over using the previous card system. Our staff receives individual and group training and education throughout the year based on the overall findings of these reviews. All staff also has access to a variety of self -education tools to help them maintain their skills. In order to maintain their certification with the EMD program, all staff is required to recertify every two years. This includes the successful completion of a written examination, twenty-four (24) hours of training and CPR certification. 17 Telecommunications 3.27%_ Travel & Training 0.65% Postage & Mailing Utilities Services Commodities - Supplies_ ' 0.02% &Materials \ V/1.30% Misc. Contractual Services 4.36% nt & Repair ices 11.32% Benefits 22.36% Maintenance 0.40% Memberships 0.05% Capital Rental and Leases Outlay 0.97% 11.06% JECSA FY2016 Budget Salary & Wages 52.31% From City Manager Joint Emergency Communications Services Association of Johnson County 4529 Melrose Avenue Ad Iowa City, Iowa 52246 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. ACCOUNTANTS COMPILATION REPORT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Statements of Net Position 2-3 LHLaftaHarris, LLP CPAs & CONSULTANTS To the Policy Board Joint Emergency Communications Services Association of Johnson County Iowa City, Iowa Management is responsible for the accompanying financial statements Communications Services Association of Johnson County, a 28E association statements of net position as of June 30, 2016 and 2015, and the related sta one month and years then ended, in accordance with accounting princi gen United States of America. We have performed the compilation nt! Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services pb3 Review Services Committee of the AICPA. We did not audit or re Otteci we required to perform any procedures to verify the provided by management. Accordingly, we do not express of assurance on these financial statements. , Management has elected to omit substantially all of tt generally accepted in the United States of America. 1 financial statements, they might influence „er's position, results of operations, and cash flows.'Accordin those who are not informed about such matters. IL 4 Accounting principles gene comparison information, on Such information, although Accounting Standards Boaz+ the basic financial statem information is the remaw engagement, accordingly, information. Management has edMar accepted in the Unr to statements. Such missin the Governmental Acco g reporting and for placing the historical context. of Joint Emergency which comprise the ents of activities for the ally accepted in the in accordance with the Accounting and statements nor were of the information kkr provide any form required by accounting principles disclosures were included in the about the Association's financial jal statements are not designed for ates of America require that the budgetary to supplement the basic financial statements. statements, is required by the Governmental ial part of financial reporting and for placing mal, economic, or historical context. This iformation was subject to our compilation to required supplementary information and, it provide any form of assurance on such FFent's Discussion and Analysis that accounting principles generally I America requir to be presented to supplement the basic financial ration, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or We are not independent with respect to Joint Emergency Communications Services Association of Johnson County. Gattagarris, GG(P Iowa City, Iowa September 28, 2016 JOINT EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF JOHNSON COUNTY STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION ASSETS Current Assets: Checking Accounts Receivable Prepaid Insurance Prepaid Rent Prepaid Contractual Services Prepaid Hams Maintenance Cont. Prepaid Maintenance Contracts Prepaid Software License Receivable From Advantage Administrators Prepaid Internet Total Current Assets Property, Plant and Equipment Land Building Equipment Total Property, Plant and Equi Less: Accumulated Depreciation Net Property Plant and kg" Other Assets Pension Related Total Assets As of June 30, 2016 and 2015 June 30, 2016 $ 2,063,704.91 --qW 50,125.00 5,296,989.09 14,626,719.96 19,973,834.05 (11,787,370.00) 8,186,464.05 192,807.00 $ 10,660,750.94 See accountant's compilation report. F1 June 30,2015 $ 1,942,388.89 2,906.37 68,687.01 3,175.02 529.58 2,279.04 2,212.07 548.50 2,022,726.48 50,125.00 5,296,989.09 14,519,486.20 19,866,600.29 (9,913,176.00) 9,953,424.29 192,807.00 $ 12,168,957.77 JOINT EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF JOHNSON COUNTY STATEMENTS OF NET ASSETS As of June 30, 2016 and 2015 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Accounts Payable Credit Card Payable Accrued Salaries and Wages Payroll Taxes Payable IPERS Payable, Union Dues, Flex Medical, Deferred Comp Paid Time Off Accrued Total Current Liabilities Long Term Liabilities: Net Pension Liability Pension Related Deferred Inflow Total Long Term Liabilities Total Liabilities NET ASSETS Net Assets Total Net Assets and Liabilities June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 $ 35,632.46 $ 44,379.89 8 1 6,827.92 7.73 48,358.75 4 .65 21,799.34 17, 19,285.12 88,925.3 74,154.46 209,428.14 214,805.48 e4935,557.00 935,557.00 33,754.00 433,754.00 4EN69,311.00 1,369,311.00 ' 1;578,739.14 9,082,011.80 $ 10,660,750.94 See accountant's compilation report. 3 1,584,116.48 10,584,841.29 $ 12,168,957.77 JOINT EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF JOHNSON COUNTY STATEMENTS OF ACTIVITIES For the One Month and Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 See accountant's compilation report. 4 July 115 - July'14- June-16 June -16 June -15 June -15 General Supplemental Fund $ 256,150.00 $ 3,201,875.00 $ 160,161.00 $ 3,203,224.00 Non-public Safety (600.00) 7,050.00 1,050.00 14,025.00 Total Revenue 255,550.00 3,208,925.00 161,21.1.00 3,217;249.00 Operating Expenses: Salaries and Wages 127,051.55 1,600,164.51 117,110.06 1,596,327.92 Benefits 54,031.20 653,750.2 55,255.58 648,368.80 Maintenance and Repair Services 24,848.79 216,51 37,095.78 442,933.34 Miscellaneous Contractual Services 24,743.31 124 27,622.05 130,962.05 Commodities-Supplies/Materials 5,556.89 .26 9,353.69 30,132.19 Utilities 11,950.16 ,634.00 75.14 55,052.79 Travel and Training 1,410.45 21,704.09 80 23,497.52 Telecommunications 2,129.23 2, . 3 105,224.33 Postage & Mailing Services 94.0 56.05 394.57 Dues and Memberships - e784.78 - 1,575.00 Annual Maintenance 522.41 833.51 10,985.30 Rental and Leases 2,978.92 2,443.01 31,758.35 Capital Outlay 0 - - Total Operating Expenses - i, !$. 2,853, .OU 268,982.60 3,077,212.16 Net Operating Income 6.0 4.95 (107,771.60) 140,036.84 Interest Income 3,431.16 327.99 3,086.74 Pop Fund Revenue 3 87.30 (29.60) 32.40 Equipment Sale Proceeds 450. 12,270.00 370.00 12,447.00 Excess Flex Witholding Revenue - 281.10 2,479.08 2,479.08 Depreciation Expense . 5) (1,874,194.00) (157,392.75) (1,888,713.00) Total Non -Operating Revenue .(155,981,01). (1,858,124.44) (154,245.28) (1,870,667.78) Change in Net Assets _$ (155,974.92) $ (1,502,829.49) $ (262.016.88) $ (1,730,630.94) See accountant's compilation report. 4 JOINT EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF JOHNSON COUNTY Sehedole I-Bndgencl Comparison For the Year Ended June M, 2016 See accountant's compilation repot. GAAP GAAP to Budget Actual Budge variance (S) %of Budget Be..: G.eml Supplemental Fund $ 3,201,875.00 $ - $ 3,201,875.00 $ 3,201,875.00 $ - 100.0% Nov -public safety 7,050.00 - 7,050.00 25,350.00 (18,300.00) 27.8% Total Revenues 3,208,925.00 - 3,208,925.00 3127,225.00 (18,300.00) 99.4% Operating Expenses: Personnel Services- Salaries and Wages Salaried Exempt 302148.50 - 302148.50 295,657.00 6,591.50 102.2% Dispatchers-Full-time(Non-Exempt) 1,159,428.65 - 1,159,428.65 1,249,119.00 (89,690.35) 928% Dispatchers - Pan -time 52109.78 - 52,209.78 82,849.00 (30,639.22) 63.0% (Wortirlte 75,702.58 - 75,702.58 81,501.00 (5,798.42) 92.9% Longevity 10,575.00 10,575.00 12100.00 (1,625.00) 86.7% Total Salaries and Wages 1,600,164.51 - 1,6110,164.51 1,721,326.011 (121,161.49) 93.0% Persomel Services - Benefits Group Life 1,820.85 - 1,820.85 2,700.110 (879.15) 67.4% (PERS Retirement System 141107.53 - 141107.53 143,415.00 (2,207.47) 98.5% Social Security 119,14426 - 119,144.26 121,455.00 (2,310.74) 98.1% Health Insures. 336,045.00 - 336,045. ,421.00 (69,376.00) 82.9% Ductal Ms.. 27,661.40 - 27,661. .00 (4,847.60) 85.1% Vision Insurance 1,192.67 - 1 7 0 (1,86033) 39.1% Loo, -Term Disability 3,500.76 - .76 3, 100.76 103.0% State Unemployment Expense 6109.80 - 09.80 9,620. (3,41020) 64.6% Flex Spending 954.68 - 954.68 900.00 54.68 106.1% Workers Compensation 6,045.25 310.75 A 6356.00 7,000.00 (644.00) 90.8% Cellula Phone Reimbmsem.ts 3,840.00 - 3,940 3,840.00 - 100.0% HRA Fees (Health Reimbursenent Account) 5178.07 (3,694.59) B 1, 1,750.00 (166.52) 90.5% Employee Assistance Program 850.00 850.00 100.0% Total Benefits 653,75027 (3 38 .84) 3 735,913.00 (85,546.57) 88.4% Maintenance and Repair Services SoOwarc 10,909.21 10,909.2 14,000.00 (3,090.79) 77.9% Hardware 3,515.46 46 5,000.00 (1,494.54) 70.3% Building 92.00 5,000.00 (4,908.00) 1.8% Grounds 7,054.40 7,0 .40 12,000.00 (4,945.60) 58.8% Janitorial Services 12,600. - 12,6011.110 12,600.00 - 100.0% Mechanical - - 1,500.00 (1,500.00) 0.0% Tower Site Maintenance 1 5 - 13,10325 10,000.00 3,103.25 131.0% Harris Radio SystendBacl,bone Maint.mce 030 - 137,010.30 211,588.00 (74,577.70) 64.8% Interop Eqm mmt(Racom) .00 800.00 800.00 - 0.0% Emerson (IPS & Liebec Cooling Units 18,799.99 18,000.00 799.99 104.4% S2HID Card and OnSSI Security Camera - - 4,000.00 (4,000.00) 0.0% Viper 911 System - DPS Expansion 1 632 12632.25 14,643.00 (2,010.75) 86.3% Total Maintenance and Repair 516.96 - 216,516.86 309,131.00 (92,614.14) 70.0% Miscellan.us Contractual Services SuRware Purchases - 470.00 2,500.00 (2,030.00) 18.8% Refuse Disposal Service 1,08 - 1,085.72 1,100.00 (1428) 98.7% Pest Control Service 6 - 600.00 600.00 - 100.0% Fixe Alam MonitmngAnspections 2$ 60.19 2,359.17 3,500.00 (1,140.83) 67.4% Consultant Services - - 5,000.(0 (5,000.00) 0.0% Legal Services 4.78 - 14,094.78 25)00.00 (10,90512) 56.4% Accomtmg/Payrsll ,813.30 - 43,813.30 40,000.00 3,813.30 1119.5% Financial Audit 11,000.00 - 11,000.00 11,500.00 (500.00) 95.7% Wwance - Property 23100.00 622.00 23.822.00 22,289.00 1,533.00 106.9% Insurance- General Liability 13,875.64 87.36 13,963.00 16,624.00 (2,661.00) 94.01/. Insuran.- Public Officials Liability 6,155.32 4.68 6,160.011 6,944.00 (784.00) 88.7% Insurance - Umbrella 5,02132 12.68 5,03410 5118.00 (194.00) 96.5% Foreign Language Service 835.05 - 935.05 1,000.00 (164.95) 83.5% NCC Group SoRware Escrow (TAC -10) 2,200.00 210000 2100.00 - 110.0% Total Mise. Conbactual Services 124,650.11 786.91 C 125,437.02 143,475.00 (18,037.98) 87.4% See accountant's compilation repot. JOINT EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF JOHNSON COUNTY Schedule 1 -Budgetary Comparison For the Year Ended June 30, 2016 Travel and Training GAAP GAAP to Budget Actual Budget Variance ($) %of Budget Mileage Reimbursement 4,430.04 Travel and Training 21,704.09 Commodities -Supplies and Materials 21,70,4.09 PRI Circuit -Iowa Telecom 8,751.55 Long Distance -Iowa Telecom 2,552. Office Supplies 6,070.18 - 6,070.18 10,000.00 (3,929.82) 60.7% Barks &publications 2,196.07 - 2,196.07 1,500.00 696.07 146.4% Subscriptions 5,678.80 - 5,678.80 5,700.00 (2130) 99.6% Minor Equipmentrrools 392.90 - 392.90 3,500.00 (3,107.10) 11.2% Building M&R Materials 2,120.96 - 2,120.96 5,000.00 (2,879.04) 42.4% Electrical M&R Materials 231.02 - 231.02 2,000.00 (1,768.98) 11.6% Mechanical M&R 3,660.94 - 3,660.94 4,500.00 (839.06) 81.4% Com. M&A Paris 2,778.14 - 2,778.14 3,000.00 (221.86) 92.6% ITM&R 3,879.25 3,879.25 7,500.00 (3,620.75) 51.7% Total Commodities-Supplics/Material 27,008.26 - 27,008.26 ,700.00 (15,691.74) 63.3% Utilities Electricity 31,283.90 - 31,283.90 (2,716.10) 92.0% Water&Sewer 849.06 - 849.06 (150.94) 84.9% Propane Gas - - (250.00) 0.0%Diesel Fuel (Back up power) 444.15 - 444 44.15 111.0% Electricity -IP Towa 5,820.24 - 5 4 \34.000.00 32024 105.8% Electricity-Smtanan Towa 4,458.25 - .25 (903.75) 83.1% Electricity -Plotz Tower 4,860.35 - ;860.35 (639.65) 88.4% Electricity -Oakdale 5,531.83 - 5,531.83 (768.17) 87.8% Electricity - Solon Tower 4,386.22 4,366.22 5,100.00 (773.78) 86.0% Total Util(fies 57,634.00 - 57,634 63,412.00 (5,778,00) 90.9% Travel and Training 1,029.46 Meals/Lodging Expenses 4,529.46 Training, Conferences, Travel Costs 12,744.59 Mileage Reimbursement 4,430.04 Travel and Training 21,704.09 Communications- Teleconrounamdons 21,70,4.09 PRI Circuit -Iowa Telecom 8,751.55 Long Distance -Iowa Telecom 2,552. Internet -Iowa Telecom 13,7 State IOWA/NCIC Cormection 711.1104 Total Telceommanications 9.50 1% Communications- Postage and Mailing Services 13,787.25 USPS and Mailing Services 68725 Dues & Memberships Annual Maintenance ShoreTel Annual Maintenance Sonic Wall Firewall SPAM Fiber Software Antivirus Software Backup Software Network Mortaring Softwam Digimn SSL Certificate Viper 911 Router Maintenance HartiyVipa Firewall Maint. JECC Website Renewal Deskpro Ticketing Software Eau Nerwork Analyst for ArcGIS Total Annual Maintenance 46 3,500.00 1,029.46 129.4% 12,'SQZL 15,000.00 (2,255.41) 85.0% 4,433MIL 3,000.00 1,430.04 147.7% 21,70,4.09 21,500.00 204.09 100.9% 8,751.55 9,500.00 (748.45) 92.1% 2,552.46 2,500.00 52.46 102.1% 13,787.25 13,100.00 68725 1052% 74,538.24 82,460.00 (7,921.76) 90.4% 99,629.50 107,560.00 (7,930.50) 92.6% 292.94 500.00 1,575.00 4 (207.54) 4,143.00 4,600.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 15 - 155.00 150.00 7 - 722.00 722.00 7 (2,212.07) - 3,500.00 0.00 - 150.00 150.00 299.00 - 299.00 350.00 - 100.0% - 500.00 _ 504.00 - 150.00 143.36 - 143.36 150.00 600.00 - 600.00 600.00 500.00 10,33L97 (2,419.61) D 7,912.36 13,072.00 (207.06) (1,575.00) (457.00) 5.00 (3,500.00) (51.00) (500.00) (150.00) (6.64) (500.00) (5,159.64) 58.6% 0.0% 90.1% 100.0% 103.3% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 85.4% 0.0% 0.0% 95.6°.6 100.0% 0.0% 60.5% Rental and Leases JECC/EMA Copia 3,531.68 3,531.68 2,500.00 1,031.68 141.3% Solon Towa Site Lease 24,375.10 - 24,375.10 24,457.00 (81.90) 99.7% Plotz Tower Site Lease 2,100.00 - 2,100.00 2,100.00 - 100.0% Lone Tree RIC Tower Site Lease 2,500.00 - 2.500.00 2,500.00 - 100.0% Property Taxes -Traver Sites 278.00 - 278.00 504.00 (226.00) 55.2% Total Rental and Leases 32,784.78 - 32,784.78 32,061.00 723.78 102.3% See accountants compilation report 6 Capital Outlay Computer Equipment UPS Battery Replacements Tower Site UPS Battery Replaamentc OPS Backup PSAPMPER Total Capital Outlay Total Operating Expenses Net Operating Income Non -Operating Revenue Excess Flex Withholding Revenue Interest Income Egvlptment Sales & Expenses Pop Fwd Revenue Depreciation Expense Change in Net Assets JOINT EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF JOHNSON COUNTY Schedule I- Budgetary Comparison For the Year Ended June 30, 2016 GAAP GAAP to Budget Actual Budget Von... 0) %of Budget - - - 25,000.00 - B (3,694.59) - 5,000.00 - - - 5,000.00 9,162.76 (9,162.76) F 88.0% 9,162.76 (9,162.76) - 35,000.00 2,853,630.05 (14,1]9.30) 2,839,450.75 355,294.95 14,179.30 369,474.25 281.10 - 3,431.16 12,270.00 - 87.30 (1,874,194.00) $ (4502,829.49) 1 14,179.30 A 310.75 Amortization ofwmk comp premium (9,162.76) F 80,718.55 B (3,694.59) Medical tenthb31V 60.19 Simplex Grinn 726.72 Insurance prem C 786.91 88.0% D F Prior Budget Expense Paid During Current Year DPS Backup PSAP/ VIPER UPS Battery replacement Self Funded Health Computer Equipment (122015-1212016), less amortitation w paid 3/2015 & 412015 (3/16/15-3/15/16) fiords Current Year Used Current Balance (9,162.76) F 80,718.55 (5,000.00) 16,227.00 (3,694.59) B 128,205.29 (107,233.76) 42,766.24 See accountant's compilation report. 7 (25,000.00) 0.0% (5,000.00) 0.0% (5,000.00) 0.0% 0.0% (35,000.00) 0.0% (387,774.25). 88.0% 369,474.25 0.0% 3,431.16 12,270.00 8730 (1,874,194.00) S (1,488,650.19) Sup. I15, less amortization 2015 Purchases were added to the Depreciation Schedule From: City of Iowa City <CityoflowaCity@public.govdelivery.com> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 12:58 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: City's proposed FY2018 budget and proposed five-year Capital Improvement Program plan now available O SHARE Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. City °,IOWA CIN FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: Dec. 19, 2016 Contact: Dennis Bockenstedt Phone: 319-356-5053 City's proposed FY2018 budget and proposed five-year Capital Improvement Program plan now available The City of Iowa City's proposed budget for fiscal year 2018 and the proposed Capital Improvement Program plan for 2017-2021 are now available online at http://www.icgov.org/budget. Printed copies are also available for viewing at the Iowa City Public Library at 123 S. Linn Street and the City Clerk's Office in City Hall at 410 E. Washington Street. The City Council will hold a work session from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday, Jan. 7, 2017 in Emma J. Harvat Hall at City Hall during which staff will present the proposed budget and the proposed five- year Capital Improvement Program. An additional budget work session is scheduled Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2017 from 1 to 7 p.m., also in Emma Harvat Hall. These meetings are open for the public to attend and observe. A public hearing will be set to allow for residents' input, and scheduling of final adoption of the budget will be done soon thereafter. The public may also contact City Council members through e-mail at council(a)iowa-citv.ora or by writing Attn: Council Members, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. For more information, contact Finance Director Dennis Bockenstedt at 319-356-5053. Questions? Contact Us CITY Of 10%VA CITY UNISCOMY 011111RAIM STAY CONNECTED: M © x ® T Equity and inclusion training available to local businesses Page 1 of 2 IP6 Receive Updates I Enter Email Address Go W Equity and inclusion training available to local businesses City of Iowa City sent this bulletin at 12/20/2016 10:13 AM CST C SHARE Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. °�°� 10WACITY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: Dec. 20, 2016 Contact: Stefanie Bowers, Equity Director Phone: 319-356-5022 Equity and inclusion training available to local businesses The Iowa City (I.C.) Better Bridges Institute is offering a free one -and -a -half day education event for business owners and managers to learn about diversity and enhance strategies to create more inclusive environments. The program will be held Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in meeting rooms B & C of the Iowa City Public Library, 123 S. Linn Street. Day 1: Participants will spend the first day in an award-winning leadership training module from the National Coalition Building Institute (NCBI) called Leadership for Equity & Inclusion. NCBI focuses on building cultural competence, collaboration and partnerships, and effective relationships within and across group identities. Day 2: The second day will be discussion -based review of case studies related to business structure, supervision, and customers, to address: • Real experiences of Iowa City residents • Bias and personal impact of specific incidents of discrimination • Inclusive customer service and satisfaction best practices Participants will receive: https:Hcontent.govdelivery.com/accounts/IAIOWAfbulletins/17bl Oc5 12/20/2016 Equity and inclusion training available to local businesses Page 2 of 2 • Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit, a booklet containing resources and tips to create a more inclusive and profitable workplace • Diversity and Inclusion Certificate, endorsed by the University of Iowa Tippie College of Business and the Chief Diversity Office To register: Complete the application found at tinyurl.com/ICBetterBridges. The deadline to apply is Jan. 3, 2017. The program is a partnership between the University of Iowa, The Downtown Business District, the City of Iowa City Human Rights Commission and NCBI International. To learn more, contact Nancy Bird at nancy(Mdowntowniowacitv.com. ..7WA I Questions? Contact Us CITY Of IOWA CITY u%t x o an or uu uruu STAY CONNECTED: M © M ® 10 SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage Preferences I Unsubscribe I Help rorwM M https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/IAIOWA/bulletins/I7b10c5 12/20/2016 IP7 MINUTES PRELIMINARY IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2016 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Scott McDonough, John Gay, Andrea French, Jim Walker MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Doug Boothroy (Director, Neighborhood and Development Services) (Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. CityAttorney), John Yapp (Development Services Coordinator), Brian Greer (Fire Marshall), Roger Jensen (Deputy Fire Chief), Jason Havel (City Engineer), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Specialist) OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Parmenter, Jim Larew, Robert Hatala, Craig Syrop, Chris Rossi, Patricia Koza, Brad Erickson, Karin Southard RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None CALL TO ORDER: John Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: McDonough moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 1, 2016. French seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Roffman began by asking for a clarification regarding this case as he has a real concern as to whether the Board should even be hearing this since the Appellant has filed in court to hear the same case. Mark Parmenter explained that he is retained to represent the Board of Appeals and offer legal advice. Parmenter stated he has reviewed all the documents and submissions that have been presented to the Board (who has seen all the copies as well). The Neighbors of Manville Heights Association and related parties have made a request to be heard before the Board of Appeals. In their application, they request a hearing to contest an action dated October 19, 2016, a Lift Stop Work Order "a decision made by building official Doug Boothroy". Parmenter noted that Iowa City Code section 17-12-2 outlines the procedure for making appeals to the Board of Appeals. The Code provides that the Board of Appeals has jurisdiction to PRELIMINARY hear an appeal from any person aggrieved by the decision of the Building Official or the Fire Chief with regard to the Building Code or Fire Code and may file an appeal to the Board of Appeals within 30 days of that decision. "A decision" means any decision, determination, direction, notice, finding or order of the Building Official or the Fire Chief. The Board of Appeals may, by a majority, vote, reverse a decision by the Building Official or Fire Chief based on the Building Code or Fire Code only if it finds that, and in this case, a claim that the Building Official has incorrectly interpreted a provision of the Code. Parmenter next gave some background information regarding the situation as he felt it would be helpful for the Board. On June 29, 2016, Manville Heights appealed to the Board of Adjustment a decision by the City of Iowa City to issue a building permit to the Carlsons to construct a structure at 101 Lusk Avenue. The appeal identified and cited numerous City Code sections that Manville Heights believed were violated when the City issued the building permit for the structure. That same day the City of Iowa City issued a Stop Work Order on the building permit. The Iowa City Board of Adjustment met on September 14, September 21, and September 30, 2016, and voted on the Manville Heights appeal. A motion was made by one of the Board members to grant the appeal made by Manville Heights. The vote was a 2-2 vote and the City's decision to issue the building permit was upheld. Manville Heights then filed their writ of certiorari on October 5, 2016, with the Iowa District Court in Iowa City seeking relief from the Board of Adjustments decision. That lawsuit is currently pending in the District Court. The Board of Adjustment's written decision was filed on October 19, 2016, and that same day the City of Iowa City lifted the Stop Work Order it had issued in June 2016. Manville Heights has now made this request before the Board of Appeals on November 15, 2016. As counsel for the Board of Appeals, Parmenter stated he has several concerns with this appeal. First, when Manville Heights filed their petition of writ of certiorari essentially appealing the decision of the Board of Adjustment, they allege in their petition the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the writ of certiorari. This means the Court has the power to hear and make the determination that the general issues raised in the Writ. Because the District Court has jurisdiction over these issues, essentially the same issues that appear will be presented to this Board tonight, Parmenter stated he is of the opinion that the Board of Appeals is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Parmenter stated Manville Heights consented to the jurisdiction of the District Court and that Court now has jurisdiction over the issues raised at the Board of Adjustment and the issues which appears that Manville Heights wishes this Board to take up tonight. Second, allowing Manville Heights to appeal some of the same issues that were before the Board of Adjustment, now in litigation, to this Board may create conflicting decision between the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Appeals if the Board of Appeals were to vote to reverse "a decision" by the Building Official. Third, even if this Board has jurisdiction to hear this appeal, which Parmenter does not believe it does, he is of the opinion that lifting the Stop Work Order is not a "decision" by a Building Official. As stated before, section 17-12-2 of the Iowa City Codes provides that any person aggrieved by a decision of the Building Official or the Fire Chief with regard to the Building Code or Fire Code may file an appeal to the Board of Appeals within 30 days of that decision. The first issue is whether lifting a Stop Work Order was a "decision" by a Building Official. Chapter 414.11 of the Iowa Code provides that when an appeal is made to the Board of Adjustment an appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of action appealed from, in this case the building permit. Parmenter is of the opinion that Chapter 414.11 required the City by an operation of law to issue the Stop Work Order when the appeal was made to the Board of Adjustment. The purpose of the Stop Work Order was to stay those proceedings until the matter had been appealed to and decided by the Board of Adjustment. Parmenter stated his interpretation of Chapter 414.11 required the City to issue the Stop Work Order until the matter had come before the Board of Adjustment and a decision was made by the Board. The Stop Work Order remained in place until the Board of Adjustment voted in not finding error in the City's decision to issue the building permit and until the Board of Adjustment's decision was filed on October 19, 2016. There was no choice, no decision by the City to issue the Stop Work Order, or to lift the Stop Work Order. Therefore, Parmenter is of the opinion that there was no decision, determination, direction, notice, finding or order one way or the other that was made by the Building PRELIMINARY Official. Instead issuing and lifting the Stop Work Order was by operation of law. It is Parmenter's recommendation to the Board of Appeals to move to deny the appeal for the following reasons: 1. The Board of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear the issues raised in this appeal as jurisdiction now lies with the Iowa District Court. 2. The Board of Adjustment previously ruled on the issues presented in this appeal. 3. Lifting the Stop Work Order was by operation of law not a "decision" made by a building official and, therefore, this Board does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal that contests lifting the Stop Work Order dated October 19, 2016. Roffman asked if any other members of the Board had questions for Parmenter. McDonough asked if the Board is to proceed on and hypothetically voted opposite of the Board of Adjustment, what happens next. Parmenter said that would be overturning a "decision" of the Building Official and what could happen is the City could sue the Board of Appeals because this Board did not rule correctly pursuant to Iowa law. Jim Larew representing the appellants asked to speak before the Board voted. Larew stated he strongly disagrees with some of the statements made by Mr. Parmenter, specifically the factual representation of what has been determined so far and what has not. Secondly, Larew noted he has a series of reasons why the appellants must be here before the Board of Appeals in order to protect the rights they feel the citizens of Iowa City have in this neighborhood. Larew began by stating that the role of the Board of Appeals is to hear conflicts that have occurred between a City Official and a citizen who have a disagreement about a particular rule. So they are in relationship with each other when a decision is made and they notice that they have an opportunity to come before the Board of Appeals if they wish to. In this case, the appellants are third parties to a relationship between the Carlsons, who are the owners of 101 Lusk Avenue, and the City. Most of what happened between those two parties was completely unknown to others in the neighborhood. With regards to the timeline, on June 20, 2016, a group of citizens (50 persons) met on the street corner of Lusk Avenue and Lexington Avenue because they had heard, with a day's notice, that something had been approved, but didn't know what had been approved. They heard it was a very large building, and heard it would be attracting large numbers of people. Several members of the group had gone to the City to inquire but felt they were not given complete or accurate information. The very next day, by chance, was a City Council meeting and the Appellants appeared at that meeting to speak about the issue and what little they knew at that time. The Appellants were told by the City Council they would put the topic on the agenda for the next meeting in two weeks so it could be discussed. On June 24, 2016, the City issued a memorandum to Bill Ackerman, who is a member of the Manville Heights group, and copied it to Mr. Larew, that stated what the appeal rights were. It stated if they wanted to appeal a building permit decision, which was made on May 25, 2016, they needed to go before the Board of Adjustment. The Appellants then immediately appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Additionally, three weeks after that building permit was issued on May 25, 2016, there was a suspension issued of that permit because there had been a serious issue found with that permit, and then as the Appellants learned of the permit the suspension was lifted. At the Board of Adjustment meetings, the City argued, Mr. Parmenter ruled, that a number of the issues the Appellants raised on their appeal (because that is where they were directed to go by the City) could not be heard by the Board of Adjustment. For example, they ruled that Fire Code violations were not Board of Adjustment decisions, but rather Board of Appeals. They were also told the plumbing code issues were not under purview of the Board of Adjustment. The Appellants raised the concern that there was not an independent sewer line that met Code was provided for the property, and again that would be an issue to be heard by the Board of Appeals. Larew stated it was in a dialogue between Boothroy and the Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, Larry Baker, where Baker directly asked if the citizens were too late on their appeal. Boothroy replied that they were not too late. The only issue ruled upon at the Board of Adjustment was if the classification decision correct. The Appellants had contested if this proposed building was a single family dwelling. The Appellants argued that it was something other than a single family dwelling and because it was not described in the Zoning Code it should not be permitted or built. That was the only issue that was voted upon. Additionally, because one PRELIMINARY member had recused herself, it was a 2-2 vote. There was no vote taken on the Fire Code nor the Building Code because the City had briefed the Board that they could not vote on those issues. When the Appellants left the Board of Adjustment proceedings, a stay had been lifted, and therefore the Appellants felt they should be heard by the Board of Appeals. Had the Appellants been instructed on June 24, 2016, to go to the Board of Appeals they would have been here right away, but they were directed by the City to take their appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Larew noted that the City has no obligation to give legal advice to citizens, but if they do it should be correct. Larew continued that this Board should hear that a building of this size was directed by the City to hook the sewer line onto a private neighboring shared line, that the neighbors didn't even know about, that was installed in 1927. Additionally, this Board should hear that the Fire Marshall made a serious mistake by not imposing the mandatory provisions of the Fire Code having to do with turnarounds, location of fire hydrants, and fire flow. Larew stated they only have before the District Court a writ of certiorari of if the Board of Adjustment made the right decision and the only place for the decisions on the sewer issue and Fire Codes is before the Board of Appeals. Larew asserted that this property, once owned by Pauline Aspel for nearly 50 years, and was sold to Premier Properties (Mr. Oliveira) and who had presented a proposal for two small houses on the same lot, was denied building permits because the City invoked the mandatory provisions of the Fire Code and said there must be a turnaround on that street for emergency apparatus. Additionally, City Staff stated Mr. Oliveira must provide independent sewer lines or show an easement if he were to tie onto a private sewer. Larew acknowledged that situation for two individual properties is different than the current case; however, the Code provisions are there and they ask the Board of Appeals to oversee the decision making process of the City Staff and make its own determination. Roffman asked for a point of clarification on the Court ruling and if that is only about if the building permit is the proper classification and won't hear any of the other considerations such as plumbing or fire codes. Larew said the Court will hear about the plumbing and fire code issues in that the Appellants will argue about the definition of a single family dwelling, and that is must have a sanitation system. The appeal is that the structure is not a single family dwelling. They are before this Board to decide if the plumbing code has been followed. Walker stated he doesn't really have a question but the plan he sees presented does look like a single family dwelling. If he didn't know anything about their intent for the structure he would have to say it does look like a single family dwelling. The City does have to adhere to the ordinances in place, which are there to protect everyone, the neighborhood and the Carlsons; however, the Carlsons are building on a legal lot. Larew replied that in terms of requesting mandatory Fire Code protections that state a turnaround must be on a dead end street more than 150 feet, that should be enforced. Walker maintained that it is not their (the Carlsons) responsibility to correct that. Larew said the responsibility is because of the size of the dwelling. McDonough questioned the timeline on September 14, 2016, and the wording on the Appellants document. Larew apologized and said it meant to say that the instruction of the Board's attorney, Mr. Parmenter, was that the Board was not to take into consideration issues outside of their purview, which meant they did not have purview over the plumbing code or site plan. Robert Hatala (attorney for Carlsons) began by stating he concurs with the position of Mr. Parmenter that the Board of Appeals does not have jurisdiction and added a couple points. By Mr. Larew's own admission, they knew at least by June 24, 2016 that there had been a building permit issued and, under the rules of the Board of Appeals, they have 30 days from the time the decision is made (in this case the issuance of the building permit) to appeal that to the Board. It is now almost six months later and they are still dealing with this issue. Hatala noted an Iowa case, Arkae Development, Inc. v Zoning Board of Adjustment City of Ames Iowa, Appellant No. 2-65649 has similar rationale regarding the 30 day period running from the day that the person appealing had actual knowledge or was chargeable with knowledge PRELIMINARY of the decision appealed from and the facts forming the basis of the objection. Hatala reiterated that this case is almost six months out from when that decision was made and at least five months out from when the Appellants knew about it so for that reason alone the appeal should be denied. Hatala also commented on Mr. Larew stating that if the City is going to give legal advice; however, Hatala doesn't believe a memorandum from the City is legal advice. What he really means is the City should be estoppeld, which means once you've given an opinion you should not be able to change the position. An estoppel is not generally applied to an action of a City Government. McDonough questioned Hatala if he had read Mr. Larew's timeline and Hatala confirmed he had. McDonough asked if there was anything Hatala disagreed with on Larew's timeline. Hatala replied that he doesn't recall disagreeing with the timeline. Larew noted that, if they are allowed to proceed, he will present an exhibit (exhibit W) that is a copy of the memorandum that was issued and dated June 24, 2016, (from John Yapp, City Staff, to Bill Ackerman, layperson and neighbor) states they had discussed an option of appeal and the memo was meant to outline the appeal process, and directed them to the Board of Adjustment. Larew also stated that the Appellants didn't know until August the full details of the plumbing code or fire code issues when they received a copies of emails in response to a public records request. Therefore, there was no way for the Appellants to file a proper appeal in 30 days when all the pertinent information was not obtained for several months. Additionally the memo from City Staff instructing Bill Ackerman about the appeal process was sent on June 24, 2016, 30 days after the issuance of the building permit, so it was already too late for an appeal. Hatala noted that when looking at the timeline, on June 21, 2016, the residents of Manville Heights attended a City Council meeting and there was discussion at that meeting about Fire Code issues (turnarounds, etc.); so, therefore, that shows the Appellants knew about these issues on June 21, 2016, and the appeal should have at least been brought forth 30 days from that date. Roffman stated that the decision the Board has first is whether or not they should hear the appeal. McDonough said he went to the Board of Appeals website and reviewed the duties which are "To hold appeal hearings on and determine the suitability of alternate materials and methods of construction and to provide for reasonable interpretation of the International Building Code" and doesn't feel the Board is qualified to know legally whether this holds any weight in court, but personally he signed up to be on this Board and is willing to hear the case and make a decision. Gay also stated he is not opposed to hearing both sides and their opinions. McDonough moved to continue on and hear the appeal. No second, motion dies. Walker moved to deny the appeal. Ream noted that is not a correct motion at this time. Parmenter suggested a positive motion, have it seconded, and hold a vote and that will determine if the appeal will be heard. MOTION: Roffman moved that the Board move forward and hear both sides as it relates to the appeal that has been presented to the Board of Appeals. McDonough seconded the motion. VOTE: Vote of 4 -1 to hear the appeal. PRELIMINARY MOTION: Roffman moved that each side would have 45 minutes to present their case with a 15 minute time limit for rebuttals. He also said each issue would be voted on separately, the lifting of the building permit, the hearing of the appeal, and the Fire Code issues. Andrea seconded the motion. VOTE: A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously. Doug Boothroy (Director, Neighborhood and Development Services) presented first as to the City's decision to issue the building permit and began by showing a map of the area and showing that Lusk Avenue is a dead end street with 101 Lusk Avenue at the end of that street. Boothroy confirmed that the building permit was issued on May 25, 2016, the Board of Adjustment received the appeal on June 29, 2016. Boothroy noted that between the time the permit was issued and the appeal was filed they had not realized there was an appeal to the Fire and Plumbing Codes and that is why the memorandum only addressed the zoning issue. Boothroy declared the City was surprised by the other appeals and did argue before the Board of Adjustment that they were not relevant. Boothroy reminded the Board of their duties, the appeal filed tonight includes a lot of other sections of Code, and the Board only has jurisdiction over, by act of City Ordinance, the Building and Fire Code, The Board bylaws specifically state that these are the only Codes under their purview as stated in City Ordinance. Boothroy commented that the Stop Work Order has been discussed and explained by the attorneys; it is required by Zoning Code that once a Stay has been decided, the Order is lifted and all parties are notified. So the Code issues before the Board of Appeals are the building sewer compliance (under the Plumbing Code) and the three Fire Code issues. Boothroy declared that, when they issued the building permit in May, the existing house on the lot had been removed. That house had been on a four -inch private sewer service that connected to a private sewer main that had been permitted by the City in 1927. At that time, the City had issued a permit to construct a sewer six -inches in size to allow for three houses to connect their building service lines to this sewer main. That sewer main then connects back to the public sewer that is located in the street to the north. Boothroy stated that one of the things that will be mentioned tonight is whether the private sewer main has sufficient capacity and can function for this specific house. He confirmed that the information that was provided to the City when they telescoped the service is that the six-inch private sewer main has the capacity for a house so that is not in question. Boothroy acknowledged there is some confusion in the documentation about when Mr. Oliveira was proposing to subdivide 101 Lusk Avenue and, at that time, the engineer report was they could not extend the four -inch line as a private sewer to service two more houses. Boothroy stated that, under the Subdivision Code, the City has the authority to require a sewer upgrade. Therefore, at that time, the City exercised that authority with Mr. Oliveira saying he would have to extend the public sewer main in order to add the additional houses. Boothroy said the other issues that are raised such as the turnaround are also covered under the authority of the Subdivision Code to require some additional enhancements to the public right-of-way. Mr. Oliveira was wishing to plat two additional lots on Lusk Avenue and, therefore, that could also mean the property owner to the east could subdivide his property - increasing the homes on Lusk Avenue even more. Therefore, the City had conversations about the potential of having three or more lots coming off Lusk Avenue and exercised the authority they had under the Subdivision Code. Boothroy reminded the Board that this case is not about a subdivision; this is an infill lot on an existing street that is paved at 20 feet in width and the property owner is requesting the ability to replace the house on the lot of existing record using a street of existing record. The City does not have any authority to deny that particular building permit as long as it fully complies with the Plumbing Code, Building Code, and Fire Code. The City believes that it does. With regards to the sewer connection, Boothroy asserted that public sewer is available to the lot so therefore there is not an issue. The issue for the neighbors to the north is they are not happy and would like to terminate the sewer access that 101 Lusk Avenue has used since 1927. That sewer connection still exists and is on lot 101 Lusk Avenue and does not require the property owner to encroach onto the other two lots. So, the owner of 101 Lusk Avenue has that option, and whether or not that option will be allowed by the other two lots is to be determined. However, there are other options to connect to public sewers PRELIMINARY that are available on Bayard and Lexington or Rowland Court. The Carlsons can get access to these sewers and the City has an obligation to provide access to these sewers. Boothroy confirmed that a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until adequate sewer is provided to the site. Therefore the sewer question is not an issue, sewer is available, there are options, and that is why a building permit was issued. Boothroy showed the Board the sewer permit for the private sewer main. McDonough asked for confirmation that the City has an obligation to provide sewer, and that there are three options. Boothroy confirmed that is correct. Walker asked if easements are required for the private sewer connection. Boothroy said that is up for debate. At the time, the City permitted this private sewer service in 1927, an easement wasn't put in place and over the years these properties were not aware they were not being serviced directly by public sewer. Boothroy explained that this is not unusual and had a slide showing at least 20 other known properties throughout Iowa City that were developed with private sewer connections. Boothroy reiterated that sewer is available and the owners cannot occupy the structure until they provide the sewer. Boothroy stated that, when they looked at the building permit application, the City verified that there is water available, there is a water hydrant right at the corner of the lot and there is sewer available. With a single family house, a detailed drawing or engineered drawings are not required for structures regulated by the International Residential Code and, when they do the sewer installation inspection, the plumbing inspector does the drawings and confirms the size and location and that is the standard operating procedure for every application that has been in place for decades. With regards to the Fire Code, Boothroy confirmed this street (Lusk Avenue) does meet the fire access requirements when constructed by the City in the 1930's as the street is 20 feet wide. The City also chooses to allow parking on one side of such streets since the street does meet the 20 feet wide requirement. Regarding the fire hydrants, there are two available to service this area and under the Fire Code will provide the minimum fire flow as required. Finally, the fire apparatus turnaround is not required (as listed under Fire Code section 104.8) as the Fire Chief can modify that requirement if he determines it is impractical. The Fire Code states "Where there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the fire code official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, provided the fire code official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, life and fire safety requirements." This has been done and is in writing as a memo to the Board. This was also made available to the Board of Adjustment in a different memo. The memo to the Board of Appeals is more detailed and done to clarify because there were so many questions on the subject raised at the Board of Adjustment proceedings. Boothroy stated there are multiple situations throughout the Iowa City community with infill lots where they have applied this on a regular basis because they are lots of record. The standards with regards to the fire access and fire turnaround are recent standards and the City does not deny the use of property based on the more recent Code adoptions. Boothroy explained that this provision is in the Fire Code specifically to allow flexibility. Boothroy showed Lusk Avenue, a 20 foot wide paved street with a 50 foot right-of-way. Boothroy showed an example of another building permit issued for a house on Lucon Drive (a 16 foot wide street with no fire turnaround) and have also approved new developments, a 32 house development on Prairie Hills in southeast Iowa City where the street is 20 foot wide and no restriction for on -street parking. Finally, Boothroy addressed the fire hydrant issue noting that there are two fire hydrants in the area. Fire hydrant #1 is at the corner of the lot 101 Lusk Avenue and has a fire flow of 1564 gallons per minute. Fire hydrant #2 is also available and has the added fire capacity to meet the minimum gallons per minute needed. Boothroy also noted that the pumping capacity of a fire engine is only 1500 gallons per minute so fire hydrant #1 more than exceeds the capability of providing water to the site. Because of the size of the PRELIMINARY house proposed the Fire Code indicates that 2250 gallons per minute need to be provided in case of an all-out fire. However, reading through that particular section of the Fire Code, it does state that the number of fire hydrants available to a building shall not be less than the minimum specified in the table. The table shows that, under the Fire Code, two hydrants are allowed to be used to make up that 2250 gallons per minute of water flow. Boothroy reiterated there are two fire hydrants available and the Deputy Fire Chief is here tonight and can testify that it is adequate. In conclusion, Boothroy stated the City issued the permit, the property had sewer service in place since 1927 and that the sewer line still exists on the property. Lusk Avenue meets the 20 foot minimum width needed for Fire Code, there are hydrants available (one at the actual site and another nearby) within the distance required and meet the minimum fire flow needed, and the turnaround is addressed with a memo to the Board from the Deputy Fire Chief exercising his authority to make modifications. Boothroy stated that 101 Lusk Avenue is an existing lot of record, on an existing street, and the property owner is asking for the opportunity to build on it. They are not requesting that the property be subdivided or anything that would give the City additional authority to exercise any of the provisions under the Subdivision Code. Boothroy stated the Board's decision tonight is to decide if the City has misinterpreted the Code and must be by majority vote. The City believes the appeal should be denied. McDonough asked what would happen if 111 and/or 117 Lusk Avenue did a similar thing (tear down the house and build a larger structure) and then the current sewer line is in the way. Boothroy explained that one of the reasons the City requires direct connection to the public sewer is to avoid getting into this type of debate over rights. That debate will be settled in court and not by this Board. All the City is concerned about is that the private sewer may be an option or they can also use the public sewer. Boothroy admitted it could be a future issue is 101 Lusk Avenue did use the private sewer line and in the future 111 or 117 Lusk Avenue terminated the sewer connections during a rebuild and the City would require resolution of the issue before a building permit would be issued. Walker stated that there are other options for sewer and Boothroy confirmed that yes, they can tie into the public sewer and avoid the private connections. McDonough noted that an ideal situation would be to have the sewer run down Lusk Avenue. Boothroy agreed and said it could be on either side of the street because it can come in from either the east or west. Boothroy reiterated that the sewer issue does not need to be resolved for this building to move forward, the owners know they will not be issued a certificate of occupancy without sewer service. Walker asked if the difference with what Mr. Oliveira wanted to do is he wanted to subdivide the lot and in doing so gave the City more ordinances to draw from to regulate. Boothroy confirmed that was true, the Carlsons are not subdividing the lot; they are building on an infill lot. Boothroy also noted that if Mr. Oliveira had subdivided his lot, the neighbor on the east side of the street had also expressed taking advantage of the street extension and turnaround to add additional lots as well. French asked if there was any precedent for houses in town with shared private sewers that didn't have existing easements to a require an easement or abandon the use. Boothroy stated that as long as the sewer is capable of providing the drainage to the public sewer the City does not require them to abandon the use. Gay asked if the private sewers are ever evaluated. Boothroy said he would have to ask the waste water department but assumes if there were issues then they would be evaluated. Roffman next asked Mr. Larew to present the Appellant's case. Larew noted he would be sharing his allotted time with other speakers. Larew said there were three statements from the City that he wished to respond to. First was that Mr. Boothroy is now asking the Board to base a decision on a written statement made by the Fire Chief on December 1, 2016, exercising his discretionary authority to excuse the situation from the necessity of having the turnaround and pointing PRELIMINARY to provisions of the Code that grants him that discretionary authority. Larew said the Appellants are asking the Board to consider the possibility that the Fire Chief's discretionary authority was properly exercised. Larew also commented that this hearing began with a recommendation that the Board not even hear this matter because the Appellants were more than 30 days late with filing their appeal; however, it appears that a decision was not made on the turnaround until December 1, 2016. Until that memo, all that was in the record was the mandatory provision that stated a turnaround was required. Larew conceded that with subdivision requirements that does trigger authority for the City to require the turnaround. However, there is another avenue that triggers that requirement as well, and that is the length of the street. Lusk Avenue is longer than 150 feet which should trigger the mandated requirements. That is a fact; in terms of the power or authority of the City whether to provoke those mandatory requirements, Larew stated the City has changed their view and just now, on December 1, 2016, is stating they now are exercising their discretionary authority regarding the mandatory turnaround. The decision still before this Board is regarding public safety and considerations for the neighborhood safety and if the Fire Chief should be allowed to invoke his discretionary authority to exempt the obligation of the turnaround. Larew stated the next point was in regards to the private sewer shared with 117 Lusk Avenue and 111 Lusk Avenue. Larew pointed out the Mr. Boothroy admitted that if in the future 117 or 111 Lusk Avenue wanted to build upon their property the building permit would be held up until the sewer issue was resolved. Larew expressed that the same criteria be placed on 101 Lusk Avenue and the building permit to be withheld until the sewer issue is resolved. Larew showed on a map the properties and where the private sewer line runs and noted that all four adjoining property owners have served upon the Carlsons written notice that any easement interest they feel they may have has been terminated. The Carlsons now must prove to an Iowa District Court judge that they have the right of access. Roffman declared that Larew was wasting time discussing the sewer issue, it is not an issue, the Carlson's have access to sewer options, and will not receive a certificate of occupancy until they have functioning sewer. Larew maintained that the reason it's an issue is because these types of cases are often turned later if there is an argument that people stepped on their rights. Roffman acknowledged that there is a record of that point. Larew then continued with a second point regarding the fire code and the report from HBK Engineering (handed out to the Board at the meeting) who reviewed the situation based on a request by the Appellants and came to a series of conclusions. Larew conceded that the applicable provisions from the Fire Code are not in dispute- the appropriate gallons per minute to the site for fire flow and also access for the apparatus. HBK did not find compliance with these provisions when looking at the site. Therefore, the Appellants argue that the Board should find that there should be a turnaround because the proposed structure is large and most of the structure is beyond the paved street. The bedrooms of the structure are on the southerly end and on the third floor. Larew showed configurations of allowable turnarounds per the Code. He noted that unless one is to assume the required turnarounds set forth in the Code are going to be taken out of the land owned by others the only two options for turnarounds that the Fire Code allows will require taking the land from the Carlson's property and the planned structure would have to be reduced (which the neighbors find more reasonable). The opinion of HBK in the report is that mandatory provisions are required and there is no showing that those mandatory requirements have been met. The Appellants ask the Board to decide if those mandatory requirements are necessary or if the discretionary modifications the Fire Chief exerted in the December 1, 2016 memo is enough to provide safety to a structure that may hold up to 200 people as well as the surrounding neighbors. Walker asked where the number of 200 people came from. Larew explained that for the Board of Adjustment meeting the Appellants had testimony from experts that did use analysis of the property with regards to property size, number of chairs that could be put in the space, the facilities in the structure, etc., and the City did not dispute that analysis. The argument before the Board of Adjustment was that the structure was misclassified. 10 PRELIMINARY Larew stated that he will now turn over the podium to some other speakers beginning with Craig Syrop who is one of the property owners with the shared sewer. Roffman cautioned Mr. Larew and others that the sewer is a non -issue, there are options to meet the sewer requirements. McDonough ask if the Board was allowed to ask about intent of the homeowners regarding the sewer. Parmenter stated that his opinion is the building permit can be issued and that the sewer issue is an occupancy issue; if they don't have sewer they cannot occupy. Larew responded that the Appellants want to make sure their points are part of the record and asked the Board to allow Mr. Syrop to testify. The Board agreed to hear the testimony. Craiq Syrop (117 Lusk Avenue) has owned the property for almost seven years. He asked the Board of Appeals, by majority, to reverse a decision made by the building official regarding the private sewer and to determine that he erred in determining that the Carlson building would comply with the Plumbing Code based on plans to connect its sewer line to an existing sanitary sewer that does not comply with the present Code and concerning which there is no showing that a lawful easement exists. Syrop noted that they were not allowed to have the Plumbing Code issue determined at the Board of Adjustment so he appreciates the opportunity to do so now. Syrop showed the private sewer line and how it passes under a shared driveway with Anne Lahey. There is an existing easement for the shared driveway and garage. They have lived in the house seven years, and have contacted the previous owner Mr. Pete Wilson, and he had no knowledge as well of a shared sewer line and there is no easement on record (or in abstracts). They only learned of the private sewer from the release of information that was gained from a public records request from the City. Syrop also noted that there has been a formal termination of the Carlsons interest in any easements, and, as Mr. Boothroy pointed out, the City produced a sewer permit from 1927 which was granted at a time when a single entity acquired all three properties and therefore didn't need an easement. That predates the City Code and there were no easements created when those properties were sold. There is no evidence that the City encouraged or sought the Carlsons to utilize the alternative paths of the public right -a -way that were described to Mr. Oliveira when he owned the property or to establish a code -compliant separate and independent sewer. There is nothing in the record that indicated that occurred. Syrop stated that the purpose of regulating non -conforming situations is not to force all non- conforming situations to be immediately brought up to conformance. Syrop would actually argue that after 90 years (since 1927), especially after 40 years (of when the applicable Code has been in place), this is not immediate. It should be the intention to guide future uses and development consistent with City policy and to protect the character of the area and reduce the potential negative impacts from non -conforming situations. Syrop also noted that being downstream from on the sewer line from the Carlson house, which has been stated could hold upwards of 200 people, imagine on a football Saturday 30 minutes before the game (after three hours of beers and brats) the sewer usage and the potential risk. Syrop asserted that this is new construction; it is replacing a house that was not destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or public enemy, and whose sewer line has not been used by inhabitants for several years. The sewer line was disconnected, and the terminology in the Code is "terminated". Syrop pointed out that the City, in dealing with Mr. Oliveira, the sewer line could have connected to one of the houses he proposed without change. But at that time, the City pointed out that the future repairs on a private line could get "dicey". So for Mr. Oliveira, the City cited the preference would be for an independent sanitary sewer, and if one of the houses were to tie into the existing private line there would need to be proof of an existing easement. Syrop asserted that none of that was sought in the Carlsons circumstance. Syrop acknowledged that the City did seek out what the size of the sewer line was and the volume it could handle and noted some conditional issues for the sewer that have been unaddressed, particularly recommending that the sewer be relined. That was not addressed before issuing the building permit. In summary, Syrop believes there has been an error to allow a new construction that clearly violates the Plumbing Code. The permitting of 101 11 PRELIMINARY Lusk Avenue allows the construction and connection to a shared sewer private line where there is no easement of record for which external engineers voice concerns and can pose health, financial, and safety risk to the public. Syrop reiterated that a potential easement right has been terminated by them already and asks the Board in the interest of public safety to reverse the decision by the Building Official. Syrop also noted that it was informative to read the recent case of Udell and the Board of Appeals (August 1, 2016) where the Board stated that the Board does not have authority to override or ignore health and safety issues and, if a health issue arose that could be traced back to this violation and then it was discovered, that the City not only knew about the issue but did nothing to remedy it. Therefore, Syrop is asking the Board to act in the interest of public safety before foundations are poured, before greater equity is threatened, damage is done to others and neighbors are forced into civil action. Syrop stated that they have taken civil action because the permit was issued. Chris Rossi (4 Rowland Court) addressed the Board and drew their attention to exhibit T which forms the basis for his affidavit and references in a large part the public records request that the residents of Manville Heights made in consideration of what they believed to be a lack of clarity and conversation between the City Staff. This request was predicated on conversations that seemed to have taken place outside of the earshot of the public. The public records request revealed information that is pertinent to conversations related to the easement, and additionally to the fire and safety situation. Rossi stated that they petitioned for information but found out from conversations internal to the City Staff that talking to the residents would be "a lose/lose proposition". That statement was made with regard to a petition by a resident to have a conversation about what was taking place regarding their vested private property rights. Rossi declared that there are vested rights and interests that are being discussed outside of their earshot, which doesn't seem to be neighborly or civic -minded. Rossi quoted some of the City Staff statements from the public records request. Rossi acknowledged that he understands there are other sewer options but those other options are not mentioned in the record. Rossi continued on to read from the public records regarding the sewer question. McDonough interrupted Rossi stating that the Board has all read his affidavit and asked if there was any additional information he could share that wasn't already in the Board packet. Rossi concluded then by drawing the Board's attention to something they have already read. Iowa City Fire Marshall Brian Greer pointed out that it appears it would be impossible to provide a conforming turnaround to meet the requirement of the Code. Rossi noted that was important because at the previous meetings he attended (Board of Adjustment meetings) the Fire Marshall spoke twice and was asked about this but he never answered that question. A memorandum appeared between the first and second Board of Adjustment meetings, but none of it was ever specifically addressed. And now, as of December 1, 2016, there is this discretionary issue that came up that was never addressed before. Therefore Rossi states there is conflict between this concern if it is a mandatory or discretionary concern. Patricia Koza (209 Lexington Avenue) has lived in the neighborhood for 64 years and stated that the neighborhood group has meet regularly as a committee since this structure was brought to their attention. She noted that in their dealings with the City they are continually concerned about the capricious attitude they have toward the application of Fire Code. The City Code adopts the International Fire Code and yet the public has been told often they don't enforce that, or they allow exceptions. Koza stated that is not fair. She feels that the Code should be followed as written, and those working in the trades would lose their licenses if they did not follow the Code. Koza noted that the City stated they move fire hydrants all the time. Koza believes that if that is done, it needs to conform to International Fire Code which states that in a street that is only 20 feet wide it needs to be 26 feet wide for 20 feet on either side of the hydrant. If that is the case then the structure proposed for this site cannot be allowed. With regards to other issues of safety, the Carlson's have stated they were building this structure as a tailgating venue, which is allowed, and it is designed to hold 200 people. However, any professional would say if this structure was to hold 200 people the single inward opening door on the main level is not sufficient. It is a fire trap. There is only one other way to get out of the upper level of this house and that is through the kitchen (a likely source of fire), through the owner's suite, into the garage to get to the outside. And throughout the house they are 12 PRELIMINARY all inward opening doors. To make it safe the structure should have crash bars, it should have outward facing doors. Koza noted that in the lower level, which is designed for large recreational gatherings, there is only one egress window, which she believes will exit under the driveway. Koza maintains that it is unbelievable to the neighborhood that the City, knowing the use, are not looking at these safety issues and that they would allow a structure like this to be built that doesn't afford the occupants of this structure the protection of the City. Brad Erickson (11 Rowland Ct) wanted to bring up a few points. He noted they are not here to debate whether or not this is commercial or residential but Mr. Boothroy did get up in front of the Board of Adjustment and state it was an ugly house and he was glad it wasn't in his neighborhood but he couldn't do anything about it because the Code said he had to call it a residential home but when faced with a Fire Code violation they were allowed to overlook that. Erickson stated he has two children and there are ten kids on his street and the Fire Code is meant to protect our citizens, so why is the City overlooking Fire Code. The Fire Code needs to be followed. Larew made one last comment or question regarding the sewer issue. Mr. Hatala has already spoken for the Carlson's as their attorney and can he answer the question of if the Carlsons intend to use, or will waive their apparent right, to the private sewer going through 111 and 117 Lusk Avenue. Hatala stated that as far as the sewer issue he disagrees strongly with the neighboring homeowners about whether their easement rights are there or not, the Carlsons at 101 Lusk Avenue have easement rights by acquisition and that is not for this Board to decide. Hatala stated that the Carlsons do not anticipate using the existing sewer easement, that is not to waive their rights, but at present time they do not intend to use the existing sewer. Roger Jensen (Deputy Fire Chief) spoke about the memo he wrote dated December 1, 2016, he attempted to speak to the issues with regards to the Fire Code and believes they were appropriately expressed and the decisions were justified. McDonough posed a hypothetical situation of if a fire occurred, it wouldn't take an insurance adjuster much time to find all this public information, how would Jensen defend himself. Jensen replied and said he could justify each of his decision. With respect to the required fire flow, there are a couple of charts in the International Fire Code and the City agrees with the engineering analysis of the gallons per minute required and with the number of hydrants needed to supply that. The minimum number of hydrants needed is two and those are clearly within the average spacing requirements that are spelled out also in the International Fire Code. Jensen stated they have an analysis from one of the hydrants that exceeds the pumping capacity of their fire engines as the hydrant is 1500 gallons plus. So to meet the minimum number required, they will need an additional 680 gallons per minute from the second hydrant. The second hydrant is supplied by a distinct six inch main so they are confident it would far exceed the that minimum gallons per minute as specified by the International Fire Code. Jensen said the second issue is the width of the street, the street is clearly 20 foot wide which meets the requirements of the Code. Walker asked if there would be a turnaround required, is there room for one without encroaching onto one of the other private properties. Jensen said he cannot answer, he was not privy to the subdivision questions that occurred earlier. He does understand there are some maps and proposals that were put together for that but he is not cognizant of that. Jensen addressed the last issue, the dead-end requirement. He noted that Lusk Avenue is under 160 feet long and acknowledged that the requirement in the Code is 150 feet (the prescriptive requirement for an apparatus turnaround). In his memo, he takes advantage of the Code modification in Chapter 104.8 that gives the Fire Code Official the authority to modify. It states the Fire Code Official can "amend, modify where there are practical difficulties" and that section of the Code has been in the Code for many editions, it is not new. Jensen assured the Board that they do not take the "for practical difficulties" lightly and 13 PRELIMINARY refers the Board to the commentary on the dead-end requirement (503.2.5) which clearly states the purpose is because the trucks are big and difficult to back up. So the Code is there for the safety of the fire apparatus and the City consistently applies that requirements to subdivisions and new developments. However, for existing infill construction it would be impractical. Roffman asked if the Board had any questions for the presenters or needed clarification. Larew asked about the Fire Chief exercising his rights to modify the Code requirements due to practical difficulties and the reasons to support that conclusion. Jensen replied that the decision was based on whether this was a subdivision, a new development, or an existing infill development on an existing lawful lot. That is the clear defining line and has been for the 30 years he's been with the Fire Department. McDonough asked Jensen if any alternatives were discussed. Jensen said each case is looked at individually so if there are practical agreed upon solutions the City is always open to those. In terms of the regulatory authority, it lands with if this is a subdivision or infill. Roffman stated that each issue should be voted on separately. The first issue is the requirement for sewer. MOTION: McDonough moved that the Board uphold the appeal based on the sewer and the building permit should be held until we know where the sewage is going. Gay seconded the motion. Hatala questioned the motion which states not issuing the building permit and feels it should be that the occupancy permit cannot be issued until the sewer question is decided. McDonough stated his opinion is 111 and 117 Lusk Avenue need some sort of empathy or justice and he feels if he lived there he would not want to deal with this. It is an 89 year old sewer, maintenance will be required soon or later and there is no easement. So McDonough feels that needs to be sorted out before the home can continue on. Walker stated he doesn't see it being an issue; chances are the Carlsons will use the alternative and wouldn't want to hook up to a sewer that may not be sufficient. He would not put that kind of money into a home and use an inadequate sewer. There are other alternatives in place. Gay said he personally feels that if it is a four inch line in the existing sewer and the condition is not known, so some preparation needs to be made for the amount of water and sewage this new home will produce. French noted that it does meet code requirements for the number of fixtures that dump into that size of a line. She stated, however, that she would not recommend to the Carlsons to use the existing line, and it seems like they have other options. It is not the City's business to tell them what option to take. Roffman reiterated that the Carlsons cannot get an occupancy permit until an approved service is in place. Koza stated that the previous developer dropped the project when he was quoted the price of $140,000 for the other option. That is a lot of legal fees, and these innocent neighbors could be tied up in legal fees for quite some time working out an easement so they appreciate Mr. McDonough's motion. Roffman stated that would be a court decision and not the Board decision regarding the easement. Walker said the Board is supposed to decide if the Building Official made the right decision when he lifted the stay, given the information he had and given rules, regulations, and ordinances. Walker believes he made the right decision. 14 PRELIMINARY Ream repeated the motion: To uphold the appeal on a condition that the sewer easement question is resolved. VOTE: The motion failed by a vote of 2-3 Roffman stated the next issue is if the Fire Department used the correct authority and made the right decision to justify the ruling. Ream asked if Roffman was limiting the vote to just the turnaround or the entire Fire Code question. Roffman replied the entire Fire Code question. Gay stated no concern about how the Fire Department can maneuver their apparatus, and they can back up their apparatus from a dead-end street. Walker noted that we are talking about five feet and there are many dead-end streets in Iowa City much longer that do not have turnarounds. It is not practical and the Fire Department made the right decision. With regards to the capacity of the fire hydrants there is conflicting information but he would view the information provided by the Fire Department and City Staff as correct and adequate. Gay agreed and stated that they are the ones ultimately held responsible. French noted that the report from HBK Engineering only cited one hydrant but there are two in the neighborhood that meet the required water flow. There is an email from September 26, 2016, from Deputy Chief Jensen stating that they haven't applied the code section to infill development and that was reiterated in the December 1, 2016 memo, so it seems as if it is a standing policy. Roffman expanded upon the fire protection topic noting they have heard that the potential occupancy may be greater than found in a normal single family house and whether or not the Fire Department should review betterfire protection. Tim Hennes (Senior Building Inspector) commented that the International Residential Code does not determine occupancy, the Zoning Code does. Private social events are not prohibited, they are allowed (tailgates are specifically allowed) and can have a high occupancy. The number 200 is if you are applying the IBC (International Building Code) to an occupancy so that is not applicable to a single family dwelling. Roffman thought perhaps that may need to be reviewed in the future. Hennes said when adopting the International Residential Code looks at the occupancy of the entire structure. He does not have the data that the Appellants were using to base that number 200 on, but if that includes the courtyard that is similar to a backyard in a residential property and there can be a high occupancy on that use. Hennes noted that he was present at the Board of Adjustment meeting where the Carlsons said the primary use of the house is a residence. MOTION: Walker moved to uphold the decision of the Fire Chief as it relates to the requirements of the turnaround, the requirements of the width of the street, and the requirements of the minimum fire flow. Gay seconded the motion. VOTE: the motion was carried by a vote of 5-0. Roffman adjourned the meeting at 6:36 15 PRELIMINARY Chairperson, Board of Appeals Date Board of Appeals Attendance Record 2016 NAME TERM EXPIRES Jan -16 Feb -16 Mar -16 Apr -16 May -16 Jun -16 Jul -16 Aug -16 Sep -16 16 -Oct 16 -Nov 16 -Dec NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM Andrea French 12/31/2017 X X John Roffman 12/31/2017 X X Scott McDonough 12/31/2016 X X John Gay 12/31/2018 O/E X Jim Walker 12/31/2018 X I X KEY X = present O = absent O/E = absent/excused NM = No meeting _= not a member X` = present by phone DRAFT COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — December 15, 2016 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:45 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Monique Green, Mazahir Salih, Orville Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Donald King STAFF PRESENT: Kellie Fruehling, Staff and Patrick Ford, Legal Counsel STAFF ABSENT: None . OTHERS PRESENT: Interim Chief of Police Bill Campbell of the ICPD RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Salih, seconded by Green, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 11/07/16 • Minutes of the meeting on 11/15/16 Motion carried, 4/0, King absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Campbell informed the Board of the January 23rd start date for the new Police Chief Jody Matherly. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Salih, seconded by Green to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, King absent. Open session adjourned at 5:47 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:22 P.M. IWOO December 15, 2016 Page 2 Motion by Green; seconded by Salih to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint #16-05 and to 8-8-7 (13)(1)(a), On the record with no additional investigation. Motion carried, 4/0, King absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) •January 10, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm •February 14, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm .March 14, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm .April 11, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Salih, seconded by Green. Motion carried, 4/0, King absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:26 P.M. COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2015-2016 (Meeting Date) KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member TERM 1/20 1/25 2/17 4/12 4/26 5/18 5/23 6/7 8/17 9/13 10/1 11/7 11/15 12/1: NAME EXP. 1 Joseph 9/1/17 X X X NM X O/E X X X X X X X X Treloar Mazahir 9/1/17 O X O NM X X O/E O/E X X O X O X Salih Donald 9/1/19 X X O NM X X X X O/E X O/E O/E O/E O/E King Monique 7/1/20 --- --- -- -- --- --- --- --- X X X X X X Green Orville 7/1/20 --- --- --- -- --- --- --- -- X X X X X X Townsend Melissa 9/1/16 X X X NM X X X X — -- -- Jensen Royceann 9/1/16 X X X NM X X X O --- -- --- --- --- Porter KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member