Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-01-12 Info PacketIPI Council Tentative Meeting Schedule ........................ ------ =71' � - — ------------------------------------ JANUARY 17 WORK SESSION MISCELLANEOUS 0 111111�1�!Ijlilj I I [ortl 111111111 111 1 11 il!!�; ii =-BML��Ffii IP9 Neighborhood and Development Services/Economic Development information: City Projeci in First Avenue — Iowa City Marketplace area IP12 Civil Service Entrance Examination: Recreation Program Supervisor — Special & Undeserved Populations mmfln���- •IgIINT- =-,, m7wair-1 Email from Mayor Throgmorton: Briefing about Mann Elementary [Distributed as late handout on 1117117] DRAFT MINUTES II rf-TNIT-W, = kommirsul ,Janua 112, 2017 nnr tn Ik ntinued —2 a = I 14sou .p® CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA ITY www.icgov.org January 12, 2017 17 1�41 I 0 R, Y-11 Z t I IP3 Work Session .g. ,.I" IP4 Memo from City Manager: IP5 Pending Work Session Topics IP6 Submitted by Mayor Pro tern Bot), IP7 Article from City Manager: MicWJ- IP8 Article from City Manager: B ffalo Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service, January 16 banned banning plastic bags 0 s it City to Bid Minimum Parking Goodbye IP9 Neighborhood and Develo ent Services/Ec nomic Development information: City Projects I n First Avenue - Iowa Ity Marketplace are IP10 Copy of Press Releas ® Mayor's Winter Walk n January 12, 2016 IP111 Memo from Asst. Cit Attorney to it Adams: Ame ican Tax! Cab response IP12 Civil Service E rance Examination: Recreation Program Supervisor - Special & Undeserved P ulations IP13 Bar Check port - December 2016 IP14 Board of Adjustment: December 14 IP15 Board of Appeals: January 9 IP16 Community Police Review Board: January 1,1' r 4 ot CITY OF IOWA CITY Date City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1 Subject to changeMMJ January 12, 2017 Time Meeting Location 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 4:00 PM Reception Penn Elementary 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting 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 OFFICE OF THE IOWA CITY ASSESSOR JOHNSON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING January 11, 2017 Dear Conference Board Member: BRADCOMER ASSESSOR MARTY BURKLE CHIEF DEPUTY MARY PAUSTIAN DEPUTY The annual meeting of the Iowa City Conference Board for the consideration of the Iowa City Assessor's FY 2018 budget is scheduled for Tuesday, January 17, 2016 at 5:OOP.M. at the Iowa City Civic Center. Enclosed for your review before the meeting are: 1. The Agenda. 2. A copy of the February 16, 2016 minutes. 3. The Proposed Budget. 4. Annual performance review responses provided to the Assessor Evaluation Committee (completed by the Assessor) 5. A salary survey. 6. The 2017 Iowa City Assessor's Annual Report. There is an increase in the amount to be raised by the Assessment Expense Fund from last year's amount. The increase consists of: a. $ 11,398 for a 2.25 percent COLA increase in salaries. b. $ 9,366 for merit increases. c. $ 750 for a step increase (appraiser — new construction) d. $ 1,646 for an increase in FICA. e. $ 1,921 for an increase in IPERS. f. $ 18,665 for an increase in health insurance. g. $ 3,000 for an increase to the auto replacement reserve fund. h. 200 for an increase in dues. $ 46,946 Total Increase This increase is offset by the following decrease: a. $ 5,200 to decrease postage, an alternate year expense b. $ 3,500 to decrease printing, an alternate year expense c. 10,000 to decrease aerial photography $ 18,700 Total Decrease $ 28,246 Net Increase 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET • IOWA CITY IOWA 52240 TELEPHONE 319-356-6066 The Assessment Expense Fund levy rate will change from 0.24339 to 0.25141. The increase for salaries is based on a 2.25 percent cost of living increase. County compensation board recommendations and estimates for other local taxing bodies appear to be in the two to three percent range. The enclosed salary survey indicates that our salaries fall below those of the most comparable assessment jurisdictions in Iowa. The City Assessor Evaluation Committee met on January 4, 2017 and recommended a 4% increase to the assessor salary (cost of living and merit included). Merit increases allow step increases similar to the pay plans used by the city, the county and the schools. There is an increase of $750 to an appraiser position. Both appraiser positions receive much less in pay than comparable positions in the Johnson County Assessor's office. The increases above are also reflected in FICA and IPERS. The largest increase is for health insurance due to a projected increase in rates for the next fiscal year. Postage and printing were decreased because 2018 will not be a reassessment year and we will not be mailing assessment rolls to all property owners. Dues were increased by $200 because of increasing costs. Aerial photography was decreased by $10,000 after determining what our actual share of the cost will be. The overall cost is shared with other departments and agencies. The auto replacement reserve fund was increased by $3,000. This account builds by $3,000 per year and carries over until a new car is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions about individual items or wish to see any of the supporting documents for this budget. Sincerely, Brad Comer Iowa City Assessor bcomer@coJohnson.ia.us (319)356-6066 JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA CITY IOWA CITY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY SCHOOLBOARD The Iowa City Conference Board Agenda Tuesday, January 17, 2017 5:00 PA A. Call meeting to order by the Chairperson (Mayor). B. Roll call by taxing body. C. Motion to approve minutes of February 16, 2016 Conference Board meeting. Action: D. FY 18 Budget Comment — The purpose of this meeting is to set a date for a public hearing on the Iowa City Assessor's proposed budget for FY 2018. 1. Assessor presents proposed budget (included in packet) 2. Discuss proposed budget. (Possible closed session, pursuant to Iowa Code Section 21.5(1)(i), to evaluate the professional competency of individuals whose appointment, hiring, performance, or discharge is being considered. A motion must be made to adjourn to executive session.) 3. Motion to approve publication on proposed budget. Action: E. Motion to set date for public hearing. (Suggested date: February 21, 2017) Action: F. Motion to appoint Michael Kennedy as Examining Board member (Board of Supervisors representative) Action: G. Other business. H. Adjournment. Action: The Conference Board votes as three voting units, with a majority of the members present for each unit determining the unit's vote. At least two members of a voting unit must be present in order to vote. A quorum is reached when at least two members from two units are present. IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD MINUTES February 16, 2016 City Conference Board: February 16, 2016 at 5:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at the Iowa City City Hall, Mayor Jim Throgmorton presiding. Iowa City Council Members Present: Botchway, Cole, Dickens, Mims, Taylor, Thomas and Throgmorton. Johnson County Supervisors Present: Carberry, Green -Douglass and Sullivan. Iowa City School Board Members Present: None. Others Present: Burkle, Comer, Paustian, Fruin, Karr and Dulek. Digital Recording: February 16, 2016. Chair Jim Throgmorton called the meeting to order and Clerk Comer called roll and stated that a quorum was present. The County (Sullivan) moved to accept the minutes of the last Conference Board meeting, January 19, 2016, the City (Dickens) seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Throgmorton declared the public hearing on the FY17 Budget open. After no comment from the public, the public hearing was declared closed. The City (Dickens) moved to accept the proposed budget as published in the Iowa City Press -Citizen on February 2, 2016, the County (Sullivan) seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Clerk Comer explained that there are openings on the Examining Board for the School and County. The Examining Board is not expected to meet this year. The School and County will look to fill the vacancies and appoint them at the next Conference Board meeting. There being no further business, the majority agreed to adjourn at 5:05 P.M. Brad Comer Clerk, Iowa City Conference Board IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ITEMIZED BUDGET - ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES FY 2017 FY2018 INCREASE SALARIES Current Proposed CITY ASSESSOR 104,500 108,680 4.00% CHIEF DEPUTY ASSESSOR 90,350 94,077 4.13% DEPUTY ASSESSOR 83,850 87,309 4.13% OTHER PERSONNEL 227,900 238,048 4.45% STEP INCREASE (APPRAISER - NEW CONSTRUCTION) - (750) MERIT INCREASES (have been added to salades above) (9,096 SUBTOTAL $506,600 $528,114 4.25% Proposed salaries Include merit increases, cast of living adjustments and a step increase. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EMPLOYER SHARE: FICA 41,581 43,227 3.96% EMPLOYER SHARE: IPERS 48,526 50,447 3.96% HEALTH INSURANCE 130,980 149,645 14.259/o SUBTOTAL 221,087 243,319 10.06% TOTAL EMPLOYEE COST $727,687 $771,433 6.01% OTHER EXPENDITURES LEAVE CONTINGENCY $20,000 $20,000 0.00% BOARDS BOARD OF REVIEW 16,800 16,800 0.00% BOARD OF REVIEW EXPENSES 200 200 0.00% CONFERENCE BOARD 0 0 EXAMINING BOARD 30 30 0.00% SUBTOTAL $17,030 $17,030 0.00% OFFICE EXPENSES MILEAGE & AUTO 4,500 4,500 0.00% OFFICE SUPPLIES 3,500 3,500 0.00% POSTAGE 7,200 2,000 -72.22% TELEPHONE 1,300 1,300 0.00% PUBLICATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS 700 700 0.00% PRINTING 5,000 1,500 -70.00% INSURANCE 4,600 4,600 0.00% EQUIPMENT PURCHASE 3,400 3,400 0.00% EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 200 200 0.00% UNEMPLOYMENT 2,000 2,000 0.00% DATA PROCESSING SERVICES 18,000 18,000 0.00% SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 18,000 18,000 0.00% BONDS & WORKER'S COMPENSATION 1,700 1,700 0.00% COMPUTER REPLACEMENT 2,500 2,500 0.00% SUBTOTAL $72,600 $63,900 -11.98% PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES SCHOOLS & CONFERENCES 13,500 13,500 0.00% DUES 2,200 2,400 9.09% SUBTOTAL $15,700 $15,900 1.27% TECHNICAL SERVICES LEGAL FEES & EXPERT WITNESSES 52,000 52,000 0.00% AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 20,000 10,000 -50.00% APPRAISAL SERVICE 1,000 1,000 0.00% SUBTOTAL $73,000 $63,000 -13.70% TOTAL OTHER EXPENDITURES $198,330 $179,830 -9.33% SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $926,017 $951,263 RESERVES AUTO REPLACEMENT 6,000 9,000 TOTAL RESERVES $ 6,000 IS 91000 TOTAL ASSMT EXPENSE FUND BUDGET $932,017 $960,263 3.03% UNENCUMBERED BALANCE $127,918 $100,280 -21.61% TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION $804,099 $859,983 6.95% IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE MAXIMUM LEVY ALLOWED MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND 3,420,640,212 X.000675 $2,308,932 IPERS & FICA FUNDS $93,674 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION & TORT LIABILITY $4,000 MAXIMUM ALLOWED WITHOUT STATE APPROVAL $2,406,606 MAXIMUM EMERGENCY FUND 3,420,640,212 X .00027 $923,573 (requires State Appeal Board approval) MAXIMUM THAT COULD BE RAISED BY TAXATION FOR FY 2018 $3,330,179 PRIOR YEARS LEVIES AND RATES ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND SPECIAL APPRAISERS FUND TOTAL LEVY FY AMOUNT LEVIED LEVY RATE AMOUNT LEVIED LEVY RATE 1996-97 319,513 0.20450 17,000 0.01088 0.21538 1997-98 318,270 0.19946 52,834 0.03311 0.23257 1998-99 318,699 0.19269 184,357 0.11146 0.30415 1999-00 341,910 0.19784 352,508 0.20398 0.40182 2000-01 359,341 0.19823 180,293 0.09946 0.29769 2001-02 396,829 0.20636 6,442 0.00335 0.20971 2002-03 403,136 0.20694 4,426 0.00227 0.20921 2003-04 412,379 0.20818 10,051 0.00507 0.21325 2004-05 470,398 0.22926 15,728 0.00767 0.23693 2005-06 472,050 0.22525 25,995 0.01240 0.23765 2006-07 529,702 0.23164 0 0 0.23164 2007-08 603,916 0.25868 4,792 0.00205 0.26073 2008-09 611,955 0.24917 1,540 0.00063 0.24980 2009-10 600,013 0.23848 0 0 0.23848 2010-11 621,785 0.23147 8,730 0.00325 0.23472 2011-12 680,786 0.24538 2,608 0.00094 0.24632 2012-13 700,997 0.24164 8,384 0.00289 0.24453 2013-14 769,744 0.25873 N/A N/A 0.25873 2014-15 732,073 0.23866 N/A N/A 0.23866 2015-16 754,689 0.24325 N/A N/A 0.24325 2016-17 804,099 0.24339 N/A N/A 0.24339 2017-18 859,983 0.25141 N/A N/A 0.25141 IOWA CITY ASSESSORS ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW Conducted January 2017 (Completed by the Iowa City Assessor) Assessors Name: Brad Comer Date of Review: January 4, 2017 Has the assessor adequately performed all duties as required by the Iowa Code § 441 and as outlined in the assessor's job description? Yes, I have performed the duties as required in the code. Much of the credit goes to our veteran, knowledgeable staff who allows our office to operate in a very efficient manner. Has the assessor complied with all applicable Iowa City and Johnson County policies and procedures? Yes, we have complied with those policies and procedures. We follow the Johnson County Employee Handbook. What is Iowa City's ranking on the most recent state listing of Coefficients of Dispersion? Also list any other related data, awards, classes or recognitions. The Coefficient of Dispersion (COD) is a measure of the average deviation from the median of selling price to assessment ratios, with a low ratio considered good. Iowa City was ranked first in the state with a residential COD of 7.30. The median of the 107 assessment jurisdictions was 20.65. Those statistics are from a Department of Revenue study of the 2015 sales. The 2015 commercial sales show that we are ranked 101h overall with a COD of 13.13, but we have the lowest COD among jurisdictions with at least 10 sales. Based on the FYE 2017 budget, our office has the 41h lowest assessor levy rate in Iowa. The Iowa City Assessor levy is .24339, while the median across all 107 assessing jurisdictions is .45000. During the past year I attended two 30 hour, tested classes from the International Association of Assessing Officers (LAAO). IAAO Course 300 — Fundamentals of Mass Appraisal and Course 400 — Assessment Administration. These courses moved me closer to earning an IAAO designation. I currently hold the Iowa Certified Assessor (ICA) designation, which is awarded by the Institute of Iowa Certified Assessors. I also attended a few conferences, which offered a wider range of educational sessions. In my time as a Deputy Assessor, I served on numerous committees for the Iowa State Association of Assessors (ISAA). I am also a past president of the East Central District of Assessors (ECD). As a fairly new Assessor, I have chosen not to serve on a committee while I focus on our office. List any pertinent input (anonymously) from the assessor's staff, the community and/or the Review Board regarding the assessor's performance. I have not received complaints from the public, the community, the Board of Review or the staff. I would encourage you to talk with anyone who may interact with our office. We take great pride in being very responsive to any requests, as well as being fair and understanding when dealing with property owners. Review previous goals and objectives: 1. Continue in-house appraisal of all single family residential properties in Iowa City with a goal of 1500 properties visited by 06/30/2016. In progress. By 6/30/2016, we were at 1014 properties, which is short of our goal. Our newest appraiser will continue to work on improving his numbers. We will consider assigning others to assist for a short time to accomplish this goal. We also monitor real estate listings on-line and have been able to gain valuable information that our office may not have previously been aware of. 2. Request income and expenses for income type properties. Increase the weight of our income approach on apartments from 33% of the value to 66% for the 2017 assessments. Income and expense forms were sent to commercial and multiresidential property owners. We received a limited response, but feel that we obtained good information. We also monitor rental websites to monitor market rents. At this time, we will probably settle at a 50/50 ratio of income approach and cost approach on our apartment properties for 2017 assessments. 3. Send out Business Property Tax Credit applications to all eligible owners who have not signed up yet. We sent out applications to all who were not yet signed up in January 2016. We will now send applications anytime a property changes ownership. Approximately 94% of eligible parcels are currently signed up. 4. Create GIS maps for geographic display of sales data and property features. Our GIS/Mapping Specialist has this working for us internally. We have not made it available to the public yet. 5. Continue to cross train employees to allow our office to better assist the public in answering questions and to create efficiencies within the office. In progress. Our GIS/Mapping Specialist has been trained to input residential sketches, as well as input property split information into our appraisal software. The office manager now has the appraisal software (Camavision) on her computer and is learning more of its functions. The Second Deputy has been inspecting some of the commercial building permits. The Chief Deputy and office manager worked with me on the office budget. 6. Analyze all residential land assessments and revalue them for 2017 assessment. Most land on the east side was reviewed and some west side neighborhoods received land adjustments. We will continue to revalue land in shorter intervals than what we have done in the past. List goals, objectives and areas of concern for the coming year: I. Continue in-house appraisal of all single family residential properties in Iowa City with a goal of 1500 properties visited by 6/30/2017. Assign additional employees if necessary. 2. Focus in-house appraisal on areas with the highest Coefficient of Dispersion. 3. Continue to cross train employees to allow our office to better assist the public in answering questions and to create efficiencies within the office. 4. Work with Iowa City Neighborhood and Development Services to receive zoning information that we could incorporate into our maps for internal analysis. Employee Comments pertaining to this review: Signed: Signed: 4**####### Date: I /11/17 Date: 11V11 -7 Reviewed by Human Resources Human Resources Director Date 0102 0706 0809 0910 1011 1112 1213 1314 1415 1516 1617 %RAISE %RAISE %RAISE SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY 1 YEAR 5 YEAR 16 YEAR THIS LIST INCLUDES THE TOP 19 HIGHEST PAID ASSESSOR POSITIONS IN IOWA. 2001-02 JOHNSON AND IOWA CITY HAD NEW ASSESSORS STARTING WITH A SIMILAR RATE 2016.17 JOHNSON AND IOWA CITY HAD NEW ASSESSORS WITH 12.44% DIFFERENCE 125,157 79,959 97,769 102,169 107,276 110,500 113,938 116,662 R RAPIDS 74,378 97,624 101,067 104,099 106,181 109,328 114,015 1WATTAMIE 74,764 93,239 97,435 100,845 102,862 104,919 108,067 9ON 63,500 89,000 92,500 95,470 97,500 99,455 101,616 Y 69,300 90,040 97,500 97,500 100,425 102,435 104,485 VPORT 67,836 82,726 88,930 92,043 94,803 97,648 97,189 1S 57,200 78,565 81,315 83,770 85,450 87,150 88,904 95,764 65,472 81,084 84,125 87,069 89,246 91,477 93,581 CITY 63,340 81,190 84,440 87,060 89,500 91,510 94,970 D GORDO 66,000 80,500 85,000 88,000 89,500 89,500 91,740 E 2.25% WA N/A 94,280 96,166 99,060 102,280 ATINE 66,432 80,900 84,785 87,557 87,557 89,309 91,540 DUE CITY 66,083 81,907 84,364 87,317 87,317 87,317 89,937 (HAWK 66,200 83,100 85,600 87,320 87,320 88,630 90,420 DUE COUNTY 62,500 78,242 80,589 83,410 83,410 83,410 85,912 CITY 68,294 81,553 81,553 84,000 84,000 84,840 86,537 (BURY 63,600 79,300 83,260 85,760 85,760 87,050 89,660 f 62,666 82,083 84,751 87,506 89,256 91,486 93,316 THIS LIST INCLUDES THE TOP 19 HIGHEST PAID ASSESSOR POSITIONS IN IOWA. 2001-02 JOHNSON AND IOWA CITY HAD NEW ASSESSORS STARTING WITH A SIMILAR RATE 2016.17 JOHNSON AND IOWA CITY HAD NEW ASSESSORS WITH 12.44% DIFFERENCE 125,157 127,974 131,493 135,437 3.00% 10.71% 44.29% 120,322 123,943 127,668 131,300 2.840A 15.24% 64.21% 117,171 120,083 122,484 125,546 2.50% 14.83% 68.79% 111,307 115,087 118,155 123,526 4.55% 17.73% 65.22% 106,976 111,297 114,640 117,506 2.50% 18.15% 85.05% 106,575 108,705 111,670 116,150 4.01% 13.39% 67.60% 98,160 100,756 104,453 106,135 1.61% 8.69% 56.46% 91,572 93,403 102,650 105,730 3.00% 21.32% 84.84% 95,764 99,563 102,550 105,622 3.00% 15.46% 61.32% 99,010 103,340 100,000 104,500 4.50% 14.20% 64.98% 93,800 97,590 100,540 103,575 3.02% 15.73% 56.93% 93,380 95,719 100,724 102,990 2.25% WA N/A 94,280 96,166 99,060 102,280 3.25% 14.52% 53.96% 92,635 95,414 98,276 101,224 3.00% 15.93% 53.18% 92,457 95,004 97,854 100,790 3.00% 13.72% 52.25% 88,489 91,144 93,878 100,413 6.96% 20.38% 60.66% 91,000 93,730 96,073 98,955 3.00% 16.64% 44.90% 94,080 97,840 95,000 97,850 3.00% 12.41% 53.85% 95,183 97.087 99,890 96.000 -3.89% 4.93% 53.19% 1ST DEPUTY 126,371 105,066 108,467 98,821 99,435 92,920 94,551 89,870 94,598 90,350 82,865 58,886 69,500 81,767 70,550 84,676 84,682 78,280 JURISDICTION STAFF Value 2015 Taxable Taxable Value Per Employee 2016 COMPARISON OF OFFICES Taxes Population Budgeted Budget Per of 2015 Employee Jurisdiction Population Per Employee 2016.17 Assessment Expense Levy Taxes Per Capita Residential COD 2015 Commercial COD 2015 Yrs In Office Appralsel Experience POLK COUNTY 36 $20,578 $ 572 $ 6,575,953 $ 182,665 430,640 11,962 0.27220 $15.27 13.88 19.51 2 36 AMES 6 $2,605 $ 434 $ 1,099,979 $ 183,330 56,657 9,443 0.39544 $19.41 10.27 28.5 10 29 CEDAR RAPIDS 15 $6,019 $ 401 $ 2,291,944 $ 152,796 127,746 8,516 0.34474 $17.94 12.9 24.96 9 32 POTTAWATTAMIE 13 $4,686 $ 360 $ 1,757,355 $ 135,181 93,158 7,166 0.33719 $18.86 19.58 37.49 6 30 JOHNSON 10 $3,694 $ 369 $ 1,409,637 $ 140,964 61,796 6,180 0.29377 $22.81 7.84 13.38 1 25 STORY 7 $1,507 $ 215 $ 801,677 $ 114,525 32,885 4,698 0.49755 $24.38 10.57 17.85 38 43 DAVENPORT 12 $4,038 $ 337 $ 1,441,372 $ 120,114 101,335 8,445 0.31859 $14.22 15.54 29.83 3 25 DALLAS 12 $4,677 $ 390 $ 1,675,157 $ 139,596 66,135 5,511 0.32072 $25.33 9.71 18.61 13 23 LINN 12 $4,044 $ 337 $ 1,592,271 $ 132,689 83,480 6,957 0.32149 $19.07 8.94 21.09 8 33 IOWA CITY 7 $3,349 $ 478 $ 926,017 $ 132,288 69,086 9,869 0.24339 $13.40 7.3 13.13 2 21 CERRO GORDO 5 $1,363 $ 273 $ 1,117,513 $ 223,503 16,875 3,375 0.55743 $66.22 13.27 38.01 36 39 BOONE 6 $1,274 $ 212 $ 658,646 $ 109,774 26,306 4,384 0.47082 $25.04 18.43 79.96 10 28 MUSCATINE 6 $1,890 $ 315 $ 778,120 $ 129,687 42,745 7,124 0.40260 $18.20 13.21 26.33 24 38 DUBUQUE CITY 6 $2,363 $ 394 $ 786,975 $ 131,163 57,241 9,540 0.25816 $13.75 12.53 23.14 15 37 BLACKHAWK 14 $5,101 $ 364 $ 1,604,582 $ 114,613 131,090 9,364 0.28545 $12.24 15.28 29.63 2 16 DUBUQUE CO. 6 $1,993 $ 332 $ 712,380 $ 116,730 36,412 6,069 0.33113 $19.56 11.99 11.89 11 36 SIOUX CITY 8 $2,500 $ 312 $ 1,107,492 $ 138,437 82,903 10,363 0.42001 $13.36 16.87 29.77 20 25 WOODBURY 5 $1,426 $ 285 $ 687,930 $ 137,586 19,269 3,854 0.42081 $35.70 18.23 27.06 2 23 SCOTT 8 $3,951 $ 494 $ 1,429,995 $ 178,749 63,889 7,986 0.23792 $22.38 11.2 28.27 1 12 Iowa City Rank 11 MILLIONS MILLIONS YEARS MEDIAN 8 $ 3,349 $360 $1,117,513 $135,181 63,889 7 OF THESE 19 JURISDICTIONS HAVE AN ASSESSOR WITH 3 YEARS OR LESS IN THE POSITION. IOWA CITY HAS THE SECOND LOWEST ASSESSOR LEVY RATE ON THE LIST. TAXES BUDGETED FOR THE OFFICE DIVIDED BY 2010 POPULATION SHOWS IOWA CITY AT THE THIRD LOWEST AMOUNT. POPULATION NUMBERS ARE BASED ON 2010 CENSUS IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 2016 ANNUAL REPORT [AS�E'� �� I' =--- �� ASSESSOR REVIEW it I OWA CITY ASSESSOR Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report Contents 2016-2017 IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD................................................................. 2 IOWACITY CITY COUNCIL............................................................................................. 2 IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD................................................................... 2 JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.......................................................... 2 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FINANCE......................................................... 2 OTHER BOARDS AND SUPPORT STAFF......................................................................... 3 IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE STAFF..................................................................... 3 IOWA CITY BOARD OF REVIEW..................................................................................... 3 IOWA CITY EXAMINING BOARD..................................................................................... 3 LEGALCOUNSEL............................................................................................................ 3 ANNUALREPORT............................................................................................................... 4 MISSIONSTATEMENT.................................................................................................... 4 GOALS.............................................................................................................................. 4 OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................... 4 VALUATIONS................................................................................................................... 5 COURTCASES................................................................................................................ 5 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD................................................................ 5 BOARD OF REVIEW........................................................................................................ 6 EQUITY VERSUS MARKET IN ASSESSMENT............................................................... 6 WEBPAGE....................................................................................................................... 6 ROLLBACKS..................................................................................................................... 6 NEWLEGISLATION......................................................................................................... 6 CONTINUINGEDUCATION............................................................................................. 7 ASSESSMENTDATA.......................................................................................................... 8 2016 ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR IOWA CITY ................................................ 8 EXEMPT PROPERTY IN IOWA CITY FOR 2016............................................................. 8 VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED .................................................. 9 COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL VALUES TO TOTAL ASSESSED AND TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE ................................................... 11 2015 TOP REAL ESTATE TAXPAYERS........................................................................ 12 COMPARISON OF TAX RATES TO CITIES WITH A CITY ASSESSOR ....................... 13 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS................................................................................ 13 RESIDENTIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.......................................................... 13 COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS......................................................... 15 HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICS....................................................... 15 1 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report 2016-2017 IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL 2017 Council Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Kingsley Botchway II, Mayor Pro Tem Susan Mims. Rockne Cole Terry Dickens Pauline Taylor John Thomas IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD 2016-17 School Board Chris Lynch, President *LaTasha DeLoach, Vice President Brian Kirschling *Phil Hemingway Chris Liebig Lori Roetlin Paul Roesler *Conference Board Designee *"Alternate Conference Board Designee 2016 Council Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Kingsley Botchway II, Mayor Pro Tem Susan Mims Rockne Cole Terry Dickens Pauline Taylor John Thomas 2015-16 School Board Chris Lynch, President Brian Kirschling, Vice President *LaTasha DeLoach Phil Hemingway *Chris Liebig Lori Roetlin Tom Yates JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 2017 Board 2016 Board Janelle Rettig, Chairperson Rod Sullivan, Chairperson Mike Carberry, Vice Chairperson Janelle Rettig, Vice Chairperson Kurt Friese Mike Carberry Rod Sullivan Pat Harney Lisa Green -Douglass Lisa Green -Douglass IOWA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FINANCE Courtney M. Kay -Decker— Director, Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance 2 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report OTHER BOARDS AND SUPPORT STAFF IOWA CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE STAFF Brad Comer — Iowa City Assessor Marty Burkle — Chief Deputy Assessor Mary Paustian — Deputy Assessor Mark Fed ler — AppraiserlClerk Diane Campbell — Accounting Clerk Todd Kruse — Real Estate Clerk Rick Inman — Appraiser IOWA CITY BOARD OF REVIEW Dave Hintze, Chairperson Phoebe Martin Ernie Galer Sara Meierotto Chuck McComas IOWA CITY EXAMINING BOARD Karin Franklin for Iowa City Vacant for Johnson County Chace Ramey for Iowa City Schools LEGAL COUNSEL Eleanor Dilkes — City Attorney Eric Goers — Assistant City Attorney 3 Date of Employment: 14 Jan, 2002 Appointed 2015 thru 2019 (remainder of prior assessor's appointment) Date of Employment: 01 Feb, 2006 Hired as Chief Deputy 9 Mar, 2015 Date of Employment: 05 Jan, 2011 Hired as Deputy 8 June, 2015 Date of Employment: 20 Jun, 1994 Date of Employment: 16 Feb, 1998 Date of Employment: 14 May, 2001 Date of Employment: 22 June, 2015 Appointed 2013 through 2018 Appointed 2015 through 2020 Appointed 2012 through 2017 Appointed 2016 through 2021 Appointed 2014 through 2019 Appointed 2012 through 2017 Appointed 2013 through 2018 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report ANNUAL REPORT To: Members of the Iowa City Assessor's Conference Board From: Brad Comer — Iowa City Assessor Subject: 2016 Annual Report — Issued December 31, 2016 The following report covers the activities of this office from January 1, 2016 to date of issue. MISSION STATEMENT The purpose of the Iowa City Assessor's Office is to find, list and value for tax purposes, all real property in Iowa City and maintain records for all parcels in Iowa City. GOALS To establish values according to Iowa law on all commercial, industrial, agricultural, residential and multi -residential property within the City of Iowa City; to achieve equitable assessments across all classes of property based on actual physical aspects of the property and all pertinent sales data available; to improve the efficiency by which these assessments are made; to provide prompt and courteous response to all inquiries for information. 1. Receive calls and inquiries and dispense information efficiently and in a timely manner. 2. Complete all daily record changes and related duties as they are received. 3. On a quarterly basis, inspect and review all new construction and demolition, and make final review of said construction and demolition by January 1 every year. 4. Notify all new homeowners of potential eligibility for the homestead and military credits by July 1 every year. 5. Notify all owners of commercial and industrial property of potential eligibility for the business property tax credit (BPTC) by July 1 every year. 6. Remove all homestead exemptions, military credits and business property tax credits from the permanent file for those who are no longer eligible to receive the credit by July 1 every year. 7. Efficiently process all other new and routine annual filings, making sure they are in compliance with all laws and rules, and filed by their statutory dates. 8. Send out assessment notices to all properties requiring assessment notices, by April 1 st every year. 9. Accept formal written protests for the Board of Review from April 2nd to April 30th, inclusive, every year and coordinate the Board of Review meetings during the month of May. 10. Receive and review tentative equalization orders from the State Department of Revenue and Finance in August of reassessment years. 11. Receive final equalization orders by October 1 of reassessment years. 12. Accept formal written protests for the Board of Review Special Session from October 9 thru October 31 inclusive of reassessment year and coordinate the Board of Review Special Session from October 10 to November 15 of reassessment years, if needed. 13. Prepare and distribute the annual report by December 31 every year. 14. Hold preliminary Conference Board and public hearings to adopt the annual budget by March 15 every year. 15. Prepare and submit annual abstract to the Department of'Revenue & Finance by July 1 every year. Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report 16. Maintain assessment information on website at htto://iowacitv.iowaassessors.com and make improvements based on input from the public. The site went online February 15, 2001 and has over 2 million hits since that time. 17. Provide online access to application forms for Homestead Credits, Military Exemptions, Commercial Property Tax Credits, Charitable Exemptions, Business Property Tax Credits, and Board of Review petition forms which are available on our Johnson County website at htto://www. ioh nson-cou ntv.Com 18. Review sales as they occur and compare selling price to assessments. 19. Review selling price/assessment ratios by neighborhood, age, size, building type and other relevant criteria. 20. Make adjustments to assessed value as indicated by the sales review and land value review at least every 2 years. 21. Physically inspect properties with selling price -to -assessment ratios outside acceptable standards. 22. Utilize GIS for quality control of assessment data and analysis of valuation. 23. Update recording information (book & page) on our website for older sales. 24. Maintain recently completed in-house re -appraisal of all Commercial properties in Iowa City. 25. Annually inspect/re-appraise 10% of residential properties in Iowa City. 26. Continue to cross -train employees for tasks or skills that are outside their specific job descriptions. VALUATIONS Although 2016 was not a real estate revaluation year, some revaluation occurs each year as part of our ongoing reassessment efforts, especially in residential property. Residential new construction added approximately $97 million and revaluation about $23 million. Commercial new construction added approximately $18 million and revaluation added about $7 million. There was $7 million of Multi residential new construction and $500 thousand of revaluation. 1073 residential deed sales in 2016 give us a median ratio (assessed value/sale price) of 91.57% compared to 93.83% for 999 sales in 2015 at the time of sale. This tells us that the selling prices of homes have increased since last year and the number of sales has also seen an increase. It should be kept in mind that when a jurisdiction is at the State mandated sales ratio level of 100%, a full one-half of home sales will be for less than the assessed value. Sales for less than the assessed value tend to result in appeals to the Board of Review. COURT CASES There were not any new appeals filed in District Court in 2016. There are still 3 Hy -Vee appeals from previous years that are scheduled to be heard in 2017. PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD There were two commercial properties appealed to PAAB for 2016 and both were dismissed. Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report BOARD OF REVIEW The Board of Review was in session from May 1 through May 31, the day of adjournment. 218 protests were filed, with 6 being upheld and 212 denied. The total value of real estate being protested was $89,100,720. The Board allowed a total reduction of $2,099,650. EQUITY VERSUS MARKET IN ASSESSMENT It is difficult to be both equitable among assessments and in tune with the market. Similar properties do not always sell for similar prices, so the market is not always equitable and sometimes a long way from it. Most assessors would lean toward equity if they could choose between the two. Our first priority is equity since it is not always possible to have every assessment match the selling price. Our statistics show that we are doing a good job in this regard. WEB PAGE The Iowa City Assessor's web page went online during the spring of 2001. Internet availability of comparable sales and comparable assessments has been very helpful to taxpayers concerned about the fairness of their assessments. Links are also provided to the Johnson County Treasurer for tax information and to the Johnson County GIS for online maps and aerial photography. We continue to look for ways to get more of our information accessible online and to increase the ability to query our data. In recent years, historical property record cards were added to our website. All of this has, and continues to reduce traffic at our counter, and frees up personnel to focus on our core function of equitable assessment of property. There have been over 2 million hits on our web site since it went online. It can be seen at http://iowacity.iowaassessors.com. We also have an internet presence through the Johnson County website at http://www.'ohnson-county.com. Electronic forms for the Homestead Credit, Military Exemption, Business Property Tax Credit, Charitable Exemptions, and Board of Review appeals are available to the public on this web page site. ROLLBACKS The residential rollback will go up from 55.6259%, for the current taxes, to 56.9391 % for taxes payable in 2017-2018. The rollback for agricultural property will increase from 46.1068% to 47.4996%. The commercial rollback will stay at 90% for the foreseeable future. Multi residential is a new class of property that started with the 2015 assessment year (taxes payable 2016-2017). This class of property will have a rollback of 82.5% for the 2016 assessment year (taxes payable 2017-2018) and continue to decrease until the 2022 assessment year, when it will equal the residential rollback. NEW LEGISLATION The 2016 Iowa Legislative Session did not produce any property tax law changes Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report CONTINUING EDUCATION Continuing education is a requirement for the assessor and deputies for re -appointment to their positions. Over a six-year term, assessors must complete one hundred -fifty hours of classroom instruction, including at least ninety hours from courses requiring a test. Deputies must complete ninety hours of classroom instruction, including at least sixty tested hours over their six-year terms. It is also beneficial for other employees to attend classes so they can update their skills and stay current with assessment practices. The Assessor attended the following courses and conferences during 2016: ISAC Spring School of Instruction (Iowa State Association of Counties) IAAO Course 400 — Assessment Administration (International Association of Assessing Officers) IAAO Course 300 — Fundamentals of Mass Appraisal IICA Summer Seminar and Workshop (Institute of Iowa Certified Assessors) ISAA Annual School of Instruction (Iowa State Association of Assessors) ]SAC Fall School of Instruction 6.00 C.E. Hrs. 30.00 C.E. Hrs. (Tested) 30.00 C.E. Hrs. (Tested) 12.50 C.E. Hrs. (7.0 tested) 11.75 C.E. Hrs. 6.50 C.E. Hrs. The Chief Deputy attended the following courses and conferences during 2016: ISAC Spring School of Instruction IAAO Course 400 — Assessment Administration (International Association of Assessing Officers) [ICA Summer Seminar and Workshop (Institute of Iowa Certified Assessors) ISAA Annual School of Instruction [SAC Fall School of Instruction 6.00 C.E Hrs. 30.00 C.E. Hrs.(Tested) 12.50 C.E. Hrs.(7.0 Tested) 11.75 C.E. Hrs. 6.50 C.E. Hrs. The Second Deputy attended the following courses and conferences during 2015: Basic Assessment Duties 15.00 C.E. Hrs. (Tested) NCRAAO Annual Conference (North Central 10.00 C.E. Hrs. (7 Tested) Regional Association of Assessing Officers) ISAA Annual School of Instruction 11.75 C.E. Hrs. Other staff attended classes and seminars related to operation and maintenance of various third party software utilized by the assessor's office. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My staff and I would like to thank the Conference Board, the Board of Review, the City Attorney and her assistants, and the City Staff along with Johnson County and the Iowa City School Board for their assistance, cooperation and confidence during the past year. I would also like to recognize and thank my staff at this time for their part in establishing and maintaining the professional standards of the office. 7 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report ASSESSMENT DATA 2016 ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR IOWA CITY Value of Agricultural Land and Structures Value of Residential Dwellings on Agricultural Realty Value of Residential Lots and Buildings Value of Commercial Lots and Buildings Value of Multi -Residential Lots and Buildings Value of Industrial Lots and Buildings Actual Value of All Real Estate* $3,484,890 $1,015,050 $4,012,070,900 $879,281,368 $420,708,451 $79,489,600 $5,396,050,259 *All of the above values are based on the 2016 abstract as reported to the Iowa Department of Revenue on July 13, 2016. The values for Railroad and Utility Property are supplied to the Auditor by the Iowa Department of Revenue. The taxable value of utilities and railroads in Iowa City for 2016 is $52,073,606. EXEMPT PROPERTY IN IOWA CITY FOR 2016 Religious Institutions Literary Societies & Educational Institutions Low Rent Housing Associations of War Veterans Charitable and Benevolent Societies Forest and Fruit Tree Partial Industrial, Urban. Revitalization, Recycling, Mobile Home Storm Shelter, Public TV & New Jobs, Geothermal, Historical Sub -Total University of Iowa (As Reported by U of I as of June 30, 2014) TOTALEXEMPT �3 $90,444,160 $6,024,640 $0 $564,960 $156,929,041 $1,300,480 $3,007,853 $258,271,134 $3,222,891,054 $3,481,162,188 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED STATE STATE ADJUSTED YEAR ORDER TYPE VALUE ROLLBACK VALUE 2016 Agricultural 3,484,890 47.4996 1,655,309 Ag Dwelling 1,015,050 56.9391 577,960 Residential 4,012,070,900 56.9391 2,284,437,062 Commercial 879,281,368 `*90.0000 791,353,231 Multi -Res 420,708,451 82.5000 347,084,472 Industrial 79,489,600 **90.0000 71,540,640 TOTAL $5,396,050,259 $3,496,648,674 2015* Agricultural 3,814,000 46.1068 1,758,513 Ag Dwelling 1,120,840 55.6259 623,477 Residential 3,893,910,250 55.6259 2,166,022,622 Commercial 859,076,798 **90.0000 773,169,118 Multi -Res 415,794,401 86.2500 358,622,670 Industrial 80,349,550 **90.0000 72,314,595 TOTAL $5,254,065,839 $3,372,510,995 2014 Agricultural 3,784,570 44.7021 1,691,782 Ag Dwelling 1,202,940 55.7335 670,440 Residential 3,616,765,260 55.7335 2,015,749,866 Commercial 1,158,203,990 **90.0000 1,042,383,591 Industrial 78,113,470 **90.0000 70,302,123 M&E 0 TOTAL $4,858,070,230 $3,130,797,802 2013* Agricultural 3,708,350 43.3997 1,609,413 Ag Dwelling 1,190,610 54.4002 647,694 Residential 3,494,886,480 54.4002 1,901,225,235 Commercial 1,160,168,050 **95.0000 1,102,159,648 Industrial 80,897,070 **95.0000 76,852,217 M & E 0 0 TOTAL $4,740,850,560 $3,082,494,207 2012 Agricultural 2,743,540 59.9334 1,644,297 Ag Dwelling 1,190,610 52.8166 628,840 Residential 3,371,349,260 52.8166 1,780,632,053 Commercial 1,122,041,780 1.000000 1,122,041,780 Industrial 78,576,040 1.000000 78,576,040 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,575,901,230 $2,983,523,010 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED - CONT'D The adjusted values given are not exact but are meant to give a representation of the growth of Iowa City's tax base. * Reassessment Year ** Commercial and Industrial Rollback Loss is to be replaced by State of Iowa. 10 STATE STATE ADJUSTED YEAR ORDER TYPE VALUE ROLLBACK VALUE 2011* +6.1% Agricultural 2,566,040 57.5411 1,476,528 Ag Dwelling 1,313,570 50.7518 666,660 Residential 3,264,269,180 50.7518 1,656,675,366 Commercial 1,182,516,370 1.000000 1,182,516,370 Industrial 80,153,050 1.000000 80,153,050 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,530,818,210 $2,921,487,974 2010 Agricultural 2,317,426 69.0152 1,599,376 Ag Dwelling 1,256,350 48.5299 609,705 Residential 3,182,677,000 48.5299 1,544,549,965 Commercial 1,170,960,470 1.000000 1,170,960,470 Industrial 81,786,730 1.000000 81,786,730 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,438,997,976 $2,799,506,246 2009* +62.6% Agricultural 2,382,167 .662715 1,578,698 Ag Dwelling 1,256,350 .469094 589,346 Residential 3,124,020,860 .469094 1,465,459,944 Commercial 1,170,461,470 1.000000 1,170,461,470 Industrial 81,979,330 1.000000 81,979,330 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,380,100,177 $2,720,068,788 2008 Agricultural 1,548,650 .938568 1,453,513 Ag Dwelling 1,244,640 .455893 567,423 Residential 3,089,020,200 .455893 1,408,262,686 Commercial 1,153,802,900 1.000000 1,153,802,900 Industrial 74,852,940 1.000000 74,852,940 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,320,469,330 $2,638,939,462 2007* +12% Agricultural 1,612,266 .901023 1,452,689 Ag Dwelling 1,244,640 .440803 548,641 Residential 3,010,144,280 .440803 1,326,880,629 Commercial 1,131,561,840 .997312 1,128,520,202 Industrial 70,694,850 1.000000 70,694,850 M & E 0 1.000000 0 TOTAL $4,215,257,876 $2,528,097,011 The adjusted values given are not exact but are meant to give a representation of the growth of Iowa City's tax base. * Reassessment Year ** Commercial and Industrial Rollback Loss is to be replaced by State of Iowa. 10 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report Total Assessed Value over time and Year to Year change in Total Assessed Value ASSESSED VALUES Year Residential % Commercial % Multi -Res % Industrial % AG % 2016 4,013,085,950 74.4 879,281,368 16.3 420,708,451 7.8 79,489,600 1.5 3,484,890 <0.1 2015 3,895,031,090 74.1 859,076,798 16.3 415,794,401 7.9 80,349,550 1.5 3,814,000 0.1 2014 3,617,968,200 74.5 1,158,203,990 23.8 NA 78,113,470 1.6 3,784,570 0.1 2013 3,496,077,090 73.7 1,160,168,050 24.5 NA 80,897,070 1.7 3,708,350 0.1 2012 3,372,539,870 73.7 1,122,041,780 24.5 NA 78,576,040 1.7 2,743,540 0.1 2011 3,265,582,750 72.1 1,182,516,370 26.1 NA 80,153,050 1.7 2,566,040 0.1 2010 3,183,933,350 71.7 1,170,960,470 26.4 NA 81,786,730 1.8 2,317,426 0.1 2009 3,125,277,210 71.3 1,170,461,470 26.7 NA 81,979,330 1.9 2,382,167 0.1 2008 3,090,264,840 71.5 1,153,802,900 26.7 NA 74,852,940 1.7 1,548,650 0.1 2007 3,011,388,920 71.4 1,131,561,840 26.8 NA 70,694,850 1.7 1,612,266 0.1 TAXABLE VALUES 2016 2,285,015,022 65.3 791,353,231 22.6 347,084,472 9.9 71,540,640 2.1 1,655,309 <0.1 2015 2,166,646,099 64.2 773,169,118 22.9 358,622,670 10.6 72,314,595 2.2 1,758,513 0.1 2014 2,016,420,307 64.4 1,042,383,591 33.3 70,302,123 2.2 1,691,782 0.1 2013 1,901,872,929 61.7 1,102,159,648 35.7 76,852,217 2.5 1,609,413 0.1 2012 1,781,260,893 59.7 1,122,041,780 37.6 78,576,040 2.6 1,644,297 0.1 2011 1,657,342,026 56.7 1,182,516,370 40.4 80,153,050 2.8 1,476,527 0.1 2010 1,545,159,671 55.2 1,170,960,470 41.8 81,786,730 2.9 1,599,376 0.1 2009 1,466,048,788 53.9 1,170,461,470 43.0 81,979,330 3.0 1,578,698 0.1 2008 1,408,830,109 53.4 1,153,802,900 43.7 74,852,940 2.8 1,453,513 0.1 2007 1,327,429,270 52.5 1,128,520,202 44.6 70,694,850 2.8 1,452,689 0.1 Commercial -Industrial Rollback Loss is to be replaced by State of Iowa at FY 2017 levels 11 80% 75% 00 d 65% m > 60% a 0 55% F 0 50% CD 45% m c 40% m D 35% I' 30% 25% 20% Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report Percentage of Taxable and Assessed Value — Past 12 Years 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2015 TOP REAL ESTATE TAXPAYERS (Excluding Utilities & Credit Unions Assessed by the State) ••X•• Residential Assessed •••... Commercial, Multi -Res, & Industrial Assessed —� Residential Taxable f Commercial, Multi -Res, & Industrial Taxable 2015 ..X Taxable # of Actual Rank Contract or Title holder Value Parcels 2015 Taxes 1 American College Testing $47,639,112 15 $1,834,202 2 Ann S Gerdin Trust (warehousing) $22,803,280 4 $876,784 3 Dealer Properties IC LLC (Billion Auto) ....f.....{..... 4 .....}.....{ ..., 4 Procter & Gamble Hair Care LLC $16,414,333 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2015 TOP REAL ESTATE TAXPAYERS (Excluding Utilities & Credit Unions Assessed by the State) ••X•• Residential Assessed •••... Commercial, Multi -Res, & Industrial Assessed —� Residential Taxable f Commercial, Multi -Res, & Industrial Taxable " Utilities and railroads actual taxes billed for the 2015 assessment year were $2,125,285 If MidAmerican Energy were included, it would rank 2nd with $1,605,762 Taxes Billed. '" These figures do not include the money state has paid to the county for the BPTC. 12 2015 Taxable # of Actual Rank Contract or Title holder Value Parcels 2015 Taxes 1 American College Testing $47,639,112 15 $1,834,202 2 Ann S Gerdin Trust (warehousing) $22,803,280 4 $876,784 3 Dealer Properties IC LLC (Billion Auto) $18,888,867 4 $725,104 4 Procter & Gamble Hair Care LLC $16,414,333 3 $632,628 5 Christian Retirement Services Inc (oaknoll) $15,667,011 16 $607,072 6 Midwestone Bank $15,014,313 9 $579,036 7 Vesper Iowa City LLC (Hawks Ridge Apts) $14,026,869 201 $543,534 8 ALPLA INC $13,860,000 2 $533,650 9 National Computer Systems Inc (Pearson) $12,814,893 2 $493,154 10 Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust $12,714,300 1 $489,256 11 BBCS-Hawkeye Housing LLC (Apartments) $12,573,666 270 $487,284 12 RBD Iowa City LLC (Sheraton) $11,579,832 1 $465,924 13 Menard INC $10,934,613 3 $420,294 14 United Natural Foods INC $10,543,545 1 $405,142 15 Mclaughlin, Michael T (Retail/Apartments) $10,378,344 76 $402,144 16 Core Sycamore Town Center LLC $9,462,600 1 $363,256 17 OC Group LC (Old Capitol Town Center) $8,968,986 2 $360,070 18 Mercy Facilities INC $8,670,817 10 $329,168 19 Plaza Towers LLC $8,083,394 67 $322,022 20 Pepperwood Plaza LLC $8,456,967 8 $317,476 21 Melrose Retirement Community LLC $7,953,018 1 $308,170 22 Blackhawk Partners LC (Retail/Apartments) $8,069,286 7 $305,860 23 Oral-B Laboratories $7,908,291 7 $302,340 24 Corelogic Commercial Tax Sery (Legacy Apts) $7,676,087 2 $297,438 25 Moen, Marc B $7,586,801 48 $286,612 " Utilities and railroads actual taxes billed for the 2015 assessment year were $2,125,285 If MidAmerican Energy were included, it would rank 2nd with $1,605,762 Taxes Billed. '" These figures do not include the money state has paid to the county for the BPTC. 12 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report COMPARISON OF TAX RATES TO CITIES WITH A CITY ASSESSOR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS The median sales ratio (median) is the middle sales ratio and a measure of the percent of our assessment to the actual sales prices. The coefficient of dispersion (C.O.D.) is a measure of assessment uniformity based on the degree to which individual sales ratios vary from the median sales ratio. The goal of the Iowa City Assessor is to keep this C.O.D. below 10. A C.O.D. of 10 is considered excellent. RESIDENTIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The following statistics are for Residential sales, and below are tables of the ranking of Iowa City in comparison to the other 107 assessing jurisdictions in Iowa. For brevity, only the top 10 are shown. Data is for 2015 sales which is the last complete year available. These tables show that Iowa City is still one of only a few jurisdictions in Iowa with a C.O.D. of less than 10. Iowa City also has a large number of sales as could be expected by its size and mobile population. Rank (Sorted by Assessor levy - Low to High) 2 JOHNSON 14-15 15-16 16-17 15-16 16-17 City Assessor Assessor Assessor Total Levy Total Levy WARREN Levy Levy Levy DUBUQUE CITY 101.7% IOWA CITY .23866 .24325 .24339 38.81115 38.74878 DUBUQUE .29320 .26538 .25816 33.01933 34.01012 DAVENPORT .37409 .34691 .31859 39.84667 39.37128 CEDAR RAPIDS .32345 .32165 .34474 38.17914 38.21254 AMES .33992 .37804 .39544 32.23617 31.65760 SIOUX CITY .45866 .52092 .42001 40.82923 40.30487 CLINTON .35058 .40819 .54823 41.61854 41.53341 MASON CITY .64240 .63172 .63158 35.18773 35.55039 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS The median sales ratio (median) is the middle sales ratio and a measure of the percent of our assessment to the actual sales prices. The coefficient of dispersion (C.O.D.) is a measure of assessment uniformity based on the degree to which individual sales ratios vary from the median sales ratio. The goal of the Iowa City Assessor is to keep this C.O.D. below 10. A C.O.D. of 10 is considered excellent. RESIDENTIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The following statistics are for Residential sales, and below are tables of the ranking of Iowa City in comparison to the other 107 assessing jurisdictions in Iowa. For brevity, only the top 10 are shown. Data is for 2015 sales which is the last complete year available. These tables show that Iowa City is still one of only a few jurisdictions in Iowa with a C.O.D. of less than 10. Iowa City also has a large number of sales as could be expected by its size and mobile population. Rank Jurisdiction 1 IOWA CITY 2 JOHNSON 3 LINN 4 DALLAS 5 AMES CITY 6 STORY 7 SCOTT 8 WARREN 9 DUBUQUE CO. 10 DUBUQUE CITY SORTED BY COD Mean Median Weiohted COD PRD 94.20% 93.83% 93.71% 7.30% 100.5% 95.34% 94.56% 94.75% 7.84% 100.6% 98.36% 96.56% 96.81% 8.94% 101.7% 93.72% 92.79% 92.84% 9.71% 101.0% 95.82% 93.67% 90.30% 10.27% 106.1% 93.43% 92.31% 91.83% 10.57% 101.7% 94.63% 92.67% 93.47% 11.20% 101.2% 95.05% 93.05% 93.58% 11.24% 101.6% 96.31% 93.60% 93.19% 11.99% 103.4% 96.87% 93.69% 93.90% 12.53% 103.2% 13 * Re -Assessment year # Re-Appraisal/Inspection year 14 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report The Regression Index, also known as the Price Related Differential (PRD), is an indicator of the degree to which high value properties are over or under assessed in relationship to low value properties. An index of 100.00 indicates no difference in assessments of high value properties in comparison to low value properties based upon that year's sales. An index over 100 indicates that high value properties are under assessed in relation to low value properties. As you can see in the following table, Iowa City's regression index is still close to the ideal 100.00 level. For brevity, only the top 15 are shown. SORTED BY REGRESSION INDEX (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) Rank Jurisdiction Mean Median Weighted COD PRD 1 IOWA CITY 94.20% 93.83% 93.71% 7.30% 100.50% 2 JOHNSON 95.34% 94.56% 94.75% 7.84% 100.60% 3 DALLAS 93.72% 92.79% 92.84% 9.71% 101.00% 4 BUENA VISTA 99.25% 96.88% 98.07% 14.23% 101.20% 5 SCOTT 94.63% 92.67% 93.47% 11.20% 101.20% 6 WINNESHIEK 92.62% 90.54% 91.25% 14.54% 101.50% 7 WARREN 95.05% 93.05% 93.58% 11.24% 101.60% 8 LINN 98.36% 96.56% 96.76% 8.94% 101.70% 9 STORY 93.43% 92.31% 91.83% 10.57% 101.70% 10 SIOUX CITY 95.18% 91.88% 97.22% 16.87% 97.90% 11 CLAY 99.29% 95.08% 97.07% 16.90% 102.30% 12 DELAWARE 94.04% 92.60% 91.67% 17.00% 102.60% 13 OSCEOLA 90.44% 89.53% 88.05% 17.41% 102.70% 14 CERRO GORDO 93.47% 93.81% 90.91% 13.27% 102.80% 15 DAVIS 94.08% 95.03% 91.42% 15.48% 102.90% Below is a tabulation of year by year sales statistics for Iowa City Residential Property over time. Year Median C.O.D # Of Sales Average Sale Price Total Price Estimate 2016 91.57 7.39 1073 224,426 240,809,098 *2015 94.20 7.30 999 219,886 219,666,114 2014 92.62 7.49 974 209,633 204,182,923 *2013 95.18 6.72 937 204,632 191,740,184 2012 96.55 8.02 826 195,585 161,553,210 *2011 97.57 7.32 740 191,701 141,858,740 2010 95.92 9.99 745 182,635 136,062,994 *2009 95.42 8.29 796 191,459 152,401,156 2008 95.92 7.92 833 188,873 157,331,213 *2007 95.00 7.88 856 192,294 164,603,799 2006 88.70 9.67 665 197,878 131,588,850 *2005 90.50 8.61 717 186,437 133,675,410 2004 84.50 9.57 751 176,136 132,277,978 *2003 88.30 7.93 809 159,766 129,250,592 2002 94.32 8.03 777 152,219 118,274,003 #2001 94.60 7.83 682 144,912 98,830,294 2000 89.00 9.16 675 137,725 92,964,467 *1999 93.30 9.38 691 134,200 92,732,093 1998 91.60 8.24 699 129,556 90,559,435 *1997 93.45 8.71 658 123,278 81,117,152 1996 91.20 9.59 636 121,069 76,999,785 *1995 91.20 8.48 595 117,681 70,020,195 * Re -Assessment year # Re-Appraisal/Inspection year 14 Iowa City Assessor's Office 2016 Annual Report COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The Coefficient of Dispersion for Commercial properties varies from 3.67 to 188.70 with a median of 28.94 for all Iowa jurisdictions while Residential C.O.D.'s vary from 7.03 to 38.29 with a median of 20.65. Commercial properties are typically more difficult to appraise than residential properties because of the wide variety of building types and fewer comparable sales. For this reason, only jurisdictions with 10 or more sales are included in table below. COMMERCIAL SALES SORTED BY C O D (2015 Sales Analysis) No Jurisdiction # of Sales Mean Median COD PRD 1 IOWA CITY 12 90.67% 91.02% 13.13% 115.30% 2 DICKINSON 49 99.08% 93.99% 13.24% 100.50% 3 JOHNSON 36 94.88% 95.59% 13.38% 102.00% 4 TAMA 12 94.83% 99.97% 13.40% 96.25% 5 DALLAS 26 93.20% 97.74% 18.61% 100.70% 6 POLK 135 93.94% 95.47% 19.51% 108.20% 7 SHELBY 13 101.40% 105.60% 19.52% 92.85% 8 LINN 30 83.43% 82.06% 21.09% 108.50% 9 MONTGOMERY 11 90.26% 90.98% 21.61% 119.00% 10 DAVIS 10 72.60% 81.81% 21.68% 105.00% 11 HENRY 11 96.78% 88.02% 21.69% 101.80% 12 DUBUQUE (CITY) 27 103.20% 103.20% 23.14% 117.40% 13 MARION 14 103.20% 105.80% 24.18% 107.50% 14 JEFFERSON 10 119.30% 108.40% 24.19% 125.80% 15 PLYMOUTH 19 96.39% 95.40% 24.54% 106.40% 16 CEDAR RAPIDS 49 92.79% 93.00% 24.98% 104.40% 17 SIOUX 16 111.40% 98.52% 25.41% 117.70% 18 WEBSTER 17 98.26% 93.49% 26.15% 110.50% 19 MUSCATINE 30 89.69% 81.65% 26.33% 114.00% 20 WASHINGTON 17 101.00% 101.50% 26.57% 104.60% HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL SALES STATISTICS Below is a tabulation of year by year sales statistics for Iowa City commercial properties. Because of the small number of sales, one or two bad sales can greatly influence the performance measurements, therefore creating greater fluctuation in the numbers. See data above to illustrate this and to show Iowa City's standing # of # of Year Median C.O.D. Sales Year Median C.O.D. Sales Estimated 2016 93.65 17.86 25 1996 89.50 15.78 24 2015 90.67 13.13 12 1995 90.10 12.76 22 2014 90.82 15.39 12 1994 87.90 12.44 24 2013 92.98 18.15 20 1993 90.35 14.24 26 2012 93.51 12.84 14 1992 89.90 14.86 21 2011 90.83 27.99 18 1991 87.85 8.38 8 2010 97.77 12.82 29 1990 89.60 19.53 13 2009 89.21 13.60 29 1989 94.40 13.81 13 2008 95.29 21.32 36 1988 95.40 19.77 20 2007 91.80 23.24 35 1987 87.65 17.27 16 2006 87.55 17.05 26 1986 98.20 14.21 15 2005 85.65 15.52 34 1985 82.00 12.63 16 2004 80.90 17.82 17 1984 76.80 18.30 13 2003 89.22 15.08 39 1983 87.85 10.58 26 2002 92.40 16.81 17 1982 78.00 10.25 8 2001 93.50 15.04 23 1981 87.55 10.07 14 2000 96.85 14.99 28 1980 80.85 22.69 12 1999 87.50 14.14 33 1979 78.00 16.66 15 1998 89.10 11.68 25 1978 84.60 13.49 12 1997 87.80 11.57 21 1977 62.90 28.20 27 15 City Conference Board Meeting posted City Council 1,A. January 17, 2 017 Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall Following C. City Board Discussiona. laDubuque/Washington Linn/Washingtonopacket] Clarification sof Agenda Items Informationac i s o [I);;�12,j (Revised 1/13/17 - TP reference added.) City Conference Board Meeting 5:00 PM — separate agenda posted City Council Work Session Agenda Tuesday, January 17, 2017 Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall Following 5:00 City Conference Board MeetinLf # Discussion of traffic control plans for Dubuque/Washington and LinnAAlashington Clarification of Agenda Items Information Packet Discussion r CITY OF IOWA CITY IP4 n =Az MEMORANDUM Date: January 10, 2017 To: City Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Washington Street Traffic Control Introduction As part of the Washington Street reconstruction project the intersections with Dubuque Street and Linn Street are set to receive upgraded traffic signal equipment. The installation of the new signals was planned for last fall, however project delays have pushed the work into the winter and spring of 2017. Over the last few months, the intersections have operated with temporary stop signs. Recently, Councilman Thomas raised the question as to whether permanent stop signs at these locations would serve the area better than the planned replacement signals. This memo aims to share staff's rational during the planning phase for choosing to replace the signals and lays out the implications of switching to stop sign control at this point in the project. Traffic Control and Accommodation Vehicular traffic flows at these two intersections can be managed by stop signs or traffic signals. During the planning phase of the Washington Street project staff had extensive internal conversations about the appropriate traffic control measures. Those discussions weighed issues such as cost, aesthetic impact, pedestrian and vehicular accommodations, and accommodations for those with disabilities. While stop signs are a lower cost solution and have more appealing aesthetic qualities (e.g. less intrusion into sightlines, no light pollution), it can be difficult for vehicles to find gaps to safely navigate the intersections during high pedestrian traffic flows (class changes, special events, etc.). This is particularly the case when pedestrians do not alternate with vehicles, which happens frequently due to sustained heavy pedestrian flows. In choosing to replace the existing signals, staff also weighed the needs of visually impaired individuals. By installing audible pedestrian indications, persons with visual impairments Gan more safely cross the intersection. Such accommodations have already been installed at the Clinton and Washington intersection, although this feature has not yet been activated. It has been staff's intention to add audible notifications at each intersection downtown as signals are replaced. Numerous signals are planned for replacement in the coming years along, Burlington, Clinton, Madison, and Gilbert. Audible notifications are recommended by the United States Access Board and prevailing thought is that they soon will become required when adding or upgrading signal equipment. Regarding the Linn Street intersection, there are lower pedestrian flows and generally less need for signals based on traditional measures. For the disability accommodation mentioned above, and due to the proximity of the Senior Center and Ecumenical Towers, and the needs of individuals using those facilities, staff felt signalized crossing accommodations were most appropriate. It should be noted in the ad-hoc Senior Center report one recommendation was to provide longer pedestrian crossings periods at the Linn Street intersection. January 10, 2017 Page 2 Cost Implications The signal equipment for both intersections has been purchased and is not returnable. The cost of the two signal sets was approximately $115,000. It is possible that the signals from one intersection could be incorporated into the Pedestrian Mall reconstruction project, which plans to replace the College and Clinton signals near the Old Capitol Town Center. The City may also be able to use some components of unused traffic signals to repair existing signals in the downtown area. Other costs to the City that would result from changing course at this time are negligible. Essentially, the credit we would receive on labor associated with the signal installation would be negated by the removal of the signal footings and related sidewalk repairs. Staff estimates the life of a traffic signal set at 40 years. The lifecycle cost to operate and maintain such equipment is estimated at $2,500 per year. Some this cost reflects staff labor, therefore the City would not necessarily realize this exact cost savings if it switches to stop sign controls. Options to Proceed The City Council can direct staff to move forward in one of three ways 1.) Complete the project as originally planned with two signalized intersections 2.) Change one of the intersections to stop sign control 3.) Change both of the intersections to stop sign control Staff believes either control method can adequately manage the traffic flows at these intersections. Our recommendation is to provide the signals in order to provide the safest crossing conditions during heavy travel times and in order to provide audible crossing indicators for visually impaired individuals. I CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCOC OFU Mwu PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS January 10, 2017 February 7, 2017 1. Discuss proposed FY 18 budget Strategic Plan / Budget Related Topics: 1. Provide timely and appropriate input on the ICCSD's planned 2017 bond referendum 2. Significantly improve the Council and staff s ability to engage with diverse populations on complex or controversial topics 3. Identify and implement an achievable goal to reduce disproportionality in arrests 4. Identify a substantive and achievable goal for the provision of affordable housing in Iowa City and implement strategies to achieve this goal 5. Determine scope of Council identified housing market analysis of core neighborhoods 6. Determine scope of Council identified complete streets study 7. Discuss expectations for working with the ICCSD, Kirkwood Community College, Iowa Works, labor organizations, and others to explore the feasibility of an industrial arts/crafts facility in Iowa City Other Topics: 1. Review the Child Data Snapshot (IP2 2/18) and discuss related strategies with local stakeholders 2. Discuss creation of an ad-hoc committee on social justice and racial equity 3. Review the Equity Report and discuss strategic plan goals relating to disproportionate minority contact (February 2017) BlaSpeck Thanks THE MANY LENSES OF DR. KING .,.Neighhorhounty, s Black Voices Project, of Johnson Cou Dream Center, G p I 1�n t United Action for VouthB Human Rights Commission... f-CiIVrau . MorimaTc . WiTpu p our many volunteers' IR_ MARTIN IIITNFR KIMR_ 111_ 111 ""I JAY OF SEF MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 2017 1 10AM TO 3PM LOCATION: GRANT WOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 1930 LAKESIDE DR, IOWA CITY, IA Yes, this is real: Michigan just banned banning plastic bags - The Washington Post The bashington Most Energy and Environment From City Manager Fruin IP7 Yes, this is real: Michigan just banned banning plastic bags By Chelsea Harvey December 30, 2016 This story has been updated. A new law in Michigan will prohibit local governments from banning, regulating or imposing fees on the use of plastic bags and other containers. You read that correctly: It's not a ban on plastic bags — it's a ban on banning plastic bags. Michigan Lt. Gov. Brian Calley signed the new public act into law on Wednesday, along with 11 other bills. Gov. Rick Snyder is currently on vacation out of state, local news sources reported, and Calley has the authority to sign bills into law in his absence. The new public act prohibits local ordinances from "regulating the use, disposition, or sale of, prohibiting or restricting, or imposing any fee, charge, or tax on certain containers," including plastic bags, as well as cups, bottles and other forms of packaging. This means individual cities and municipalities are not allowed to ban plastic bags or charge customers a fee for using them. Bans and restrictions on the use of plastic bags are widespread in other parts of the country and around the world. The rationale is simple: Plastic bags are infamous non -biodegradable sources of pollution — although they will eventually break down into tiny pieces, scientists believe this process can take hundreds of years, or even up to a millennium, in landfills. Many scientists are growing particularly concerned about plastic pollution in the oceans. Research suggests that 5 million to 12 million metric tons of plastic may have been dumped into the ocean in 2010 alone. There, the waste is frequently eaten by seabirds and other marine animals — or it breaks down into tiny pieces known as microplastics, which scientists believe can be harmful or even toxic to sea creatures who ingest it. Bangladesh was the first country in the world to ban certain types of thin plastic bags in 2002, after they were found to have choked the nation's drainage systems during a series of devastating floods. China instituted a similar ban in 2oo8, and also 1/10/2017 Yes, this is real: Michigan just banned banning plastic bags - The Washington Post I prohibits businesses from giving out thicker plastic bags to customers for free. Other nations, including South Africa and Italy, have also enacted similar restrictions. San Francisco became the first U.S. municipality to institute a plastic bag ban. And in 2014, California became the fust state. Many other municipalities around the country have bans or fees in place, including Austin, Seattle and Chicago, which will be repealing its citywide ban in favor of a 7 -cent tax next month. On the other hand, Michigan is not the only state to have implemented a ban on bans. Idaho, Arizona and Missouri all have enacted similar laws. In these cases, proponents of the laws have defended them as a way of protecting businesses from having to comply with additional regulations. Energy and Environment newsletter Sign up The science and policy of environmental issues. The new Michigan law was met with praise from the Michigan Restaurant Association for this reason. "With many of our members owning and operating locations across the state, preventing a patchwork approach of additional regulations is imperative to avoid added complexities as it related to day-to-day business operations," said Robert O'Meara, the association's vice president of government affairs, in a statement. But others have criticized the legislation as an overstep in authority. Michigan news outlet MLive reported that Rep. Jeff Irwin, a democrat representing Ann Arbor, spoke out against the bill while it was still in the House, saying that it "attacks local control." Earlier this year, the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, which is seated in Ann Arbor, had voted in favor of a new ordinance imposing a 10 -cent fee on both paper and plastic bags dispensed in grocery stores throughout the county. Under the new Michigan public act, such a fee will not be permitted. Read more at Energy & Environment: In Greenland, a once doubtful scientist witnesses climate change's troubling toll Obama's government just issued five new energy rules — but it may need Trump's to finish them The coming battle between economists and the Trump team over the true cost of climate change For more, you can sign up for our weekly newsletter here and follow us on Twitter here. 1/10/2017 Buffalo Is the First to Abandon Minimum Parking Requirements Citywide - CityLab From City Manager Fruin _ IP8 Buffalo Becomes First City to Bid Minimum Parking Goodbye The city is overhauling its archaic zoning regulations, but does the move help its citizens as much as it helps developers? In overhauling its zoning code for the first time since 1953, Buffalo, New York, has become the first major city to completely remove outdated minimum parking requirements. (Other cities have done so, too, but only in certain districts or neighborhoods.) That means developers there will no longer be required to build a certain number of parking spaces for commercial and residential projects, regardless of whether there are mass transit options nearby or if the tenants even need them. Now, according to The Buffalo News, projects above 5,000 square feet will require parking analysis that factors in alternative transportation options in the area. It's all part of a six -year-long initiative called the Buffalo Green Code, or the the Unified Development Ordinance, which the city council unanimously passed last week and Mayor Byron W. Brown signed into law Wednesday. It rewrote the zoning and land - use regulations to make them simpler and easier to understand. The new code also follows a relatively new concept called form -based zoning, which emphasizes the relationship between public space and buildings. "Conventional zoning doesn't begin with what we want this city to look like in terms of the `public realm,"` says Robert Steuteville, editor of the Places Journal at the Congress for the New Urbanism. "What is it like for a human to walk around in a public space, and what kind of buildings do you want around you that would then define that space?" Buffalo, like many U.S. cities, historically followed those conventional zoning codes from as early as the 1920s, which put heavy emphasis on making room for cars—hence the minimum parking requirements. "The automobile population really soared in the 1920s and early `30s, and curb parking was free. Very quickly all the on -street parking became very scarce, so you can see that any picture of an old city taken in the 1930s shows all the sidewalks completely lined with cars," says Donald Shoup, an urban planning professor at UCLA and the author of the 2005 book The High Cost of Free Parking. "Planners thought the solution would be to require new buildings to have `enough' to satisfy the demand. It seemed like quite a miracle; it didn't cost the city anything and it hid the cost of parking." Once considered one of the largest metropolises in the U.S., with some 573,000 residents at its peak in the 1950s, Buffalo's population headed toward a dramatic downward spiral (the latest count by the Census Bureau puts the current population at a little under 259,000.) By the 1950s, when Buffalo implemented zoning codes that included minimum parking requirements, the city was undergoing major urban revitalization efforts that emphasized easy car access for suburbanites. "It was fascinating to look at maps that they showed how much of downtown Buffalo was devoted to parking," says Shoup, who was a visiting professor at the University of Buffalo in 2010. "People have done this for a number of cities, coloring in all the parking lots red and it turns out most of [downtown] Buffalo was red." But as the years passed, the codes would prove to hurt more than it helped. Following a suburban model of development, the city allowed stores to be built on huge lots without pedestrian access, rather of promoting walkable neighborhoods. And sidewalk dining at neighborhood restaurants, for example, was technically illegal without a zoning variance. And with the parking requirement, Shoup argues, everyone— including those who can't afford a car—end up paying for parking. It also didn't help that parking requirements many cities across the U.S. were rarely grounded in factual research, says Steuteville. In fact, Shoup's book notes they amounted to little more than a "collective hunch" of how many spots a building needs, and often these numbers are exaggerated. Local officials often copied what other cities were doing without understanding the reasoning first. Then there was the issue of historical preservation. "The parking requirement prevented the preservation of some wonderful buildings that were just left to decay and even torn down," Shoup says. "In more neighborhood commercial areas, if anybody wanted to convert an old building into a restaurant, which has a high parking requirement, the only way they could do it would be by tearing down one of the buildings on either side to provide the parking." While Buffalo may be the first to implement a citywide removal, both Shoup and Steuteville say the move is only part of a larger, national movement that's already ongoing. It would be hard-pressed to find an urban planner who would argue that parking hasn't done harm to a city, according to Shoup. A 2015 crowdsourced man by the nonprofit Strong Towns shows that dozens of cities—mostly small ones—across the U.S. have either removed parking requirements in certain areas (green pins), lowered them for certain building uses (blue pins), or are currently discussing the move (orange pins). When asked about the potential of removing parking minimums, Shoup points to a particular case in 1999 Los Angeles. The financial district of L.A. is filled with 19' century offices that, at the time, were mostly vacant above the ground floor. They couldn't be restored as housing because the rule then was that each unit needed at least two parking spaces. "A planner in 1999 came up with the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance saying that any historical buildings can be converted into housing without requiring any new parking. People thought this would be a disaster," he says. "But the ordinance was passed, and within eight years, 57 historical office buildings were fully restored into housing and they created a terrific buzz downtown." Yet despite the success of the L.A.'s Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, some critics say it didn't benefit the poor. Instead, they argue, it helped spur gentrification and homelessness in the city's downtown area, turning it into what Los Angeles Magazine editor Ed Leibowitz called a "hamster paradise." Developers built artsy lofts to attract the wealthy while providing very little—if any—affordable housing units for low- income families. Now critics of the Green Code worry the same could happen to Buffalo as the city's push for urban revival increases rent prices. While form -based zoning promotes density and development, which are economical for cities like Buffalo, "it doesn't necessarily guarantee that the types of development taking place are going to allow for either the retention or increase in affordable units," says Robert Silverman, a urban planning professor who studies inequality in inner-city housing markets at the University of Buffalo. He predicts that Buffalo may end up following the path of Miami and Denver—the only two other cities to adopt form -based code, and are facing affordable housing crises. "Even though Buffalo is losing population, its Green Code really focuses on dense development in a much smaller footprint, and having less density in older neighborhood outside of it," Silverman says. "So it essentially creates more demand in a smaller area for development to take place, which has an upward pressure on the cost of commercial and retail property and also on housing." The intention for fair housing may be there, but until it's spelled out in Buffalo's code, it hinges on political support. Prior to one of the last public meetings to pass the new ordinance in December (the city's had some 230), residents held a rally urging the council to write inclusionary zoning into the code. That would require that a percentage of units in new market -rate residential developments be affordable for low- and moderate -income residents. In the end, though, the Green Code passed without such a provision. Although, the city has said that it's in the midst of conducting a roughly year-long affordable housing study that started in May, and plans to pass an ordinance some time this year. The council also assures that the Green Code allows for more public input for new development, though Silverman warns that could also give NIMBY and historic preservation activists more opportunities to publicly resist proposals to, say, increase building heights in historic areas—to the detriment of fair housing advocates. Plus, the intention for fair housing may be there, but until it's spelled out in Buffalo's code, it hinges on political support. "If a new mayor came into the power who is less amenable to those types of policy," Silverman says, "without the mandate written into the code, all those kind of goals can go away very quickly." Overall, Silverman agrees with Shoup and Steuteville that the Green Code, with its removal of minimum parking requirements, is a step in the right direction. Steuteville even thinks Buffalo's move, if successful, can embolden other cities to push for form - based codes. "As the city turns itself around with the help of this code," he says, "it could be a model for cities from Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit to Milwaukee, Erie, or Rochester—all these cities that have been declining." Yet, Silverman says, "there is still work to be done." CITY IOWA Clnr UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE IP9 City Projects in First Avenue - Iowa City Marketplace area INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS - $7.2 MILLION FIRST AVENUE RAILROAD OVERPASS - $11.5 MILLION FIRST AVE STORM SEWER - $1.7 MILLION LOWER MUSCATINE ROAD LANDSCAPING - $100,000 - IN PROGRESS FIRST AVE - FOUR LANE TO THREE LANE CONVERSION - $275,000 - SPRING 2017 PROPERTY TAX (as it relates to City Budget) IN 2013 AND 2014, TAXABLE PROPERTY VALUES FOR COMMERCIAL DROPPED TO 95% AND 90% RESPECTIVELY AND WILL I:uS ► L -111111%••A If all variables stayed the same, the result would be a savings on the tax bill - however, increasing valuations of property and tax rates of other jurisdictions impact the actual bill. WENDY FORD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WENDY-FORD(7a IOWA-CITY.ORG 319-356-5248 Concurrently, the City's tax rate has decreased from $17.84 per $1000 in FY12 to $16.33 per $1000 in FY18 (projected). IOWA CITY REPRESENTS 43% OF YOUR PROPERTY TRACY HIGHTSHOE, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES TRACY-HIGHTSHOE(7a IOWA-CITY.ORG 319-356-5244 Mayor's Winter Walk on January 12, 2017 1 City of Iowa City Page 1 of 4 Mayor Jim Throgmorton will conduct a Winter's Walk on Thursday, January 12. This walk will focus on small businesses located along 1st Ave. between Iowa City Marketplace (formerly Sycamore Mall) and Mall Drive. The "Mayor's Walks" provide the Mayor with opportunities to learn more about the City directly from the residents and businesses he serves. Mayor Throgmorton will begin his walk at 1 p.m. at the Clinton and Washington Street Transportation Center, where he will catch the Mall bus. He will take that bus to the stop at Iowa City Marketplace, go to Panera's, walk north along the west side of 1st Ave. to Mall Drive, and walk back south along the east side to the Marketplace. For more information about the Mayor's Walks series, email jim-throgmorton@iowa-city.org or call 319-621-9391. J�j Select Language https://www.icgov.org/news/mayor%E2%80%99s-winter-walk january-12-2017 1/12/2017 January 11, 2017 Mr. Adil Adams American Taxi Cab 2532 Bartelt Road Apt. #1C Iowa City, IA 52246 Dear W. Adams: CITY OF IOWA CITY City Attorney's Office 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5030 (319) 356-5008 FAX www.icgov.org You addressed City Council at the January 3, 2017 meeting, and this letter is in response to your comments. On September 29, 2016, Mr. Emadeldin Gasmelseed turned in a document called the Tenant Information Form as part of his application for public housing. Mr. Gasmelseed stated that he had self-employment income from being a "taxi driver." Additionally, he provided three documents purporting to show "taxi cab in come (sic)" from American Taxi Cab for the months July, August and September that had your signature as well as his signature on them. The Housing Authority staff checked the City Clerk's online records of those persons authorized to drive a taxi, and Mr. Gasmelseed's name was not on that list. Because Mr. Gasmelseed claimed to be driving taxi for American Taxi Cab Company and because you as the owner of American Taxi Cab appeared to have signed statements showing income, Sgt. Derek Frank attempted to contact you to discuss this. Sgt. Frank telephoned you on three occasions at the telephone number you listed on your application for a taxi cab license and was unable to reach you. Furthermore, the recording stated that it would not accept voice messages. The City then issued three municipal infraction citations for violation of the City Code. One citation was issued to Mr. Gasmelseed for driving a taxi without authorization from the City during the months of July, August and September. Two citations were issued to American Taxi Cab for allowing a person to drive a taxi without authorization in violation of Section 5-2-2E and for failing to answer the telephone in violation of Section 5-2-3B 1. (As you may recall, the City Council amended the City Code in 2016 to eliminate the need for taxi cab companies to have an Iowa City office that is available all day/every day to the police department but did require that there be a telephone number that was answered all day/every day in order to facilitate police department investigations.) Both you and Mr. Gasmelseed requested trials which were set for December 21. At the time set for trial, Mr. Gasmelseed did not appear, and the magistrate entered judgment against him. With respect to the two citations issued to American Taxi, there was a trial at which you and City staff testified. The magistrate found that American Taxi Cab did violate the City Code as alleged and entered judgment in both cases. At the trial, I provided you with copies of the City's exhibits and I am enclosing another copy for your records. I am also providing another copy of the citations and the magistrate's orders in both cases. You had questions regarding why Sgt. Frank came to your home with the citations, and Acting Chief Bill Campbell told me that the two of you talked for nearly 30 minutes after the Council meeting about this matter. Citations must be "served." One way for the City to serve a citation personally is to have the Mr. Adil Adams January 11, 2017 Page 2 Johnson County Sheriff serve it (at a fee of approximately $25.00 which the defendant will be required to pay if found to have violated the City Code) or have a police officer serve the citation (for which there is no fee). Another way to accomplish service is to have the Defendant accept service. In the future if a citation is issued against American Taxi Cab, City staff will attempt to contact you (I do know that you have provided a different telephone number to the Police Department) to see if you will come to City Hall and accept service. By having Sgt. Frank come to your home, the City was simply serving you as is required by law and avoiding any additional fees that you might be assessed. With that said, Acting Chief Campbell and I understand your concerns. If you have any questions about this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me Sincerely, Susan Dulek Assistant City Attorney Enclosures Copy w/enc. to: City Council Geoff Frain -City Manager Julie Voparil-Deputy City Clerk Bill Campbell -Acting Police Chief Derek Frank -Police Sgt. IOWA CITY vs. E -FILED 2016 DEC 212:19 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT CC _I ILL IN THE IOW DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR JOHNSON COUNTY 065211CCISC089804 MUNICIPAL INFRACTION AMERICAN TAXI CABI RECORD OF APPEARANCE, DISPOSITION AND ORDER TRIAL: Trial of this matter is had to the Court, and the Court by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that the infraction is proven. PENALTY: Upon proof of the infraction against the Defendant, the Court enters the following judgment: CIVIL PENALTY $100.00, plus COURT COSTS $ 85.00 for a total of $185.00, plus any additional fees for service. Payment due to the Clerk of Court by 60 days. 1 of 2 E -FILED 2016 DEC 212:19 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT State of Iowa Courts Case Number Case Title ICCISCO89804 IOWA CITY V. AMERICAN TAXI CAB Type: Other Order So Ordered Karen D. Egerton, Magistrate, Sixth Judicial District or Iowa Electronically signed on 2016-12-21 14:19:26 2of2 r1 r E -FILED 2016 OCT 269:1 efflViD 69:1O,AfflViD .GLFRK OF DISTRICT COURT MUNICIPAL INFRACTION -CITY OF IOWA CITY ORDINANCE VIOLATION DOCKET DOCKET NO. �C' C ZSC 081 0(3L4 THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA vs. DEFENDANT NAME: Amedcon Taxi Cab ADDRESS; 2582 Bartelt Road. Sir - Iowa City IA52246 Cbl' Skits 23P The undersigned states that the Defendant did violate the Iowa City Code of Ordinances on or about: July, August SaptemberMils Months Yr. Address of violation lomM Defendant herein did violate Section 522-E of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa as follows: Taxi business allowed a taxi driver (Emadeldin Gasmelseed) without valid driver authorization to drive for his business. CML PENALTY AND COURTS COSTS TO BE PAID AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE COURT APPEARANCE SHOWN ON THE CITATION PAYMENT MUST BE MADE BY CASH OR CHECK TO CLERK OF COURT, COURTHOUSE, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSED:; 100.00 COURT COSTS: $ 85.00 TOTAL: : 185.00 Defendant Is directed to correcticesse the violation as follows: Do not allow this person to drive for company.. TO ANSWER THE CHARGES ON THIS CITATION, YOU MUST APPEAR IN COURT ON 11 ;__16 Y 16 at 8:00 A.M. Mo. Day Yr. FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT WRHOUT GOOD CAUSE WILL RESULT IN JUDGEMENT FOR THC CML PENALTY AND COURTS COSTS AND AN ORDER TO CORRECTIA13ATE THE VIOLATION(S) BEING ENTERED AGAINST YOU. The undersigned attests that the meats herein are true and correct �1 By City Employee: k1• ytr _TiOe:� Dated: l0 � i t a2120/G Phone Number. 5w—,J ;el ,�j // MO. Day Yr. IOWA CITY VS. E -FILED 2016 DEC 21 2:18 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOW DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR .IOHNRnN MI wry 06521ICCISCO89803 MUNICIPAL INFRACTION AMERICAN TAXI CABI RECORD OF APPEARANCE, DISPOSITION AND ORDER TRIAL: Trial of this matter is had to the Court, and the Court by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that the infraction is proven. PENALTY: Upon proof of the infraction against the Defendant, the Court enters the following judgment: CIVIL PENALTY $100.00, plus COURT COSTS $ 85.00 for a total of $185.00, plus any additional fees for service. Payment due to the Clerk of Court by 30 days. 1 of 2 E -FILED 2016 DEC 212:18 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT , State of Iowa Courts Case Number Case Title ICCISCO89803 IOWA CITY V. AMERICAN TAXI CAB Type: Other Order So Ordered Karen D. Egerton. Magistrate. Sixth Judidal District of loom Electronically signed on 2016-12-2114:17:34 2of2 r E -FILED 2016 OCT 26 9:08 AM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT MUNICIPAL INFRACTION CITATIIO/N1 2 DOCKET NO. J-ATIi b 5'SG OM �/J� I THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA vs. DEFENDANT NAME: AMERICAN TAXI CAB ADDRESS: 2532 Bartelt Road #1C Iowa City, IA 52246 The undersigned states that the Defendant did violate the Iowa City Code of Ordinances on or about: October 7, 2016 and October 18, 2016. Address of Violation 2532 Bartelt Road #1 C, Iowa City, Iowa Defendant herein did violate Section 5-2-3B1 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa as follows: The Iowa City Police Department telephoned the telephone number provided by Defendant on three occasions. Each time it went unanswered and would never accept a voice message. The three occasions were 10/7/16 @ 0956 hours (9:56 AM), 10/7/16 Q 1020 hours (10:20 AM) and 10/18/16 @ 1334 hours (1:34 PM) CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSED: $ 100.00 COURT COSTS: i_Bs.00_ TOTAL: $ 185.00 Defendant Is directed to correct/cesse the violation as follows: Answer the telephone number and have a voice messaging system. COURT DATE TO ANSWER THE CHARGES ON THIS CITATION, YOU MUST APPEAR IN COURT AT 417 S. CLINTON STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA ON 11/16/16 at 8:00 A.M. FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT MAY RESULT IN JUDGMENT FOR THE CIVIL PENALTY AND COURTS COSTS AND AN ORDER TO CORRECTIABATE THE VIOLATION(S) BEING ENTERED AGAINST YOU. The undersigned attests that the matters herein reue and coned By City Employee: Derek Fran — E Title: Sgt.,Police Dept Dated: 10/21/16 Phone Number: 319/356-5275 My signature below acknowledges that I accept service of this municipal Infraction citation. My signature Is not a plea of guilty. Defendant .Check appropriate box:• i. lW1®�y Metered Taxicab Business: _ r Network Taxicab Business: _ Cl F IOWA CITY Motorized Pedicab _ (exempt from May 1 deadline) 410 Easl washingt9n 51,1 Iowa City. lona S2240.1926 (319) 356-5040 TAXI BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION - Due b Ma 1 (3191356-S497 FAX (Police Department review must be made between 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Monday- Friday.) BUSINESS APPLICATION FEE — $20 1. Name of Taxicab Business A, txerr Lq� I ?s- Y, C e 2. Business Address S32 9Cak 0,LJr K �} \C Zp ✓n iA 322tA Email address: _4 quo A 9W v' --Ci p.b'n (Email address will be used for notification purposes) Name of Metered Business Contact- AT tLL ,pptk ipi5 Name of Network Representative Contact: e2 %L A 94%v,. s 3. Business Dispatching/Office Address (metered businesses only) 2 'Z 0.I• 'I[< If the office address Is In a residential area; one owner must reside at the address, i o w. e, +5 fN ;2ivl 4. Business Telephone Number-�"3LI9- Name of Office Manager (if any) 14 9N vri4 5. List of names and addresses of all persons having a financial Interest In the business thereof. (In the case of a corporation, LLC, or partnership, all officers, directors, members and persons owning at least a ten percent interest in the business must be listed.) A. Ik n I L A <) ,a aN 2 5 3 2 f je-4 PG B. C. loll % Interest Total should a ual 100% Zz- :"1`r •' . !. - i`"". Mor I have reviewed the application, DCI re—�� port and state certified driver's records of owners WWdel�inedathat there is no information whish woul that the issuance would be detrimental to the 9'W Iealth or�'Welfare of Idents of Cily. (Title 5 C p r 2, City Code) �cn Z Police Chief or designee Da td Metered taxicab office address listed above In residential zone? _ Yes No Business O r Name tha �Idese: _�_,) ► �,��.� t N.A.D.S. Date Taxicab Business License Is Issued to: Y\h' _t.. _ ._ —1�r . Taxicab Business Licenses cannot he sold or asst ned Cly Clerk or designee (approved only -If color scheme on file) ate 21 7J18 TENANT INFORMA ,ON FORM PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM AND RETURN TO: 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, lA 52240 I receive mail at: Emadeldin Gasmelseed 910 Benton Dr Apt 32 Iowa City, IA 52246-5227 -Part 1: Contact Information Home Telephone / / / / I live at: ® Street: 9(c/� C' ELI G(rin Apartment #: 39 City, State, ZIP7 It -W Your E-mail 0 Work Telephone / / / / / / / Emergency Contact Cell Phone ! 1 1pro� Name and Relation rar L c. nvuacllanu Starting on the first line for the Head of Household, provide the following information for III adults and children that will stay in the assisted housing unit. List adults first, then children. Enter one of the following codes in box 6 to identify the relationship of the household member to the head of household. L = Live-in Aide H = Head of Household K = Co -Head (Not Married) Y = Youth Under 18 A = Other Adult S = Spouse (Married) F = Foster Cbild/Adult E = Full Time Student Over 18 1. Last Name It Sr, Jr, etc. 2. First Name 3. MI 4. Date of Birth r�,/5. Sex UM 6. Relation 7. Disabled Gasmelseed Emadeldin A � ❑F H ❑Yes [No e. Ethnicity (Check One Box) 9. Race (Check All That Appy) Ll White ❑ American IndiaNAlaska Native ❑ Natvel-awailaN 10. Social Security Number 6c/ Hispanid Not Hispanid Ll Latino Latino Other Pacific Islander ❑ Aslan M Blac hirican American 1. Last Name & Sr, Jr, etc. 2. First Name 3. MMI 4. Date of Birth 5. Sex 6. Relation 7.. Disabled © e(ri i 1 ❑M [f s ❑Yes No 8. Ethnicity (Check One Box) Race (Check All That Apply) White LJ American Indian/Ataske Native L3NaiveHawaliaN 10. Social Security Number ❑ Hispanic/ ®Not Hispanic/ Latino Latino Other Pacific Islander ❑ Aslan ®Black/Af ican American 1. Last Name & Sr, r, etc. 2. 1 3. MI 4. Date of Birth 5. Sex 6. Eon 7. Disabled � M LI UK 8. Ethnicity (Check One Box) 9. Race (Check All That Apply) ❑White ❑ American IndiantAlaska Naive C3NaiveHawariaN 10. Social Security Nulinber L] Hispanic/ ® Not Hispanic/ Latino Latino Other Pacific Islander ❑ Asian Black African American 1. Last Name Bvsr. Jr, etc. 2. First Name 3. MI 4. Date of Birth 5. Sex �F 6. Relation 7. Disabled ❑Yes 8. Ethnicity (Check One Box) 9. Race (ChAll That Apply) ❑ Whi[e 6 American IndiantAlaska Naive L)NativeHawaliaN 10. Social Security Number ❑ Hispanic/ Not Hispanic/ Laino Latino E3 Asian ®BlacidAfrican American Other Pacific Islander 1. Last Name & Sr, Jr, etc. 2. First Name 3. MI4. Date of Birth 5. Sex 6. Relation 7. Disabled ❑M �F ` L3 Yes Z° 8. Ethnicity (Check One Box) 9 Race (C All That Apply) EjWhite Indian/Alaska Native ❑ NativeHawaliaN 10. Social Security Number ❑ Hispanic/ M Not Hispanic/ American Other Pacific Islander i Asian Black/Atrican American 1. Last Name & Sr, Jr, etc. 2. First Name 3. MI 4. Date of Hirth 5. Sex 6. Relation 7. Disabled ❑M ❑F ❑Yes ❑No a. Ethnicity, (Check One Box) 9. Race (Check All That Apply) ❑ While ❑ American Indian/Alaska Native ❑ NativeHawaliard 10. Social Security Number ❑ Hispanic/ ❑ Not Hispanic/ Laino Latino Other Pacific Islander ❑ Asian ❑ BlawAMcan American DELIVERED SEP 2 9 20i6 0 HAPPY Software, Inc. Ar1111rIrIyr 11 rrr`Sr yr yl Slllr yr lllllllrl PM 9/26/2016 Pagel TENANT INFORMATION 1 SRM Part 2: `Household (Continued) MARITAL STATUS: Place an 'X" next to the applicable status. Attach extra sheet of paper to explain if needed. Single _X— Married _ Married/not living together — Domestic Partnership Other — Divorced/Legally Separated (supply documentation such as divorce decree) 1. Are the children listed currently living with you? If no, where are they living? Yes ❑ No 2. Are any children listed as household members In foster care? If yes, provide name of children) and copy of any existing ❑Yes No case permanency plan. 3. a) Do any of the children in the household stay outside of your home for any period of lime? If yes, list which children, ❑ Yes LX No the other address where they stay and what percentage of time they are out of your household. Percent of Time b) Is/are the child(ren) out of the home due to a shared custody situation? If yes, provide copy of court documents. ❑ Yes W No 4. Provide name & address of the school each child attends (other than college). s. Has any member of your household gone by a different name? (maiden name, previous marriage/domestic partnership) List all previous names. ❑ Yes CA No L Does anyone stay with you now that is not listed on this form? If yes who? ❑ Yes Q No Does anyone plan to live with you in the future who is not listed on page one of this forth? (including pregnancy) ❑ Yes No Do you have a payee or a Guardian? If yes, provide name and mailing address of that person. Li Yes No If yes who? B. Do you or any other members of your household have a mobile home or any other vehicles (car. truck. SUVI? If yes, list below. Yes ❑ No Make/Model gYeearr License Plate # Sta,{te & County of Registration o i t �9 ni 9. a) Have you or any member of your household been arrested/charged with a crime, except traffic tickets, in the past 5 years? ❑ Yes 0 No b) When was the arrest/chame? c) What was the arrest/charge? d) What happened to the arrest/charge? (circle one) Convicted Deferred Dismissed Dropped Not Guilty Plead Guilty Other Is any member of your household subject to a Sex Offender Registration in any State? ❑ Yes 09 No -Part 3: Asset Information List all bank accounts, stocks, bonds, CDs, trusts, real estate, life insurance and cash for all family members regardless of age. Attach copies of bank statements/verification of asset value. Family Member Fit N e Name of Bank/Businerss that can verify value of asset? Balance -�fao PL(g[y 'qey rhu l Does anyone have any ownership interest in real estate (e.g., buying on contract or deed holder)? t. Does anyone in the household have assets such as cash, property, or investments outside the USA? If yes, list the type of asset: ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ Yes ANo 0 HAPPY Software, Inc. r n 111 n 111 i 111 ... U-1.111111.) 1111111111 PM 9/26/2016 Page 2 TENANT INFORMATION, JRM Pert4: Income Information - for all members of the household regaraless or age Does anyone in the household receive SSDI/SSI or SOCIAL SECURITY? Attach most recent benefit letter. LI Yes N, EA No EA Name of person[s] receiving: Monthly Amounts 2. Does anyone in the household receive cash benefits from DHS? Attach most recent statement of benefits. ❑ Yes 1A No Name of person[s] receiving: Monthly Amount: $ 3. Does anyone in the household receive CHILD SUPPORT? Attach a recent printout from Child Support Recovery. ❑ Yes �, No Name of person[s] receiving: Monthly Amount: $ 4. Does anyone in the household receive RETIREMENT/PENSION? Attach award letter or other verification of amount. ❑ Yes Rj No Name of person[s] receiving: Name & address of administrating agency: 5. Is anyone in the household SELF-EMPLOYED or a PERSON IN CHARGE of a BUSINESS (taxi driver, tail IJ(sales, Yes LI No daycare, housekeeping, etc.)?. If yes, a h u ant tax retumfaccounting ledger. Ty a of work UlY•Y/" q � pp Name of person[s] working: Incom weekly i-weekly/monthly (circle one) $ —2 6A a 6. Is anyone in the household receiving OTHER INCOME on a regular basis including money, payment of monthly bills, etc? ❑ Yes % No If yes, please describe: 7. Does anyone in your household receive UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE? ❑ Yes 01 No Name of persons] receiving: Weekly Amount: $ 8. Does anyone in your household receive INCOME FROM WORK (Wages)?: Provide copies of 2 months pay stubs. ❑ Yes AN, Name of person working: Hourly wage: Hours per week: Start Date: Name of Employer. Full Address of Employer Name of person working: Hourly wage: Hours per week: Start Date: Name of Employer. Full Address of Employer r� 9. Did you file a Federal Income Tax Return last year? � Yes ❑ No State Retum? C§ Yes ❑ No If yes, which State? 10. Does anyone living outside the household pay any of your bills on a regular basis? LI Yes ,tet Lill No 11. Does any individual in your household 18 years or older have zero income, if yes who? R cn! q (Z Yes ❑ No 18 12. Is anyone in the hous hold a o Mer a student? � LI No a) Name of student Xj Full Time Part Time Name S mailing address of school: AM Does this student receive (or expect to receive) financial aid? If yes, attach copy of award letter.��Yy Yes El No Amount of annual financial aid: $ Is this financial aid taxable? AYes ❑ No b) Name of student _Full Time _ Part Time Name & mailing address of school: Does this student receive (or expect to receive) financial aid? If yes, attach copy of award letter. ❑ Yes ❑ No Amount of annual financial aid: $ Is this financial aid taxable? ❑ Yes ❑ No Part 5: Residence and Landlord Information 1. Do you currently, or have you ever lived in Public Housing, Housing Assisted by a Section 8 program, or any other type of LI Yes v�4t EQ No Federally Assisted Housing? 2. Have you or any members of your household been terminated or evicted from Public Housing, Indian Housing, El Yes r��1 lal No Section 23 Housing, or a Section 8 Program in the past 5 years? Yes LJ Yes � No 3. Does any member of your household owe money to a Housing Authority or landlord that provides assisted housing? 4. Are you homeless, meaning you do not have a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence? ❑ Yes [LNo S. Are you homeless and Fleeing, or attempting to Flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking and ❑ Yes No unable to obtain permanent housing? 6• a) Current landlord name: i'o •AqW Curent landlord address- �t s / Current landlord phone#: (J?(Q) �- C"7 Move in Month & Year: Feb-T.jo li7 11 �A9-'� b) Previous landlord name: Previous landlord address* v ELIVERE—S 2 g Previous landlord phone M ( ) - Dates of occupancy: Previous address, The last place you lived 0 HAPPY Software, Inc. /11r111r1111111rrr U-1r114111ry 1111111111 PM 9126/2016 Page Aly 21rd TENANT INFORMATION FORM — Part 6: Child Care Provider and Disability Assistance Allowance 1. Do you pay for child care for children under the age of 12 which allows a family member to work or go to school? 2. If yes, what is the cost? $ per week—biweekly—monthly (circle one) 3. Are you reimbursed for this expense by anyone or any agency? 4. Does anyone other than you pay for the child care (family member, other parent, friend)? If yes, provide name and address of person paying for child care. Name and Address of Care Provider Address City State_ ZIP ❑ Yes (% No ❑ Yes %I No ❑ Yes � No Do you pay for equipment or personal care of a disabled household ember that allows you to work? If yes, please describe — Part 7: Medical Expenses Elderly & Disabled Households - complete only if the Head of House, Spouse, Co -Head or Domestic Partner is age 62 or older or disabled. List medical expenses you are not reimbursed for- including: insurance premiums, medical, dental, optical, hearing & prescription expenses. Do you pay for health insurance premiums? ❑ Yes ❑ No Are you reimbursed for these payments? ❑ Yes LINO Family Member First Name Provider Monthly Amount a 2. Are you enrolled in a drug prescription plan? ❑ Yes ❑ No Do you pay for this plan? ❑ Yes ❑ No Family Member First Name Provider Monthly Amount s_ 3. Do you have out of pocket prescription expenses? Family Member First Name Name of Pharmacy 4. Do you have long term care insurance? ❑ yes ❑ No Name of Family Member Provider ❑ Yes ❑ No Monthly Amounts ether Ongoing Out of Pocket Medical Expenses . Family Member First Name Provider Address city Family Member First Name Provider Address City Q HAPPY Software, Inc. Monthly Amount s Monthly Amounts State ZIP Monthly Amount a State Attach additional sheets of Pacer If irrrurrlrlir4l„r44ri.ii4nirr,rrnurrr ZIP PM 9/2612016 Page 4 NANT INFORMATION FORM Part 8: Head of Household Must Sign this Form Certifying Accuracy of Information Provided I certify that the information on this form is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that I can be fined up to $10,000, or impris ned up to five years if I furnish false or incomplete information. 4, '%!"f I Emadeldin Gasmelseed Date I certify that the information on this form is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that I can be fined up to $10,000, or imprisoned up to five years if I furnish false or incomplete information. Other Adult Other Adult Other Adult Other Adult t Other Adult Date Date Date Date Date Before returning this form, did you remember to attach copies of document's such as : • 2 months of pay stubs; • DHS benefit printout; • Financial aid award letter; DELIVERED SEP 2 9 2016 • Pension award letter; • Copies of documents (bank statements, etc.) showing the value of assets O HAPPY Software, Inc. /11111111111-11... U -1-11111m. K11111111 PM 9126/2016 Page t Lis DATE: JULY 2016 AMERICAN TAXI CAB TAXI CAB IN COME 1600 ITEM TAXI EXPENSES ANNUAL COMPANY OF TAXI FEES PER YEAR ICHEK $ 400 INSURANCE PER MONTH $ 300 UP PER MONTH $150 CLEAN PER MONTH $ 50 GAS PER MONTH L8O TOTAL $ 400 TOTAL INCOME /$1600 -$ 580 =1020 NAME:EMADELDIN GASMELSEED SING: ��f�.��•-� a�r P cal Illoy DELIVERED Qi;T 0 6 2016 DATE: AUG 2016 AMERICAN TAXI CAB awOmFF.s TAXI CAB IN COME 1600 TOTAL I N CO M E /$ 1600 -$ 580 =1020 NAME:EMADELDIN GASMELSEED SING:f UERED OCTI 0 6 20 TAXI EXPENSES ANNUAL. ITEM COMPANY OF TAXI FEES PER YEAR $ 400 INSURANCE PER MONTH $ 300 CHEK UP PER MONTH $150 CLEAN PER MONTH $ 50 GAS PER MONTH $80 TOTAL 580 $ 400 TOTAL I N CO M E /$ 1600 -$ 580 =1020 NAME:EMADELDIN GASMELSEED SING:f UERED OCTI 0 6 20 DATE: SEP 2016 AMERICAN TAXI CAB TAXI CAB IN COME 1700 ITEM TAM-1-O� COMPANY OF TAXI FEES PER YEAR INSURANCE PER MONTH CHEK UP PER MONTH CLEAN PER MONTH GAS PER MONTHTOTAL TOTAL INCOME /$1700 -$ 580 =1120 NAME:EMADELDIN GASMELSEED SING: P-� DELIVERED CC 10 6 2C'j Jim Dickerson, PGA Golf December 14, 2016 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council 319-351-0596 p.1 CITY OF IOWA CITY 910 East Washington Sirecl Iowa City, losva 52240-1826 13171 356-5000 13171356-5007 FAX mm-Acgov.olg RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Recreation Program Supervisor — Special & Underserved Populations 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 Recreation Program Supervisor— Special & Underserved Populations. RaQuishia Harrington IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra Vh Dickerson, Chair IP13 01-12-17 Iowa City Police Department and University of Iowa DP Bar Check Report - December, 2016 The purpose of the Bar Check Report is to track the performance of Iowa City liquor license establishments in monitoring their patrons for violations of Iowa City's ordinances on Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) and Persons Under the Legal Age in Licensed or Permitted Establishments (Under 21). Bar checks are defined by resolution as an officer -initiated check of a liquor establishment for PAULA or other alcohol related violations. This includes checks done as part of directed checks of designated liquor establishments, and checks initiated by officers as part of their routine duties. It does not include officer responses to calls for service. 1 The bar check ratios are calculated by dividing the number of citations issued to the patrons at that i establishment during the relevant period of time by the number of bar checks performed during the same period of time. The resulting PAULA ratio holds special significance to those establishments with exception certificates, entertainment venue status, or split venues, in that they risk losing their special status if at any time their PAULA ratio exceeds .25 for the trailing 12 months. Note, while the resolution requires that bar checks and citations of the University of Iowa Department of Public Safety (DPS) be included in these statistics, the DPS ceased performing bar checks and issuing these citations to patrons in May of 2014. Previous 12 Months Top 10 Under 21 Citations PAULA Citations Name Visits Citations Ratio Business Name Visits Citations nion Bar Jen Lounge immit. [The] irliner )orts Column nts n is 95 92 0.9684211 Union Bar 95 79 21 20 0.9523810 Summit. [The] 65 26 65 61 0.9384615 Airliner 18 5 18 11 0.6111111 Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 94 26 69 33 0.4782609 Sports Column 69 12 69 31 0.4492754 Bardot Iowa 18 3 Bar & Grill, [It's] 94 28 36 e 36 Only those Under 21 Citz 29 0.3085106 DC's 69 11 6 0.2142857 Eden Lounge 21 3 6 0.1666667 Fieldhouse 36 1 5 0.1388889 establishments with at least 10 bar checks are listed in the chart above. Current Month Top 10 itions PAULA Citations Bar 5 5 Ratio 0.2765957 0.1739130 0.1594203 — exception to 21 ordinance Page 1 of 6 Iowa City Police Department and University of Iowa DPS Bar Check Report - December, 2016 Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) Under 21 Charges Numbers are reflective of Iowa City Police activity and University of Iowa Police Activity Business Name Monthly Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Under 21 PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) 2 Dogs Pub 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Airliner 0 1 0 18 11 5 0.6111111 0.2777778 American Legion 0 0 0 Atlas World Grill 0 0 0 Bardot Iowa 1 0 0 18 0 3 0 0.1666667 Baroncini- 0 0 0 Basta 0 0 0 Blackstone- 0 0 0 Blue Moose- 0 0 0 21 2 0 0.0952381 0 Bluebird Diner 0 0 0 Bob's Your Uncle ^' 0 0 0 Bo -James 0 0 0 8 3 0 0.375 0 Bread Garden Market & Bakery^' 0 0 0 Brix 0 0 0 Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 5 0 0 94 29 26 0.3085106 0.2765957 Brown Bottle, [The]- 0 0 0 Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar' 0 0 0 Cactus 2 Mexican Grill (314 E Burlington) 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 7 Cactus Mexican Grill (245 s. Gilbert) 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 4 Caliente Night Club 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Carlos O'Kelly's" 0 0 0 Chili Yummy Yummy Chili 0 0 0 Chipotle Mexican Grill 0 0 0 Clarion Highlander Hotel 0 0 0 - exception to 21 ordinance Page 2 of 6 Business Name Monthly Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks I Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks I I Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Clinton St Social Club 0 0 0 Club Car, [The] 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Coach's Corner 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Colonial Lanes— 0 0 0 Dave's Foxhead Tavern 0 0 0 DC's 2 0 0 69 31 11 0.4492754 0.1594203 Deadwood, [The] 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Devotay— 0 0 0 Donnelly's Pub 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Dublin Underground, [The] 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Eagle's, [Fraternal Order of] 0 0 0 Eden Lounge 3 2 0 21 20 3 0.952381 0.1428571 EI Banditos 0 0 0 EI Cactus Mexican Cuisine 0 0 0 EI Dorado Mexican Restaurant 0 0 0 EI Ranchero Mexican Restaurant 0 0 0 Elks #590, [BPO] 0 0 0 EnglertTheatre— 0 0 0 Fieldhouse 2 0 0 36 5 1 0.1388889 0.0277778 FilmScene 0 0 0 First Avenue Club— 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Formosa Asian Cuisine— 0 0 0 Gabes— 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 George's Buffet 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Givanni's— 0 0 0 Godfather's Pizza 0 0 0 Graze" 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Grizzly's South Side Pub 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Hilltop Lounge, [The] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Howling Dogs Bistro 0 0 0 IC Ugly's 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 India Cafe 0 0 0 exception to 21 ordinance Page 3 of 6 Business Name Monthly Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Under2l Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) Iron Hawk 0 0 0 Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack 0 0 0 Jobsite 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 Joe's Place 2 0 0 23 0 0 0 Joseph's Steak House— 0 0 0 Linn Street Cafes 0 0 0 Los Portales 0 0 0 Martini's 2 2 0 36 6 0 0.1666667 Masala 0 0 0 Mekong Restaurant' 0 0 0 Micky's` 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Mill Restaurant, [The]— 0 0 0 Moose, [Loyal Order of] j 0 0 0 Mosleys 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Motley Cow Cafe` 0 0 0 Noodles & Company— 0 0 0 Okoboji Grill` 0 0 ! 0 Old Capitol Brew Works 0 0 0 One -Twenty -Six 0 0 0 Orchard Green Restaurant' 00 0 Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant 0 0 0 Pagliai's Pizza" 0 0 0 Panchero's (Clinton St)— 0 0 0 Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr)— 0 0 0 Pints 2 0 0 28 6 0 0.2142857 Pit Smokehouse` 0 0 0 Pizza Arcade 0 0 0 Pizza Hut' 0 0 0 Players 0 0 0 Quinton's Bar & Deli 0 0 0 Rice Village 0 0 0 Ride 0 0 0 PAULA Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) PJ 0 G] i) — exception to 21 ordinance Page 4 of 6 Business Name Monthly Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks I Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Ridge Pub 0 0 0 Riverside Theatre— 0 0 0 Saloon— 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Sam's Pizza 0 0 0 Sanctuary Restaurant, [The] 0 0 0 Shakespeare's 0 0 0 Sheraton 0 0 0 Short's Burger & Shine" 0 0 0 Short's Burger Eastside 0 0 0 Sports Column 3 0 0 69 33 12 0.4782609 0.1739130 Studio 13 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Summit. [The] 4 4 0 65 61 26 0.9384615 0.4 Sushi Popo 0 0 0 Szechuan House 0 0 0 Takanami Restaurant— 0 0 0 Taqueria Acapulco 0 0 0 TCB 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 Thai Flavors 0 0 0 Thai Spice 0 0 0 Times Club @ Prairie Lights 0 0 0 Trumpet Blossom Cafe 0 0 0 Union Bar 5 7 5 95 92 79 0.9684211 0.8315789 VFW Post#3949 0 0 0 Vine Tavern, [The] 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Wig & Pen Pizza Pub" 0 0 0 Yacht Club, [Iowa City]— 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Yen Ching 0 0 0 Z'Mariks Noodle House 0 0 0 exception to 21 ordinance Page 5 of 6 Monthly Totals Prev 12 Month Totals Under2l PAULA Bar Under2l PAULA Bar Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio Checks Checks (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Totals 32 16 5 695 299 177 0.4302158 0.2546763 Off Premise 0 0 5 0 0 101 0 0 Grand Totals 30 278 - exception to 21 ordinance Page 6 of 6 NJ Julie Voparil sme RNWeNte Ptetibele i From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments Fellow Council members, Jim Throgmorton Tuesday, January 17, 2017 10:59 AM Council Geoff Fruin; Julie Voparil Briefing about Mann Elem GO Bond Memo - Lynch.pdf (Date) On December 5, John Thomas, Geoff Fruin and I met with Steve Murley to discuss the District's preliminary ideas about FMP- related improvements at Mann Elementary. After the School Board's January 10 work session, we began hearing reports that City government was dragging its feet and delaying those improvements. During tonight's work session, I intend to brief you on why those reports emerged, and what actions Geoff and I have taken over the past several days in response. Our focus must be on a developing with the School Administration and Board a shared understanding and a timely and mutually -agreeable course of action. For your information, I am also including a copy of a January 10 memo from Chris Lynch to the Board in which he recommends that a $75-95 million G.O. bond be presented to the voters rather than the current proposal of $194. JULIE, would you please ensure that this email and attachment are included in tonight's Late Handout. Mayor Jim Throgmorton Iowa City City Council, At -Large Iowa City Conununity School District Educational Services Center Stephen F. Murley Superintendent of Schools 1725 Nortlt Dodge Street • iocsa Cir,_ to 52245 • 019) 6£S&-1600 • Pax 0191 688-100 * %mv iowacityschools.og To: Directors, Board of Education Steve Murley, Superintendent From: Chris Lynch Date: January 10, 2017 Re: G.O. Bond Recommendation I would recommend that the planned G.O. Bond for September 2017 be in the $75-95 million range vs. the current proposal of $194 million. This proposal would continue to enable: 1. The current FMP projects and the 10 year timeline. 2. It would fully fund projects which will start by FY2017-18 and that will finish by FY2019-20 as per the current Facilities Master Plan. 3. It will allow for 3 Iowa Legislative Sessions to complete the passage of a SAVE extension. 4. It would provide sufficient funding until the summer/fall of 2019 for another G.O. Bond in the event that SAVE is not extended in the next 3 Iowa Legislative Sessions. 5. It will ensure we maintain a reasonable tax rate which will continue to be the lowest in the UEN (top 8 districts) and amongst the lowest tax rate of the top 25 districts while also supporting the FMP. I am certainly open to discuss all options and I look forward to reviewing the updated Administration FMP Recommendation on Tuesday night. The updated Admin recommendation certainly could update my thinking, but I wanted to provide my thoughts in advance as part of the Board Packet. Rationale: G.O. Bond vs. SAVE Funding Strategy: The original FMP funding strategy included using G.O. Bond funding for the remaining FMP projects. It also assumed a SAVE expiration in 2029. There has been broad based support to extend SAVE funding to 2049 or beyond; however, there has been debate on how exactly to do it. Assuming SAVE is funded, we would have sufficient funding to complete the current FMP without the need for another G.O. Bond beyond this proposal. FMP: Keep the plan rolling: A failure of the G.O. Bond in September 2017 will effectively result in a "full stop" of progressing the plan. The best case in a G.O. Bond failure is that 1 of 8 planned projects might continue to progress. The following items would not happen on the proposed timings with a bond failure: 1) Air conditioning our elementary schools, 2) Needed capacity increases will not happen, 3) Needed renovations of our older schools will not happen, 4) Our vision of Transforming the Learning Environment will not happen on the planned timing. Decreasing the bond amount increases the probability of success. Tax Rate Management: First, our tax rate is the lowest of the top 8 districts in Iowa. We are 22nd lowest amongst the top 25 districts. We could fund a $194 million G.O. Bond and still be well below the tax rate average. Having said this, when you look at the funding power of SAVE and if we can fully utilize SAVE, we can definitely keep the tax rate at lower levels. A $194 million G.O. Bond could gradually increase the tax rate overtime by $1.62 per thousand. If w tkeep hh IC�!4 Bi4vfd to $i 7 rMlt#li rtt#h�ttas�ret migf>beiH#y in ase y_$@>.,3B„tTfris'1owe�ytl tehs a#tie#ly decisions in a democratic society as well ac vt 1he dynamic giobul cotnntwtity; this is reeumplishod by diallenging, each stadcrot with t i gorous and creoliw eun'icalmu mught by a diverse, pmfessinnal, caring staff and etsiched throttid) the resum'ces and the of tits of ratnilies and the entire cwmnin ity. enabled by current debt which will expire in 2017/18. Also, for consideration, if SAVE is extended it would potentially be possible to keep the tax rate impact of the G.O. Bond flat vs. current rates since SAVE could fund the bond payouts. Further, I think we should establish a goal to work toward keeping the tax rate below our recent high rate of $14.69 per thousand. This graph shows our recent history: ___ _. - _ ----_. _. _.. - I 15.00 14.00 d 13.00 0 12.00 11.00 10.00 Iowa City Community Schools Total Tax Rate History 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Background: • The current FMP funding strategy plans to utilize the following funding streams: o PPEL: Physical Plant Education Levy. o SAVE: Securing an Advanced Vision for Education which currently expires in 2029. This is the "penny tax". o GO Bond: The remainder of funding in the first ten years is completed via GO Bonding. MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 14,2016 — 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Becky Soglin, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Doug Boothroy, Susan Dulek, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Clark, Adam Brantman, Greg Buehner CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed the meeting. Weitzel moved to approve the transcripts of the September 14, 21, and 30 hearings with corrections as the minutes. Chrischilles seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. CONSIDER THE NOVEMBER 9, 2016 MINUTES: Goeb moved to approve the minutes of November 9, 2016. Soglin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. APPEAL ITEM APL12:00002: Discussion of an appeal submitted by 324 & 326 N Dubuque LLC regarding the classification of a use/structure located in the High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) zone located at 324 North Dubuque Street. Boothroy began the staff report and stated that the appeal is on a determination the he made to deny a building permit at 324 North Dubuque Street. He stated the issue revolves around what a nonconforming single family use can do and how that particular paragraph is to be read. Boothroy explained that his decision was based on the reasoning that this particular home was nonconforming with terms to occupancy it is not allowed to increase to that particular occupancy in the Zoning Code. Boothroy showed a location map of the area, the house is in the middle of Board of Adjustment December 14, 2016 Page 2 of 12 the block and does not have driveway access nor any parking. The home is nonconforming for a number of reasons. (1) It is a single family house located in a multi -family zone and under the Zoning Code single family uses are not permitted in this particular multi -family zone. (2) There is no parking and (3) it is nonconforming with regards to occupancy. Boothroy stated the language that was used at the time of the building permit denial from 14-4E-4 Nonconforming Single Family Uses "Except with regard to the occupancy...." If the occupancy is non- conforming, then the conforming rights granted to non -conforming single-family uses do not apply. The property cannot be expanded". Boothroy explained that this particular provision (14- 4E-4) was added to the Zoning Code in 1984 to single family uses that were being used as single family the right to continue as conforming even if not permitted in a large multi -family, industrial, or commercial zone. Boothroy explained that existing house is a four bedroom house with a bath on the second level. It is a small house and the proposal was to add an addition onto the back of the house for a fifth bedroom, a laundry area, and a couple baths. The house is nonconforming in terms of occupancy, at the time the 2005 Zoning Code was being considered (prior to its adoption) there was a provision of time that was allowed for existing rental properties to document the occupancy that they had in place. If they documented that occupancy and it was recorded on the rental permit by a specific date that occupancy would be grandfathered. In this case the occupancy was five unrelated individuals and at the time of the 2005 Code adoption single family uses in a RM -44 zone were allowed a family, two unrelated individuals plus three roomers. Subsequently the City has changed the definition of household (in this situation) to allow only three unrelated individuals, two as a family and one unrelated roomer. Boothroy shared the section of the Code that is being discussed, and noted this is the only issue in contention this evening, they are not debating the occupancy or that it is a nonconforming single family use, they are debating how this particular section of the Code is applied and whether or not his reading of it is the correct reading. Except with regard to the occupancy [bold added], any single-family use, structure for a single- family use, including any accessory structures, and any lot on which a single-family use is located, that was established lawfully prior to the establishment of the currently applicable development regulations and, due to a change in the regulations, is no longer in conformance with the provisions of this title, will generally be treated as conforming for as long as the dwelling is used for a single-family use (City Code Section 14-4E-4) Boothroy explained that the discussion he had with the owner of the property is that because it is a nonconforming property and because the way the Code is written this particular paragraph (in his opinion) states if there is a nonconforming occupancy then they are not to be treated as conforming. The owner was given the option of reducing the occupancy to three unrelated and if so then this paragraph would apply. Boothroy acknowledges that the paragraph is not artfully drafted and perhaps is confusing in how it is stated. It could be stated "any single family use that was lawfully established prior to the applicable regulations and is no longer in conformance with this provision of this chapter, except with regards to occupancy, should be generally treated as conforming for as long as the dwelling is used as a single family use". Chrischilles asked if this particular house was grandfathered in. Boothroy acknowledged that for a number of reasons it was. Chrischilles asked if in a RM -44 Zone is multi -family and ideally apartments. Boothroy conformed that is correct and if this house was removed, or if it were a vacant lot, a single family structure would not be allowed, only a multi -family use structure could be built. Chrischilles asked what the intent was behind adding the verbiage "except with regards to occupancy" in this rule. Boothroy said it was meant that occupancy was Board of Adjustment December 14, 2016 Page 3 of 12 grandfathered only before the adoption of the 2005 code, but that does not give the owner the right to expand the single family use with a nonconforming occupancy. This was done to try to control some of the occupancies in the University impact areas and student housing, so they reduced the occupancy throughout the area and added this phrase to the Code to control that particular issue. Chrischilles asked if it were a family in this home, could they then add the addition. Boothroy said that it would comply then, or even if it were only three unrelated individuals, it would comply. Soglin asked about the definitions of household that Boothroy shared with the Board and if household and family were synonymous. Boothroy stated that a single household is considered a single family. Baker asked if there were any historical preservation issues with this property. Boothroy confirmed that this structure is not in a historical district. Baker asked if the issue regarding the expansion is if the assumption was if they expand the size of the house (and add a bedroom) that they would expand the occupancy of the house. Boothroy said by adding the bedroom, baths, and laundry area it makes the property more attractive for renting and makes it easier to rent to five unrelated individuals than the way it is configured right now. Jeff Clark (representative for the applicants) stated he disagrees with the interpretation of the zoning ordinance, in particular this section. The property was built around 1925, one bathroom and four bedrooms which is basically functionally obsolete so he is trying to make the home more functional and up to today's standards. Clark stated he has worked with the Building Department for over 20 years and generally they get along and often do agree to disagree such as in this situation. Clark noted that the Code generally changes with controversial issues but this section of the Code has been around for a very long time. Lots of times there are Code clarifications that are needed and one can sit down with Staff and Legal and things can be resolved but this time it was unable to be resolved. Clark contends that the reason the building permit was denied was because of those first five or six words. His disagreement is that there really never has been this interpretation on single family dwellings, it actually states "Except with regard to the occupancy" and the occupancy is generally stated as maximum occupancy or unrelated roomers. Occupancy is more of what type of use the structure is, and that is what has been presented to him over many years. Clark stated he has utilized this specific ordinance several times over the years and has been allowed to add bedrooms and bathrooms to updated properties and take them out of obsolete states. Clark noted that the 1999 Zoning Ordinance has a very similar section (Article T -14-16-2-B) which states "notwithstanding any provisions of this Chapter any single family use a single family dwelling, accessory structure, or lot with a single family dwelling should generally be treated as conforming for as long as the dwelling is used for a single family use". Clark said the ordinance has been in effect for about 45 years and there have been several zones that have been downzoned to only three or four people and the maximum occupancy that was allowed was five and the City honored that. He stated that the property in question was purchased with the idea to upgrade it, and to make the house as only three unrelated is not viable, it was purchased as a four bedroom five occupant house. The living room actually has egress windows so if people really wanted to push the limits it could be counted as another bedroom. Single family are based on occupancy and not number of bedrooms and the occupancy allowed is five. Clark stated that currently the single family dwelling at 324 North Dubuque allows five occupants but there are only four bedrooms on the rental permit. As far as the upgrade, Clark Board of Adjustment December 14, 2016 Page 4 of 12 maintains that everyone knows how hard it is to have to wait to use a bathroom, and it has become a norm to have laundry facilities in a home so adding a little more room to accommodate more amenities is a good thing. Clark contends to take an older home out of the functionally obsolete is what is right and how the Code reads. Updates will allow for keeping these older homes around for a longer time and also keeping downtown more historic. For years, decades, and possibly centuries many others will benefit from the update to this property. Clark is requesting that the Board find error in the Building Official for denying this building permit and allow the issuance of permits that have always been allowed on nonconforming single family dwellings. Clark noted there is no definition in the Zoning Ordinance or Housing Ordinance regarding occupancy. When one looks up occupancy in the International Building Code it talks about a type of use (industrial, commercial, etc.) or defined as how much is rented in a particular area versus vacancy. Weitzel asked if Clark has specific examples of the situation where there is a nonconforming single family house in a larger zone (where the single family use in now not allowed by right, just by grandfathering in) and he's received a building permit to expand the occupancy of that property. Clark gave the example of 208 Davenport Street several years ago and 608 South Johnson Street last year. Clark said both examples were the exact same situation as this and the Code was interpreted in a different way. Soglin asked if the zone was the same for the other two examples. Clark said the Davenport Street house was not in the same zone, but it was the same situation where only three maximum occupancy was allowed and there was a four maximum occupancy on the rental permit. 608 South Johnson was the same zone and it was an enlargement and expansion of that property adding bathrooms, laundry room, and bedrooms. Weitzel asked if four was the occupancy listed on the rental permit that was issued this year for the subject property. Clark replied that the rental permit states an occupancy of five. Goeb asked how long Clark has owned the subject property. Clark responded that he has owned the property for a little over a year. Goeb asked if Clark was allowed to do the expansion on the property would the occupancy still be a maximum of five and Clark replied that was correct. Soglin stated that she wish the Board had the details of the other two cases Clark mentioned so they could compare the situations. Clark stated that the 208 Davenport Street situation was in 2011 and is likely in a RS -8 or RS -12 zone. The rental permit showed a maximum occupancy of four. The home originally had three bedrooms so they did the addition to add a fourth bedroom and a remodel of the existing structure to add a second bathroom. For the property at 608 South Johnson (in 2015) the rental permit has a maximum occupancy of five and had five existing bedrooms and they added two bedrooms and two bathrooms and a laundry room and a garage. Chrischilles asked why they made it into a seven bedroom house and Clark noted that they abandoned the basement bedrooms, so it remained a five bedroom house after the addition. Baker asked if the examples that Clark is stating now were part of his discussions with City Staff. Clark said he had talked to Boothroy about having been allowed to do this type of expansion in the past, but doesn't remember if he raised these exact examples with Staff. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2016 Page 5 of 12 Boothroy stated that he and Clark did not discuss any specific examples but Clark had mentioned he had been allowed to do these expansions in the past. Boothroy pointed out that the property can continue to rent as a nonconforming occupancy (with up to five renters) what is being denied is the rental permit for the addition. Additionally Boothroy acknowledged even if a mistake was made previously that doesn't necessarily justify continuing to make mistakes. Boothroy noted he was not involved in those other two decisions so he is not familiar with those two project. Goeb asked then what role does consistency play in making these decisions. Boothroy says it plays no role if the decision was not legal. It can play a role in decisions when the interpretation is a reasonable interpretation, but if the decision is that it is not allowed under the law (and it happens from time to time with regards to enforcement) the mistake in and of itself does not justify it again just for sake of consistency. Goeb asked if Boothroy feels that the decisions he has made have been consistent and Boothroy confirmed his decisions are consistent. He acknowledged that having been in the business for 41 years mistakes are made. Chrischilles asked if within the course of discussions with Mr. Clark when he stated that the City has let him do this before why specific examples were not inquired about at that time. Boothroy stated that he was focusing on the language of the Code and he felt the Code was clearly obvious. Chrischilles noted that he is concerned that there may have been a lack of consistency and the fairness. Boothroy stated that what is fair is that the property can still be rented to up to five unrelated individuals. Chrischilles asked what the harm is for the addition then, if five are allowed now and only five will be allowed in the future. Boothroy stated that the whole idea of nonconforming uses is that at some point they go away. So if allowed to make the property more usable and more profitable then it wouldn't ever likely convert back to a single family use nor purchased and redeveloped with other properties. Baker asked Dulek about the sense on the Board regarding consistency, with the applicant stating that the City has allowed this in the past, so if the Board is going to uphold the applicant based on consistency shouldn't the Board continue this meeting after verification of all the facts and other examples. Dulek acknowledged that certainly would be a reasonable response. Baker opened up the public hearing. Seeing no one, Baker closed the public hearing. Goeb noted that the perceived inconsistency is of a concern to her, but recognizes what Mr. Boothroy stated about the idea of nonconforming is that the use will go away at some time and the property would then come into a conforming status and that makes her support the City's view. Chrischilles stated that if this were the only example or instance where this was called into question he would agree with the City because it is clearly stated in the Code about the occupancy. However the issue of inconsistency puts him in a grey area and is unsure what to think about that. He questions what the Board of City's responsibilities are regarding how things were handled in the past and maybe having the specific detail informant about examples is necessary. Weitzel stated his is sympathetic to a situation where the property owner or developer has been allowed to do something in the past and made a financial decision on this property based on past situations but ultimately believes the Board needs to go back to the Code, look at how it is written, and enforce it consistently even if it has not been so in the past. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2016 Page 6 of 12 Soglin agrees with all statements made and noted that the Board is to deal with preponderance of evidence. Dulek noted that this is a legal matter and is not necessarily evidentiary. Soglin believes there was an opportunity to bring more evidence and data to this meeting and that was not presented. Baker stated that even if the Board consented that the examples cited were consistent with the issue before us tonight then there are only two decisions. Either they were right to be allowed in the past or it was wrong and if they were wrong that is irrelevant to the issue this evening. Staff is stating that the way the Code is interpreted now is the application should be denied. That being said one of the options for the Board is to accept, reject, or amend the appeal and is curious if there is any desire of the Board to amend this appeal. Weitzel believes the Board would have to find an error in judgement first before amending the appeal. Baker asked if there had to be an error in judgement to amend the appeal. For example, hypothetically, an additional bathroom seems to be appropriate if the idea is to make the structure more livable for five occupants. Goeb noted that the idea is to not keep the structure as desirable to be nonconformitive so eventually it may not exist. Dulek noted that reading from Section 14 -8C -3B(4) it states "In exercising the above mentioned powers, the board of adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this title or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error (italics added), reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end, shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken". Therefore the Board will need to find error if they wish to modify the appeal. Weitzel moves to approve APL16-00002 an appeal submitted by 324 & 326 N Dubuque LLC regarding the classification of a use/structure located in the High Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -44) zone located at 324 North Dubuque Street. Soglin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion failed 0-5. Baker stated the motion declared denied, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC16-00012: Discussion of an application submitted on behalf of Ellis Ave LLC, for a special exception to allow the establishment of a fraternity house on property located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone at 332 Ellis Avenue. Walz showed an aerial view of the property and it is surrounded by the RNS-20 zone and the shift to the single family zone begins at the next block over. The property is surrounded by multi -family uses, there is a fraternity next door and has frontage on two public streets (although Ridgeland Avenue functions more like an alley). There is also a public alley that runs between Ridgeland and Ellis Avenues and is used by both the fraternity to the south and the current Board of Adjustment December 14, 2016 Page 7 of 12 property (currently a rooming house). Walz explained that he RNS-20 zone is a mix of different uses (multi -family and fraternity houses), it is a stabilization zone so there are special requirements within that zone. The property is currently nonconforming with regards to the required off-street parking, a rooming house with 25 rooms is required to provide 19 parking spaces and this location is not able to provide those 19 spaces. Walz also noted that the parking area layout is problematic as it doesn't meet the current zoning code standards. Parking is provided along the back and the front, typically according to the Zoning Code once you have parking area of more than four cars it is not allowed to have them back into the street or into the public alley as it is along this area. If this building were to redevelop altogether there would be more ways to address the issues, as the situation is now the current structure is set far back in the lot. With regards to the specific criteria Walz explained that the subject property consists of 15,145 square feet of lot area. The applicant is seeking to acquire an additional 2,600 square feet of property by acquiring the alley directly to the south. If the applicant is successful in acquiring all of the adjacent alley right-of-way to the south of the house, the lot area will increase to 17,745 square feet, which will allow for the 19 roomers and the City would allow the 20 residents in the fraternity. Right-of-way vacations are reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which provides a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision on vacation requests. On top of the requirement for the lot area is the requirement of the maximum occupancy which is one per 300 square feet floor area in the building. The applicant has indicated 5,952 square feet of living are on floors one -three of the structure. This also would allow 19 roomers. The next criteria is that the group living use must have bath and toilet facilities available for use by roomers in such numbers as specified in title 17, "Building and Housing", of this code. In addition, the occupants shall have access to kitchen facilities, a dining room, and other shared living spaces and common facilities related to the use. The applicant has provided floor plans showing 20 bedrooms along with bathroom facilities on floors one through three of the house. The floor plan shows 2 bedrooms along with a lounge and large common area on the first floor with the remaining 18 bedrooms to be located on floors two and three. The basement level of the house shows a second lounge along with kitchen, dining, and laundry facilities. Staff recommends that a condition of approval limit the number of bedrooms to match the density of roomers. For example, if the lot area is 17,745 square feet, the applicant would be allowed 19 roomers. In this case, staff would recommend that one bedroom be removed from the first floor level of the house in order to discourage over -occupancy of the property. Changes to the ground level plan should be designed to discourage over -occupancy and should be subject to approval by the by the Building Official. Shared shower facilities should be limited to floors 2 and 3 for the same reason. The building code requires 1 shower for every 8 roomers. Floors two and three each have 9 rooms and three showers. The resident manager's room, which is on the first floor, includes a private bathroom with shower. Additional Approval Criteria for Special Exceptions states the proposed use must be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. The board of adjustment will consider aspects of the proposed use, such as the location, site size, types of accessory uses, anticipated traffic, building scale, setbacks, landscaping and amount of paved areas to ensure that the proposed use is compatible with other residential uses in the neighborhood. The board may prohibit certain aspects of a use or impose conditions or restrictions to mitigate any incompatibilities. These conditions or restrictions may include, but are not limited to, additional screening, landscaping, pedestrian facilities, setbacks, location and design of parking facilities, location and design of buildings, establishment of a facilities management plan, and similar. The applicant Board of Adjustment December 14, 2016 Page 8 of 12 has indicated that there will be substantial investment in the property and one of the important things they are going to do is sprinkler the building (which is not required) but is vital as safety for the functions of a fraternity house. Walz notes the nonconformities with parking in the Staff Report and acknowledges that Staff knows it is unreasonable for the location to become completely compliant but feels it is important to come as close to conformity as possible while still allowing the property to function. The proposed improvements that bring the property closer to conformance with current parking area standards are: 1. The parking area on the south side of the property will be paved and set back from the front plane of the building. Landscape screening will be installed at the west and east ends of this parking area. The setback from the east property line, adjacent to Ridgeland, appears to be 5 feet; 10 feet is required. 2. Both parking areas are served by a sidewalk that provides access to building entrances. 3. A condition for the right-of-way vacation requires paving of the east -west alley. Pavement for the parking area off of Ridgeland extends up to the building wall. The Code requires a 10 -foot setback. In this area, pavement should be removed and landscaping (lawn) should be installed between the building and the private sidewalk. The applicant has submitted a management plan that shows various levels of supervision and maintenance for the site and the fraternal use, most notable of which is a live-in graduate student manager. Staff recommends that a resident manager who is not an undergraduate student, should be a condition of the special exception. Walz stated with regards to the general standards there is no doubt that reinvestment into the property will improve the property. The maintenance on this property has been deferred for many years so reinvestment will be a good thing. The proposed modifications bring the property closer to Code standards. The second criteria, it will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. Walz explained that this is an area that is surrounded by multi -family and there are other fraternity houses in the area. Walz showed a map from The University of Iowa website that showed the cluster of fraternities that are around this area. Fraternities are allowed in the Zoning Code so it makes sense to have them close to campus and in an area that is served by other fraternities and other multi -family areas. Walz noted that she handed out to the Board before the meeting started a recommendation that was made for the fraternity that was approved last year on Dubuque Street regarding social functions and fraternity houses which states that more than three convictions and or findings or pleas of guilt or civil judgement for "disorderly house" within an 18 -month period will result in a loss of the special exception. Walz noted this property is not in an historic district now but that is something that is being looked at in Manville Heights. A survey that was done in Manville Heights some years ago did note that the fraternity houses are an important feature of the neighborhood so Staff is recommending that any modifications to the exterior of the building be reviewed to be in compliance with historic standards. Staff recommends approval of EXC16-00012, an application to allow a Fraternal Group Living Use to be established at 232 Ellis Avenue in the RNS-20 zone subject to the following conditions: 1. The occupancy of the converted use is limited to the maximum number of rooms based on the requirement of the zone (currently 19 roomers based on a lot area of 17,745 square feet). The maximum number of bedrooms allowed is limited to this same number. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2016 Page 9 of 12 [NOTE: If the applicant does not acquire additional lot area, the maximum density is limited to the code requirement and the number of bedrooms should not exceed the maximum number of roomers.] 2. All changes to the exterior of the structure must meet Historic Preservation guidelines. 3. Substantial compliance with the floor plans submitted. Adjustments to reduce the number of bedrooms on the first floor in a manner that discourages over -occupancy to be approved by the Building Official. 4. Installation of sprinkler system and waterproofing and tiling of the basement level to ensure a safe living environment for residents. 5. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with modifications to the parking areas as indicated by staff. All drives and parking spaces to be paved. 6. In order to establish the conversion, the applicant must apply for a rental permit. 7. More than three convictions and or findings or pleas of guilt or civil judgement for "disorderly house" within an 18 -month period will result in a loss of the special exception. Chrischilles asked if the property remains as it is right now and they are not allowed any additional lot space by purchase of the alley what would be the maximum occupancy. Walz said they would be limited to 18 or fewer. Chrischilles asked if they are allowed the 19 occupants what would the parking requirement be and Walz replied it would be the 15 spaces. Soglin noted that in the Staff Report it states if they only acquire half the alley they will be limited to 18 occupants and if they acquire none of the alley the occupancy would then be even less, only 16. Walz agreed and said that becomes difficult because then the house is too big for the lot size. Soglin then asked about the other fraternity and what the vacation of the alley would mean to them if they wanted to increase their space at some point. Walz confirmed that the other fraternity would not be able to do so, but the way vacations work is that half of the property is always offered to the owner on each side so the fraternity to the south would have to agree and not be interested in their half and so far as the City knows, they are amenable to that so long as there is an easement so they can access the parking on the side of their building. Soglin asked if there was a space for bikes or mopeds and Walz said they will be required to provide bike parking. Baker asked the applicant to come forward to speak. Adam Brantman (member of Ellis Avenue LLC) stated that Walz did a good job summarizing what the application is for and they are proposing to renovate the property with connection to the sale of property to Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity. The vacation of the alley did go before the Planning and Zoning Commission two weeks ago and was approved so next it will go before City Council. Baker opened the public hearing Greg Buehner (Pi Kappa Phi Properties) from the national housing corporation is very excited about the potential of offering this to their membership here at The University of Iowa and want to be a good partner not only to The University of Iowa but to the City. Unique within the fraternity world as one of only 10 within the 75 that have a housing arm and will be the owners/operators of this property with full-time staff members and good management plans. With regards to the 20 occupants on the property, The University of Iowa requires fraternities to have a live-in house director so the 201h resident would be a non -revenue occupant and would be providing management services. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2016 Page 10 of 12 Soglin asked if there was a reason they would only be allowed the 19 roomers what that would mean. Buehner said it would impact their financial structure but the of course would follow what is approved. Baker closed the public hearing. Goeb noted it will be an improvement over the property right now and seems like a perfect use for the property. Soglin stated that the letter from the engineering firm that is involved notes that four of the nearby property owners have voiced their support of the project. Walz made a correction to the staff recommendation regarding the last condition: More than three convictions and or findings or pleas of guilt and/or civil judgement for "disorderly house" within an 18 -month period will result in the denial of a rental permit. Soglin moved to approve EXC16-00012 an application submitted on behalf of Ellis Ave LLC, for a special exception to allow the establishment of a fraternity house on property located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone at 332 Ellis Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. The occupancy of the converted use is limited to the maximum number of rooms based on the requirement of the zone (currently 19 roomers based on a lot area of 17,745 square feet). The maximum number of bedrooms allowed is limited to this same number. [NOTE: If the applicant does not acquire additional lot area, the maximum density is limited to the code requirement and the number of bedrooms should not exceed the maximum number of roomers.] 2. All changes to the exterior of the structure must meet Historic Preservation guidelines. 3. Substantial compliance with the floor plans submitted. Adjustments to reduce the number of bedrooms on the first floor in a manner that discourages over -occupancy to be approved by the Building Official. 4. Installation of sprinkler system and waterproofing and tiling of the basement level to ensure a safe living environment for residents. 5. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with modifications to the parking areas as indicated by staff. All drives and parking spaces to be paved. 6. In order to establish the conversion, the applicant must apply for a rental permit. 7. More than three convictions and or findings or pleas of guilt and/or civil judgement for "disorderly house" within an 18 -month period will result in the denial of a rental permit. Chrischilles seconded the motion. Weitzel stated that regarding agenda item EXC16-00012 he concurs with the findings set forth in the Staff report of December 14, 2016, and conclude the general and specific criteria are satisfied, specifically the surrounding properties are multi -family as well and the proposed changes will make the building more safe and the reinvestment will help stabilize possible decline in property value in the area. So unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the Staff Report as our findings with acceptance of this proposal. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2016 Page 11 of 12 Baker stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Walz announced that this is Baker's last meeting, he has served five years, and next month they will welcome onto the Board a new appointment, Bryce Parker, and will also nominate for roles on the Board at that meeting. Baker thanked everyone noting it has been a pleasure to serve on the Board. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel moved to adjourn this meeting. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD NAME TERM EXP. 1113 2117 3/9 4113 6115 7/13 8110 9114 9121 9/30 10112 1119 12/14 BAKER, LARRY 1/1/2017 X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X GOEB, CONNIE 1/1/2020 X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE 1/1/2019 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X SOGLIN, BECKY 1/1/2018 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X WEITZEL, TIM 1/1/2021 X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused ---= Not a Member MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS MODAY, JANUARY 9, 2017 NDS CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Andrea French, Jim Walker MEMBERS ABSENT: John Gay STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Specialist, acting as minute taker) OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None CALL TO ORDER: John Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM ELECTION OF OFFICERS: PRELIMINARY French moved to elect John Roffman as chairperson of the Board of Appeals. Walker seconded. VOTE: Roffman was elected as chairperson of the BOA by a unanimous vote. Walker moved to elect Andrea French as vice -chair of the Board of Appeals. Roffman seconded. VOTE: French was elected vice -chair of the BOA by a unanimous vote. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes from the December 7, 2016 were considered. Walker had one question about his motion to uphold the decision of the Fire Chief in terms of the width of the street. Roffman reminded him that they had clarified earlier in the discussion that the vote would be on the entirety of the Fire code issues. Walker agreed. The minutes were approved by a unanimous vote. OTHER BUSINESS: Hennes passed out a civil rights questionnaire that members of all Iowa City board or commission were requested to complete. The present members completed the questionnaire and submitted them back to Hennes. Roffman adjourned the meeting at 4:15 Chairperson, Board of Appeals Date Board of Appeals Attendance Record 2016 NAME TERM EXPIRES Jan -17 Feb -17 Mar -17 Apr -17 May -17 Jun -17 Jul -17 Aug -17 Sep -17 Oct -17 Nov -17 Dec -17 Andrea French 12/31/2017 X John Roffman 12/31/2017 X Scott McDonough 12/31/2016 _ John Gay 12/31/2018 O/E Jim Walker 12/31/2018 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 — January 10, 2017 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. I MEMBERS PRESENT: Monique Green, Mazahir Salih (5:36 P.M.), 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 (1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #16-05 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Green, seconded by Townsend, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 12/15/16 • Email from Harry Olmstead: Justice Dept Releases Report on Civil Rights Division's Pattern and Practice Police Reform Work Motion carried, 4/0, King absent. NEW BUSINESS Community Forum Discussion — Fruehling reminded the Board of the annual community forum. In previous years it has been held in April and there's been a discussion topic to start the meeting. Fruehling asked them to think of topics and dates for the next meeting for discussion. She also reminded them that the new Police Chief will be starting on January 23rd and that it might be a good time to discuss with him having someone from the department be involved in the forums. At past forums community members had questions that were more police related policies/procedures and the board was not able to respond. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Campbell stated he thought Chief Matherly would attend the next CPRB meeting as long as his schedule allowed him to do so. At that time, if the Board has questions regarding the Community Forum they could ask him. BOARD INFORMATION Treloar stated he talked to King regarding his absences. King recently started new employment with a six month probationary period where the hours conflict with the Board meetings. Treloar stated King had asked if the Board would be able to meet over the noon hour or on a Saturday until his probationary period was over. The majority of the Board said it would be difficult to meet during business hours and felt that the weekends were for family and also very busy. They also felt that it was important to have a full Board when meeting. Treloar informed the Board that King does not want to resign as it was difficult to get appointed since he had previously served on the Board. Ford informed the Board that since the absences have been excused up to this point; it is not an option to recommend removal of King to the City Council. Fruehling asked if the Board wanted to look at the by-laws section dealing with absences and put on the next agenda. The Board agreed that was something they wanted to discuss. CPRB January 10, 2017 Page 2 Salih invited the Board to the Unity potluck, which is being held at the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center on Saturday, January 14th at 6:OOpm. STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Townsend, seconded by Salih 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 5:44 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:30 P.M. Motion by Salih, seconded by Green to accept CPRB Complaint #16-05 as amended and forward report to the City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, King absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subiect to change) *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 *May 9, 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 6:33 P.M. COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2016-2017 (Meeting Date) KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting — =Not a Member TERM 1/25 2/17 4/12 4/26 5/18 5/23 6/7 8/17 9/13 l0/11 11/7 11/15 12/15 1/1f NAME EXP. Joseph 9/1/17 X X NM X O/E X X X X X X X X X Treloar Mazahir 9/1/17 X O NM X X O/E O/E X X O X O X X Salih Donald 9/1/19 X O NM X X X X O/E X O/E O/E O/E O/E O/E King Monique 7/1/20 --- -- _ _ X X X X X X X Green Orville 7/1/20 --- — --- --- __ ___ ___ X X X X X X X Townsend Melissa 9/1/16 X X NM X X X X Jensen Royeeann 9/1/16 X X NM X X X O -- --- ___ ___ ___ --- Porter KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting — =Not a Member COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 January 10, 2017 Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #16-05 This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB #16-05 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows: 1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).) 2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1): a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview /meet with complainant. . c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2).) 4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if. a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or a To: City Council' J Complainant's City Manager, Equity Director Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Community Police Review Board Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #16-05 This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB #16-05 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows: 1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).) 2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1): a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview /meet with complainant. . c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2).) 4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if. a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or local law. 5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either "sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(3).) 6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the officer involved. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on September 15, 2016. As required by Section 8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was filed with the City Clerk on December 14, 2016. The Board voted on December 15, 2016 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: On the record with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(a). The Board met to consider the Report on December 15, 2016 and January 10, 2017. On December 15, 2016, the Board reviewed audio/video recordings of the incident. FINDINGS OF FACT On September 3, 2016 Officer A while driving in his marked patrol vehicle paused for a group of three males who were waiting to cross the street. The Complainant's behavior got Officer A's attention. Based on the Complainant's behavior, Officer A thought he might be intoxicated and stopped to talk to him and investigate further. The Complainant was noncompliant and argumentative with Officer A and he placed the Complainant under arrest for Public Intoxication. A search discovered that the Complainant had a fictitious drivers license. The Complainant was transported to the jail and charged with Public Intoxication and Possession of a fictitious Drivers License. ALLEGATION 1 — Violated Complainant's First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech. The observation and factors leading to the Complainant's arrest were poor judgment, slurred speech, strong smell of alcohol, and bloodshot watery eyes. The Complainant was arrested for those reasons and not because of the content of his speech, opinions or beliefs. Allegation: Violated Complainant's First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech - Not sustained N C] CG - ALLEGATION 2 — Improper/Unlawful detention/arrest. Officer A's observations and findings and the Complainant's behavior were sufficiq"to place #Z' et Complainant under arrest _ r-- ry Allegation: Improper/Unlawful detention/arrest - Not sustained Ca ALLEGATION 3 – Improperly/Unlawfully did not allow Complainant to provide verbal identification. Officer A requested the Complainant's driver's license at least three times. The Complainant did not produce his driver's license, or any form of identification. It should be mentioned that the Complainant was noncompliant and verbally challenged the officer. The Officer's attempts to communicate with the Complainant were unsuccessful because he refused to cooperate. Iowa law does not require an officer to identify a subject prior to arrest. Furthermore, Iowa law does not require an officer to accept a subject's verbal assertion of identification. Allegation: Improperly/Unlawfully did not allow Complainant to provide verbal identification - Not sustained — ALLEGATION 4 – Failure to offer/administer a pre -arrest sobriety/breath test. Officer A arrested the Complainant based on his observations and the strong smell of alcohol. An officer is not required to offer a pre -arrest breath test. The complainant refused the offer for the post- arrest breath test. Allegation: Failure to offer/administer a pre -arrest sobriety/breath test - Not sustained ALLEGATION 5 – Failure to inform Complainant of reason of arrest. Officer A informed the Complainant that he was under arrest for Public Intoxication. The conversation is captured on the officers' body cameras. Allegation: Failure to inform Complainant of reason of arrest - Not sustained ALLEGATION 6 – Improper/Unlawful search after arrest. Complainant stated that the police did not have the right to look through his wallet following his arrest. The Iowa City Police Department General Order 99-03, Prisoner Transport requires: "Prior to transport, all prisoners shall be thoroughly searched for any weapons or contraband". Also, a search following a lawful arrest is lawful in Iowa. N Allegation: Improper/Unlawful search after arrest - Not sustained Y ALLEGATION 7 – Improper handcuffing and intentionally causing pain and S _Rry o. Complainant. 10 is Officer A's body camera indicated that there was not a lack of attention to the Cc,mplainafat's statements. The body camera revealed that the officer did adjust the handcuffs. He also explained how the handcuffs worked so the Complainant could position his hands correctly to avoid discomfort. Allegation: Improper handcuffing and intentionally causing pain and injury to Complainant - Not sustained ALLEGATION 8 — Profanity. In review of the audio/video it was clear that Officer A did not use profanity when addressing the Complainant. Allegation: Profanity - Not sustained ALLEGATION 9 — Fabricated probable cause. Officer A's body camera documents that the Complainant was intoxicated, refused to cooperate, was noncompliant and verbally challenged the officer. This is ample evidence to support probable cause. Allegation: Fabricated probable cause - Not sustained Officer A did an excellent job of handling the situation. It should also be mentioned that he was not only dealing with the complainant but he also did an excellent job of encouraging his friends to keep a safe distance. The Board was concerned that there was no audio with one of the videos. The Board wants to ensure that the department's equipment is both operating the way its intended to, and is operated by the officers the way it is intended to. _ Ei _o J .-'�..r' v y 7 �X^ EDC December 13, 2016 1 PRELIMINARY 01-12-17 MINUTES IP17 CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DECEMBER 13, 2016 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL, 12:00 P.M. Members Present: Susan Mims, Rockne Cole, Jim Throgmorton Staff Present: Wendy Ford, Geoff Fruin Others Present: Nate Kaeding (TCDD); Nancy Bird (TCDD); Rebecca Neades (CofC); Nancy Carlson; Chase Castle (Corridor Business Journal) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Cole moved to approve the funding request for the CoSign project with ICDD as discussed. Throgmorton seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mims at 12:00 P.M. She then asked those present to introduce themselves. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the October 12, 2016, meeting were reviewed. Cole moved to approve the minutes as presented. Throgmorton seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR COSIGN PROJECT WITH TCDD: Ford noted that Members have a memo in their meeting packets concerning this funding request. She briefly reviewed what this project entails, noting that the Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD) is participating in a program to ramp up the sign aesthetics downtown, in order to enhance the experience of visiting downtown, and also to increase the visibility of the various shops. There is a cost to participate in the program, according to Ford, and this is part of the ICDD's request for funding. The second part of the request is assistance with the manufacture, design, and installation of the signs that are a part of this program, up to $1,000 each, with a maximum of $10,000. At this point Ford turned it over to Nate Kaeding, with the ICDD, for a presentation on the CoSign project. Kaeding gave Members a brief history of the CoSign project and how they discovered it. He noted that it was founded by the American Sign Museum in Cincinnati. Kaeding stated that it is a cross-pollination of small business owners, local artists and the design community, and sign fabricators, to be able to bring these three entities together in a manner that typically does not occur. He added that Iowa City is one of the first six communities accepted to do such a project outside of the Cincinnati area. Those involved will attend a workshop in February in Cincinnati and will then be able to move forward with the CoSign project. Kaeding continued to explain what the City can expect once this project moves forward, sharing examples of signs used in the EDC December 13, 2016 2 PRELIMINARY Cincinnati sign projects. He also noted that MidWest One has signed on to be a presenting sponsor, according to Kaeding. Throgmorton stated that he is very pleased with the project, noting that it helps to have examples, such as the ones Kaeding shared. Cole stated that he is happy to see a project that addresses unrealized potential, and that he believes this will help unlock additional growth for downtown businesses. He also noted his enthusiasm for the collaboration with Thomas Agran on this project. Mims spoke to Galena, Illinois' use of signs and how well they are done, and how his type of project will truly enhance the downtown, in terms of both people's image of it and also in terms of improving business and thus bringing more people downtown. Cole moved to approve the funding request for the CoSign project with TCDD as discussed. Throgmorton seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0. DISCUSS TIF FOCUS GROUP OUTCOMES AND NEXT STEPS FOR TIF POLICY REVIEW: Ford spoke to Members concerning the TIF Policy review process, noting that their meeting packets contain the findings from the TIF focus group work that was done over the past few months. She noted that there were eight focus groups, made up of several groups within the community. Some of the themes that showed up in the information collected were that more information is needed about TIF, with participants stating that they thought they knew about TIF but found that they actually need more in-depth information to completely understand it. Ford added that there were only 47 respondents to the survey — of folks who participated in the focus groups — noting the small sample size. Ford shared various themes from the focus group meetings, noting that people were generally hungry for information and thought we should get out into the community more to further explain TIF and how it is used in Iowa City. Several of the focus groups, it was felt that achieving LEED silver certification would be appropriate in exchange for receiving TIF assistance. Another area of interest was a way to leverage more benefit in the areas of social services and cultural aspects within the community. Ford asked Members to discuss what they would like to do next with the information. Throgmorton noted his thanks to staff and for those in the community who took part in the surveys and focus groups. Regarding the report that Ford provided Members, Throgmorton stated that there is a lot of great information contained in it, and that with all of the information they have received, he thinks they should get some ideas out on the table now. He stated that they should look at this information through the filter of the Council's strategic plan, so that the revised TIF policy will be consistent with it. Continuing, Throgmorton noted that the essence of the community's conflict over TIF has to do mostly with how TIF has been used, and might be used, in the downtown and Riverfront Crossings areas. He added that the concern isn't so great in the other areas of town. He believes they should amend the TIF policy to contain a section that explicitly focuses on the downtown and Riverfront Crossings areas. Cole stated that he believes the struggle is to between needing detail so developers know exactly what to expect in exchange for TIF, but at the same time, allowing enough flexibility to for developer's creativity and success to be realized. Cole noted that he would like to focus on LEED certification. He added that as Mims stated in a previous meeting, they don't want standards to be so high that development does not occur. Cole stated that he would like to see the cost implications of a higher standard, such as gold or platinum, as they discuss sustainability EDC December 13, 2016 3 PRELIMINARY requirements in exchange for TIF. Another area of interest for Cole is more information on what is deemed a 'high quality job.' He stated that in the past project labor agreements have been done, and he believes these were very effective. Cole also stated that he believes staff has done a great job in gathering information and that he is ready to move forward in discussions on amendments. Mims stated that she thinks they should try to find some ways to get the information out more publicly, such as educating the public on project -based TIF versus district -wide TIFs. She gave examples of some of the project -oriented TIF projects around town. Mims also spoke to the flexibility they need to have in using TIF, noting that Cole also spoke to this issue. She would like to get suggestions from staff on how they can balance the need to give developers more detail from the outset, so that they know exactly what the City is looking for, but at the same time not lock developers into something that won't fit with their proposed project. Mims stated that in one of the focus groups she attended, a developer spoke to how they spend upwards of $200,000 to $300,000 in just the initial renderings and planning of a project, all before they can even approach the City with a new project. Mims questioned if there wasn't a way for developers to start discussions with staff that are perhaps more conceptual, without the developers having to spend this type of money on preliminary planning. This would give developers a chance to know what the City seeks in exchange for TIF. Mims also voiced her concern that developers have told her they will not be bringing new projects forward for the next four years, in light of the new Council and what they perceive as difficulties in development. Height is another area of concern. Mims added that she sees building height as a political issue, one that this Council needs to look at. Regarding LEED certification, Mims stated that while she supports what Cole has said, she has also heard from those who often do LEED-certified projects that sometimes simply the location of the project can get them to LEED silver. She stated that she believes they need to look at this issue carefully and perhaps require a higher level of LEED certification for TIF -assisted projects. Mims also thanked staff for their hard work throughout this process, noting that it has not been an easy task. Throgmorton stated that he agrees that the policy should be more definitive about what merits TIF assistance. Regarding building height, he stated his preference for a specific section in the TIF policy that focuses on the downtown and Riverfront Crossing areas. Throgmorton also recalled his previous suggestions for changes to the TIF policy and that he would like to share these with staff as they continue this process. As for the LEED certification issue, he stated that he has suggested they use this as an incentive to exceed the silver standard. Overall, Throgmorton would like to see the City's TIF policy as one that will advance their carbon emission goals. Continuing, Throgmorton shared other thoughts he has regarding their TIF policy. He questioned having shorter term, such as 5 year, TIFs. Another area he questioned was student housing and use of TIF assistance. Mims gave examples in the past where the City has provided TIF and what has been considered 'public benefit' when it comes to these projects. She noted that over time this can change, especially depending on the nature of each project. Cole stated that he believes staff should reach out to developers, labor, and green architects — those who have experience in LEED certification and what it takes to get to each level. Cole also suggested using TIF for municipal type projects. Mims stated that she would disagree with this, because that is what GO bonds are for. Cole mentioned about housing unit mix requirements and owner -occupied versus rental units. He stated that this could play into the flexibility they are looking for. Throgmorton spoke briefly about residential projects and TIF, and EDC December 13, 2016 4 PRELIMINARY how residential should not be a primary focus area of support. Fruin then briefly addressed Members' questions and concerns, noting areas they may want to be considering being very specific. One he noted, needs to be looked at soon are parking requirements for downtown projects. Mims suggested that with all of the meetings in January for budget, that they look at February for the next EDC meeting, and in the meantime perhaps Staff can begin having those discussions with the development community and other staff to address the Committee's questions and concerns. STAFF REPORT' Ford stated that they are still working with the Moss Ridge Development. She directed condolences with the family of George Hollins, who died last weekend. She noted that he was one of the people working with Mr. Moss on this project. Staff are also working with the Hodge Companies on their project on South Dubuque Street. She also mentioned the Hieronymus Square project, which is now a two -tower project with a hotel in one tower. Another project in the financial analysis stage is one with the City Hall parking lot and Unitarian Church. :9101 Mill 1t1A1Lh1_ None. None. ADJOURNMENT: Throgmorton moved to adjourn the meeting at 1:10 P.M. Cole seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0. EDC December 13, 2016 5 PRELIMINARY Council Economic Development Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014-2015 Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused TERM N A fel T V O N NAME EXP. A N o A N m m rn a+ rn m rn Rockne Cole 01/02/18 X X X X X X X Susan Mims 01/02/18 X X X X X X X Jim 01/02/18 X X X X X X X Throgmorton Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 2016 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Zach Builta, Gosia Clore, Sharon DeGraw, Cecile Kuenzli, Pam Michaud, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Boyd, Andrew Litton, Ginalie Swaim STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 310 South Governor Street. Bristow said this property is in the very north section of the Governor/Lucas Street Conservation District. She said that it is currently non-contributing, because of the vinyl siding, a hodgepodge of replacement windows, metal soffits, and the removal of the porch. Bristow stated that it was a vernacular Victorian house. Bristow said the applicant proposes to put an egress window and window well on the south side of the house where the driveway and garage are located. She said the work had already been started without a building permit and had to be stopped. Bristow showed the location of the house. She said the owner put this in as just a metal window well, but to meet the guidelines, he will have to put in something that matches the foundation. Bristow stated that it is a brick foundation. She said that brick is more time-consuming to install than concrete block so that concrete block would be acceptable, especially because the brick does have a parch coat, and the owner has indicated he would also do that. Bristow said it would be like a stucco coating that would match the parch coat and would be on a window well. Bristow said the owner proposes to put in a vinyl casement window that has a divided light, in order to look like a double hung window. She said that there are a variety of windows on the house. Bristow said that vinyl is an exception that can be made for a house in a conservation district, especially when it is going into a basement. She said that, considering the amount of vinyl that is already on this house, it is probably appropriate in this case. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 310 South Governor Street as presented in the staff report. Agran seconded the motion. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 8, 2016 Page 2 of 7 1125 East Burlinqton Street Bristow said this property is a one and one-half story house in the College Hill Conservation District. She stated that the house is a Queen Anne Victorian. Bristow said that in reading the history of this area, some of these houses, including this one, were built for middle class families. Bristow said the application was originally for a basement egress door, which is no longer in the plans, and replacement of the decking. She said there is an existing deck in the back. Bristow said it was built before the district was established and is grandfathered in to extend a little bit further to the east than would normally be allowed. She stated that the owners are not removing the structure. Bristow said they are keeping all of the structure but want to replace the deck board material. She said part of the reason material has already been removed is because the deck boards had rotted and someone had fallen through. Bristow said the owners would like to use Trex, which the Commission has approved in the past for decking. She noted that this is a conservation district and involves a deck at the back of the house. Bristow said that the railing that the owners had before did not meet the guidelines for design, so the owners know they will have to put in a new railing, with the top and bottom rail, to meet the guidelines. She said that, instead of using wood, the owners have proposed to use a Trex material. Bristow said staff finds this material does not appear to be paintable and looks like a plastic material so it does not meet the guidelines. She said staff feels that cedar is readily available, easy to work with, and will last a long time in this kind of installation. Kuenzli asked if the owners are planning to paint the deck floor and the railing. Bristow replied that if the floor is Trex, it won't actually be painted. Kuenzli asked if the spindles would not be painted either. Bristow answered that if the Trex material is used, they probably would not be painted. Bristow showed samples of the railing material that the owners want to use and the flooring material they want to use. Bristow said that if the owners are required to use cedar, they will paint or stain the railing to match the deck. Kuenzli suggested that the wood might be less expensive than the Trex. Bristow said she is uncertain about the cost. She said that cost is not necessarily something that the Commission can consider. Bristow stated that for the owners, she believes it is more about the longevity of the material. She said the owners want something that they don't have to paint or stain, which is not necessarily the Commission's goal. Bristow said the Commission would like to see something that looks appropriate, which would be a wood that would be paintable or a wood replacement product that would be paintable. Bristow said that there are exceptions in the guidelines for the use of Trex as a decking. She said, however, that so far, anything that is used as wood replacement needs to be paintable and have the appearance of wood. Bristow said the Trex railing material seems to feel plastic as well as appear plastic. She said it would be up to the Commission to decide if it wants to approve that material. Miklo clarified staffs recommendation is to allow the Trex for the flooring but not for the railing HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 8, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Agran said he thinks the Trex is more expensive, but the sales people state that it saves on labor and maintenance. He said that cedar does not last if it is not kept painted or stained. Agran said that Trex is a premium product in that sense. Agran said, with regard to Trex, as related to other products that people use for siding and other things, oftentimes there is a fake wood textured side and also a flat side. He asked if this product was like that. Bristow said the sample board shows a variety of textures for that board product. She said she told the contractor that she was interested in the smoothest version, and she pointed out that sample to the Commission. Bristow said the owners would be using that, but it does not come with a completely smooth side like cement board. Agran said there is texture on both sides so that it is not slippery, but one side has a fake wood grain and one is more of an even texture. He stated that with other products, the Commission has specified that the fake wood grain side should not be facing out. Bristow said the Commission has given approval for a back porch using a (Fi-Pon?) material. She said it comes in a chalky white and has to be painted. Bristow said it has more solidity than the Trex material but still has to be painted. Miklo said that using the material would be an exception. He said that if the majority of the Commission felt that this should be wood material such as cedar or treated lumber, the Commission could require that. Miklo said staff recommends approval of the Trex for the deck itself. Agran said he believes that if the Commission would make an exception, there should be an explanation of why that would be. He said he thinks it is okay to use Trex, because this is on the back of the property not the front. Agran said that of all of the things on the deck, that is the most difficult to maintain with paint. He said it is the tread/flooring, whereas the railing paint lasts longer. Agran said that is why he would think it is okay. MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1125 Burlington Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: the new railing is constructed following the guidelines, the skirting either remains or is reconstructed, the railing is constructed of wood, and the Trex material with the less grainy texture is appropriate to use for the decking. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Boyd, Litton. and Swaim absent). 411 Davenport Street. Bristow said the applicant for this project has asked that it be postpone until January. REPORTS ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect - Chair and Staff Review. 407 Brown Street. Bristow stated that this project for a house in the Brown Street Historic District involves the re - shingling of the garage and main house. She said that the porches in the back and front both have metal roofs that the owners considered recoating. Bristow said she spoke with the contractor, and he regularly uses a black modified bitumen roofing which is put on with heat. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 8, 2016 Page 4 of 7 She said she spoke with the contractor at length about possibly using it for that internal gutter, which needed some minimal repair but not a complete overhaul and about how this might work as the last step before it is redone. Bristow said the contractor has used that in this kind of an application. She said it is not yet known what the longevity is, but it is a commercial roofing material and has the potential to be good in an internal gutter application. 728 Dearborn Street. Bristow said this project involves adding a radon system. She said that it will be around the corner on the back and will be painted to blend with the house. 624 Grant Street. Bristow said this is going to be a reroofing project. She said that staff has been working with the contractor, who has been recently starting to work in historic districts. Bristow said the contractor wants to put big, galvanized metal whirlybirds on all of his roofs for ventilation. Bristow said that is not really appropriate as far as something that looks historic. She said that it looks very industrial - very contemporary and modern - and is not something that has been allowed when it can be viewed from the street. Bristow said that this house is on a corner, so it does not have a good side to put this on. She said staff talked to the owner and roofing manufacturer about other venting options. Bristow said staff showed the contractor that there are other options. She said the homeowner is completely comfortable with that. Bristow said staff believes that something as modern as the whirlybird venting is not appropriate on an historic property if it can be seen from any street. Minor Review - Staff Review 715 South Summit Street Bristow said the owners are going to remove all of the aluminum siding on this house. She said the original plan was to cover all of the original siding with cement board. Bristow said they now plan to remove the aluminum siding and restoring the original wood siding. Bristow said there is a 1906 photograph showing some of the house details so that the owners can replace any of the trim that might no longer be there. She said the owners will reuse as much as the original siding as possible. Bristow said that cement board might work in a large area as long as it is blending with the siding. 828 Dearborn Street. Bristow stated that this property was owned by a contractor who flipped it and did a really good job on the back 60s -70s addition. She said staff has been working with the new owners to not take out and replace all of the windows that the previous owner had restored and rehabbed. Bristow added that the owners added a railing to the front steps. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 8, 2016 Page 5 of 7 Intermediate Review - Chair and Staff Review. Bristow said that both intermediate reviews involved minor changes to certificates that previously came before the Commission. 328 Brown Street. Bristow said that originally, the stairs for the addition on this property were going to come straight off the back, kind of facing toward the garage. She said that for a variety of reasons, the stairs will now come off the side, which is what staff preferred originally. Bristow said that as a minor change, it qualifies for intermediate review. 829 South Seventh Avenue. Bristow said this review involved the Habitat house. She said that the entire house ended up being lifted up out of the ground a little bit more than anticipated so that now a railing is required on the porch. Bristow said the minor review is adding a railing to this house. She said the railing will be a typical top and bottom rail with square spindles and will meet the guidelines. Bristow added that the porch floor was not supposed to be cantilevered out of the ground this much. She said the applicants are going to mask it with landscaping, and if that fails, staff will work with them to come up with some kind of plan for skirting. Bristow said that it was supposed to be at grade level, and that is why it is concrete in the first place. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 10, 2016: MOTION: Agran moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's November 10, 2016 meeting, as written. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Boyd Litton and Swaim absent). ANNUAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS Bristow discussed the preservation awards. She presented photographs and information about the nominated properties, as prepared by the subcommittee, and the Commission ratified the list. Bristow said the awards would be held on Thursday, January 19, at the Iowa City Public Library at 5:30 p.m. with a reception to begin at 5:00 p.m. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the nominations for the Historic Preservation Awards. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Boyd, Litton, and Swaim absent). COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION Bristow said that there is a conflict with the June 8 meeting, because the Preservation Summit is that same week in Fort Dodge. She did not know if anyone from the Commission or staff would attend, but if the desire is to move the meeting, that should be done now because of scheduling. Bristow said that it could be moved to the next week. The consensus of the Commission was to move the meeting to the next Thursday. Bristow said she would look for a meeting room. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 8, 2016 Page 6 of 7 Bristow said the State sent an e-mail announcing a Webinar to be held on Wednesday, December 21. She said the Webinar will discuss the federal historic tax credit program. Bristow said it is from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. for those interested. Regarding the Houser -Metzger house, Bristow said that all but two of the basement windows have been installed. She said the furnace will be on shortly, and there is electrical to most of the building. Bristow said she needs to work with the electrician regarding small changes that need to be made and with the plumber about specific work to be done. Bristow stated that the hole where the chimney was in the first floor has been filled. She said they are working on filling the hole in the second floor. Bristow said then the wall for the chimney will be framed up. Bristow said there is porch floor on the back porch. She said she is working on getting the floor for the front porch soon, and it will probably be reclaimed wood. Bristow said that mulch has been delivered, and most of the site has been covered. She said that makes it less muddy for now. Bristow said people have been working out of the garage and will be moving this weekend to work out of the basement. She said the materials will be stored in the garage. Bristow said there will be upcoming workshops, including interior painting and windows. She said there will be multiple opportunities for both skilled and unskilled volunteer labor. Bristow said the house does not yet have water but has heat and electricity. Bristow said there will be an end -of -the year fundraising drive. She said she will be sending a flyer to all of the members of Friends of Historic Preservation and perhaps also the Commission members to try to get funds for any end of the year donations one would want to make. Bristow said they will be asking for money for specific items. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:12 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2016-2017 NAME TERM EXP. 1/14 2/11 2125 3112 4114 5112 619 7/14 8111 9/8 10113 11/10 12/8 AGRAN, THOMAS 3/29/17 O/E O/E X X 0/E X X O/E O/E X X X X BAKER, ESTHER 3/29/18 X X X X X X X X X X X X BOYD, KEVIN 3/29/17 -- — --- --- — --- --- — -- X X X BUILTA, ZACH 3129/19 --- — — -- X X X X X X X X X CLORE, GOSIA 3129/17 O/E X 01E X X X O/E X X X X X DEGRAW, SHARON 3/29/19 — -- -- — X X X X O/E X X X KUENZLI, CECILE 3129/19 — -- — O/E O/E X X X X X X X LITTON, ANDREW 3/29117 X X X X X O/E O/E X O/E X X MICHAUD, PAM 3/29/18 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X SANDELL, BEN 3/29/17 X X X X X X X X — — — — — SWAIM, GINALIE 3/29118 X X X X X X X X X X X WAGNER, FRANK 3/29/18 X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused -- = Not a Member Lw" MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2016 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING NDS CONFERENCE ROOM 2ND FLOOR — CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Thomas RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 (Signs abstained) the Commission recommends approval of REZ16-00007, an application submitted by TSB Investments fora rezoning from OPD -5 to RM -12 for 3.48 acres of property located at the southeast corner of Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Lane, subject to City Council approval of the pending amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and conditioned on general compliance with the submitted concept plan, payment of Neighborhood Open Space fees based on RM -12 density, staff design review with emphasis on the entrances to the two buildings and on making the buildings appear less massive, provision of outdoor usable space, and parking for persons with disabilities close to each building. Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none ZONING ITEM (REZ16-00007): Discussion of an application submitted by TSB Investments for a rezoning from Planned Development Overlay (OPD -5) to Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) for approximately 3.48 -acres of property located at the southeast corner of Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Lane. Signs recused himself due a to real estate transaction regarding a nearby property. Miklo noted that this area was recently discussed for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The current zoning is RS -5 with a planned development overlay (OPD) because of the sensitive areas on the property. The proposed zoning is Low Density Multifamily (RM -12). This property does have characteristics appropriate for multi -family zoning and therefore Staff and the Commission have recommended that the City Council approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to reflect that. That amendment will be considered by the Council at their January 17, 2017, meeting. Staffs review of this application is based on assuming that the Comprehensive Plan amendment will be approved. Planning and Zoning Commission December 15, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 5 Miklo said Staff also looks at compatibility with the neighborhood. He said there is little development in this neighborhood, just a couple of single family homes located several hundred feet to the north. Saint Andrew Church is under construction to the east. The area to the west contains a tract that was recently sold by the County to an individual, who may build a house on it. To the north and east there is a wooded ravine that is zoned Interim Development. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that depending on the sensitive areas there may be some multifamily on that property. The area to the north is currently zoned RS -5 so it will be some type of residential (there have been some inquiries about doing a planned development to allow clustering of units on the site). But for now it is designated for single family. In terms of traffic, Miklo said this proposal will generate considerably more traffic than the five to seven house lots that could occur here under the current zoning. However the area has direct access to Camp Cardinal Road (a collector street) and it will be the first development on that street so it will be able to handle the traffic. Miklo did note that the increased traffic count could limit the amount of density allowed to the north in the future without some second way in and out of the neighborhood. He said it is not a concern for this rezoning, but may be a factor for development for property to the north. Martin asked about street access for the land to the northwest. Miklo said that the presence of steep topography will dictate how street access will be provided to that property. He said that it may be from Camp Cardinal Boulevard but to the north of Deer Creek Road. He said a second means of access through that property would be a benefit to the larger neighborhood. Miklo discussed the concept plan for the area (included in the Commission packet) and the driveway access and the two buildings (one with 30 units and one with 24 units) with underground parking. He showed drawings of the buildings. He said a parking level would be located under each building. Martin asked about the paving of Camp Cardinal Road. Miklo indicated the point to where Saint Andrew Church has paved the street up to Gather Place Lane, a new street that was built to provide access to the church building. He said before development occurs to the north, the remainder of Camp Cardinal Road would need to be improved to City standards or an alternative street route would need to be identified. Miklo noted that when the larger subdivision was approved, the neighborhood open space requirement was calculated based on five units per acre. If density goes to twelve, it is Staffs recommendation that the payment of Neighborhood Open Space fees be based on RM -12 density. Staff recommends approval of REZ16-00007, an application submitted by TSB Investments fora rezoning from OPD -5 to RM -12 for 3.48 acres of property located at the southeast comer of Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Lane, subject to City Council approval of the pending amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and conditioned on general compliance with the submitted concept plan, and payment of Neighborhood Open Space fees based on RM -12 density. Freerks asked where visitor parking would be for the two buildings. Miklo pointed out the location behind the buildings. Freerks said that there should be handicapped parking provided close to each building. Freerks asked that the applicant address that concern. Freerks opened the public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission December 15, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 5 Michael Thomas (HBK Engineering) came forward to answer questions Freerks asked about parking for guests and what sort of outdoor amenities or usable open space would be provided. She said that this is a considerable increase in density and is concerned about the exterior design of the buildings. Thomas said that usable outdoor space is something the applicant is the thinking about and would like to provide, but hasn't worked out the details. He noted that the site was very steep. Martin asked if the property would be age restricted to persons age 55 and older. Thomas replied it was not. Martin said walkability was a concern and questioned how pedestrians would walk around the site given the lack of sidewalks between the buildings. Martin said the building design seemed to just meet the minimum standards. She asked if the buildings could be designed to take advantage of the forest landscape. Freerks said she felt that the building designs do need some work, but she did not want to design the buildings at this meeting. Freerks asked that the applicant work with staff to provide a building design that is not so massive in scale. Martin and Theobald agreed. Freerks noted that Staff can review the fagade and design features of the buildings to make them fit into the neighborhood. Dyer noted that the entrances to the buildings seem small and uninviting relative to the size of the buildings. Freerks agreed and noted that making the jump from 5-7 units in the area to 54 units is a big increase. Given the increase, design of the buildings to make them more appropriate in scale is something that Commission has addressed in similar rezonings. Hensch asked about the footprint of the buildings. Thomas replied that the larger building is 192 feet long and 64 feet 9 inches wide. Regarding the earlier question about parking: Miklo said in the larger building there are 30 units and 32 parking spaces within the building itself. For the smaller building there are 24 units and 20 parking spaces within the building and the remaining required parking spaces are outside. A total of 81 parking spaces are required for the entire site so between the two buildings and the surface parking lot there are 81 spaces. Miklo also noted that visitors will be able to park on Gathering Place Lane. Freerks noted there should be handicap spaces near each building. Martin said she would like to see pedestrian connections to the parking areas and between the buildings. Freerks stated she was glad they would be able to retain the woodlands on the parcel. Martin said that she was o.k. with the zoning aspect but would like to see a better design. Theobald asked what size the units would be (number of bedrooms). Thomas replied they would be a combination of one and two bedroom units. Based on the discussion, Miklo summarized the issues that the Commission would like addressed. He noted that some conditions might be to have Staff do design review of the buildings with emphasis on the entrances to the two buildings, focus on making them appear less massive, have some sort of outdoor usable space (picnic, barbeque area or playground), pedestrian access and additional parking for persons with disabilities closer to the buildings. Theobald would like the more attention to the way the buildings address the open space Planning and Zoning Commission December 15, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 5 Thomas said the buildings were located to take advantage of the views. Dyer asked if the fire truck turnaround could be turned the other way. Miklo said that would get them it close to the sensitive slopes area. Thomas said that there was a retaining wall required to provide for the turnaround area. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to approve REZ16-00007, an application submitted by TSB Investments fora rezoning from OPD -5 to RM -12 for 3.48 acres of property located at the southeast corner of Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Lane, subject to City Council approval of the pending amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and conditioned on general compliance with the submitted concept plan, payment of Neighborhood Open Space fees based on RM -12 density, staff design review with emphasis on the entrances to the two buildings and on making the buildings appear less massive, provision of outdoor usable space, and parking for persons with disabilities close to each building. Martin seconded the motion. Freerks feels this will be a wonderful addition to this neighborhood but the details will be important. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Signs abstained). VIEWING OF "A MORE WALKABLE IOWA CITY" BY JEFF SPECK: Freerks asked if everyone would be willing to postpone this viewing to another time. Miklo noted it is not time sensitive so could be viewed later. It can also be seen by going to City Channel 4 and watching it online. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 1, 2016 Theobald moved to approve the meeting minutes of December 1, 2016, with corrections. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: None ADJOURNMENT: Parsons moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2015-2016 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 1/7 1/21 2/19 3/3 3/17 4/7 4/21 5/5 5/19 6/2 7/7 7/21 8/4 9/1 10/6 10/20 11/17 12/1 12/15 DYER,CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X O/E X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X O/E X PARSONS, MAX X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X O/E X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 17344hIilli!L•111 MINUTES PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 3, 2016 — 3:30 PM HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Sayuri Sasaki Hemann, John Engelbrecht, Ron Knoche, Juli Seydell- Johnson, Tam Bryk NOT PRESENT: Bill Nusser, Brent Westphal STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Bollinger PUBLIC PRESENT: Rachael Arnone RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Committee voted 7-0 to recommend to the City Council that the Public Art Advisory Committee by-laws be adjusted to increase the number of members by two (from 7 to 9 members). CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 3:30pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was no public comment of items not on the agenda. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 15,201 Knoche moved to approve the September 15, 2016 minutes. John Engelbrecht seconded. Motion passed unanimously. LONGFELLOW TUNNEL ART PROJECT— DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL WITH RACHAEL AYERS, SOUTH EAST JUNIOR HIGH ART TEACHER Bollingerintroduced Rachael Arnone and explained a bit about their previous interactions and projects. All members introduced themselves. Because of Arnone's previous interest and enthusiasm in mural type projects, Bollinger stated she contacted Arnone about the project and possible interest. Arnone enthusiastically expressed interest and developed a proposal for a mural project for the Longfellow Tunnel to occur in Spring 2017. Bollinger also explained conversations with Zac Hall, Parks Superintendent and Juli Seydell Johnson, Parks and Recreation Director related to a future mural in the Longfellow Tunnel. They agreed that it would be unlikely for a new mural, covering the entire exposed surface of the tunnel to remain untouched by future graffiti/tagging. It was suggested that a mural by the SE Junior High Students would best focus on the two exterior ends of the tunnel and possibly a short distance into the tunnel on both ends. The majority of the interior would not be part of the project. Bollinger also described the issue with the existing lighting within the tunnel as being vandalized/broken and/or painted over. The exterior lighting on either end seemed to be intact and operational. Arnone explained that she has overseen several murals created by SE students including at Mercer Park and at the Coralville Dam. She explained that the mural would be spray painted by the students with stencils. Some students may design and create the stencils while others would travel to the site and create the painting. Arnone also stated they would be interested in creating another mural in the fall of 2017 if there was interest. Bryk asked about transportation. Bollinger stated she offered to check with the transit department to see if they could supply a smaller bus. Funds are budgeted to pay for transportation in case free service was not available. Arnone also said they could walk but it would cut into their painting time. Various members suggested that the project would be of great value to the students — providing a sense of ownership of the tunnel for them. Bollinger mentioned that the students would include a painted plague that identifies everyone who has participated. She added that the students would present the proposed design to the committee at their April 6, 2017 meeting at SE Junior High. Arnone suggested if the committee could get there earlier about 2:15, the committee members could also visit her last hour "elective" class to see more of their work. Bollinger said she would send out a calendar meeting request to all members for the April 6t' meeting. Engelbrecht asked if the estimate for the spray paint would be adequate to cover that surface. Amone suggested it would depend on the final design and the colors involved. Bollinger added that the Parks staff will be priming the walls in the near future and will likely need to go back in before the mural is started. All members felt it was a great project — both economically and positive opportunity for the students and was approved unanimously by all attending. ROBERT A LEE RECREATION CENTER MURAL WALL — REVIEW OF DRAFT REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS Bollinger stated the draft was combined effort by Kumi Morris, Facilities Manager, Joyce Carroll, Arts Supervisor and herself. Bollinger wanted feedback from the committee regarding the RFQ. She explained that the RFQ may be of interest to more than artists — possibly including architects, engineers, teams, etc. so distribution of the RFQ would need to be creative. Knoche asked about the statement referencing related to "ties to Iowa City, University of Iowa and/or the State of Iowa'. Bollinger suggested that it could be removed. It was felt it would be worthwhile to keep in. Bryk commented on the scale of the project and adequate compensation. She said she felt the limitation on noise was disappointing but understandable. Suggestions were made to the draft schedule and other details. Bollinger stated she would revise and redistribute to the committee members the next day. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON FY17 PUBLIC ART PROJECTS INCLUDING THE MATCHING FUND GRANT Bollinger mentioned that the committee asked to wait until a budget was determined for the Pedestrian Tunnel before funding was committed for the Matching Fund program as well as other projects. Hemann asked about using money to fund tours or map sprucing up to help promote the program to the public. Bollinger stated that there was a map that was created by a previous intern that needed a bit more professional detail and would send the map to the committee members. It was determined that the allocation for FY17 Public Art Funds would be: $4000 - Robert A Lee STEAM Wall Installation $1000 - Longfellow Tunnel Mural $2000 — reserve for maintenance $8000 - Matching Fund Program — Deadline dates January 20, 2017 and April 2017 $15,000. - Total INCREASING MEMBERSHIP OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Bollinger stated she explored what would be required to increase the number of members of the Public Art Advisory Committee from the current 7 to 9. Two positions are held by the Public Works Director and the Parks and Recreation Director currently leaving 5 seats for public members. She explained that the by-laws now required that there be at least 2 arttdesign professionals be on the committee. Currently, Engelbrecht and Bryk are identified as the art/design professionals because they applied to fill those positions. Although Sasaki Hamann and Westphal are also arttdesign professionals, they are considered to be "at large" members. As discussed previously, increasing the at -large membership may provide more opportunity to recruit members that may have more time to invest in Public Art processes and projects. Bollinger noted that in 2000, the same request was made but the Council Rules Committee recommended denial. The issue at that time was there were not enough art professionals. The City Council followed that recommendation and did not approve as they felt that it should be focused as a "public" art committee rather than art professionals. The current situation is reversed of that previous issue. Knoche asked about process. Bollinger suggested that the committee should make a motion to the City Council to change the by-laws to allow up to 9 members on the committee. Seydell Johnson made a motion to "Recommend to the City Council that the Public Art Advisory Committee by-laws be adjusted to increase the number of members by two (from 7 to 9 members). Engelbrecht seconded. All approved. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR COMMITTEE REPORTS Sasaki Hemann mentioned that she will be hosting public workshops over the next few weeks for her Mind Travelers Aquarium project at University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics. The workshops will include created barnacles and jellies and there will also be a public lecture regarding her project on November 17 at the Iowa City Public Library. Bollinger also reminded the committee about the movie "Trolls" opening on November 5t' in which Sasaki Hemann played an important role of the design of the movie. STAFF REPORTS None ADJOURNMENT: Knoche moved to adjourn the meeting. Engelbrecht seconded. Meeting adjourned at 4:23 PM.