HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-20 Info Packet01
9m01 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org April 20, 2017
I131 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
MISCELLANEOUS
IP2 Submitted by Mayor Pro tem Botchway: DMC study
I133 Memorandum from Finance Director: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending
March 31, 2017
I134 Flyer —1-380 Planning Study
IPS Copy of Press Release: City Council Listening Post — April 27
I136 Copy of Press Release: Building Business Basics workshop — May 20
I137 Bar Check Report — March 2017
DRAFT MINUTES
IP8 Planning and Zoning Commission: April 6
JAW
NOR
CITYF IOWA CITY
Date
City Council Tentative Meeting ScheduleIP1
Subject to change
April 20, 2017
Time Meeting Location
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
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
5:00 PM
Joint Meeting JC Brd of Supervisors
TBD
Work Session
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J.
Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J.
Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Monday, July 17, 2017
4:00 PM
Reception
Johnson
County
4:30 PM
Joint Entities Meeting
TBD
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J.
Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J.
Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J.
Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
IP2
Subject: FW: DMC study
Attachments: Johnson County Evaluation Phase 1 Proposal_04-12-2017.pdf, ATT00001.htm
From: Kingsley Botchway
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 9:12 AM
To: Julie Voparil
Cc: Geoff Fruin
Subject: Fwd: DMC study
Julie,
Can you add the attachment to our council packet?
Kingsley
Sent from my Wad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Andy Johnson <aiohnson@co.iohnson.ia.us>
Date: April 17, 2017 at 3:43:14 PM CDT
To: "geoff-fruin@iowa-city.org" <geoff-fruin@iowa-citv.org>
Cc: 'Kingsley Botchway' <Kingsley-Botchway(iowa-city.org>, Rod Sullivan <rsullivan(Dco.iohnson.ia.us>
Subject: DMC study
Geoff and Kingsley,
Just wanted to pass along the revised proposal on the DMC study by the Public Policy Center. The main focus
will be on DMC in charging and sentencing. It does indicate the possibility of exploring other phases including
stops, but it leaves it much more open ended.
The caveat is that I will just be forwarding this to the Board of Supervisors now too, and it will be on their
agenda to discuss the contract with the Policy Center on Thursday. I don't have any indication that there will
be objections or changes, but wanted to be clear where we are in the process.
Let me know if you have questions. Thanks.
Andy Johnson
Executive Director
319-356-6000, Ext. 8009
1,
THE 1WL'
UNIVERSITY
OF IOWA
April 12, 2017
To the Johnson County Board of Supervisors,
PUBLIC POLICY CENTER
209 South quadrangle
Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1192
319-335-6800 FoX 319-335-6801
httpz//ppc.uima.edu
On March 6's, 2017, the Public Policy Center (PPC) received approval from the Board of
Supervisors, with the support of the County Attorney, to conduct the project "Case Processing and
Sentencing" from the project proposal "Criminal Justice Processing in Johnson County, Iowa."
This project is aimed at assessing racial and ethnic disparities in criminal case processing and
sentencing. The study will address the following research questions:
• Are black and Hispanic arrestees more or less likely than white arrestees to have their cases
accepted for prosecution?
• Are black and Hispanic defendents more or less likely than white defendents to be retained
prior to trial?
• Are black and Hispanic defendants more or less likely than white defendents to have their
cases dismissed?
• Are black and Hispanic defendants more or less likely than white defendents to receive plea
offers (e.g. offer of lesser charge)?
• Are black and Hispanic defendants more or less likely than white defendents to receive
longer criminal sentences?
Data collection will begin April of 2017. In July of 2017, the PPC will provide an initial assessment
of racial and ethnic disparities in case processing and sentencing using information currently filed by
Johnson County. Following this initial assessment, the PPC will collect detailed information on
criminal court cases over a single year and provide a more thorough estimate of racial disparities in
the Summer of 2018.
This project will also include work towards the development of additional phases. The Board of
Supervisors, with the support of the County Sheriff's Office, has expressed interest in discussing an
assessment of racial and ethnic disparities during traffic and pedestrian stops. Once this study is fully
underway and the initial assessment of the current data is complete, the PPC, Board of Supervisors,
and the County Sheriff will work together to revisit this evaluation and develop the project.
Professor Mark Berg, Scholar -in -Residence, and Ethan Rogers, Research Coordinator, will lead the
PPC research team. To complete this study (which includes the full evaluation of case processing
and sentencing as well as the initial development of additional phases), we recommend the following
direct, indirect, and total costs. Direct costs refer to the personnel and infrastructure costs to the PPC.
Our indirect cost rate is calculated using the University of Iowa's non-profit rate of 15%. The
University, and not the PPC, retains the bulk of external grant funding obtained through indirect
costs. Upon the approval of additional phases of this research project that extend research beyond
the original 18 month contract period, a new proposal, budget, and contract will be provided for each
new phase of the project.
Fiscal Year 2017 (1/1/17- Fiscal Year 2018 (7/1/17- TOTAL
6/30/17) 6/30/18
Direct cost - $24,273 Direct cost - $35,758 Direct - $60,031
Indirect cost - $3,641 Indirect cost - $5,364 Indirect - $9,005
Total cost - $27,914 Total cost - $41,122
Total Project Cost:
$69,036
Sincerely,
Mark Berg
203 South Quad
Public Policy Center
Iowa City, IA 52242
mark-berena uiowa.edu
p. (319) 335-2495
ft,
UNIVERSITY
, OF IOWA
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
PROCESSING IN JOHNSON
COUNTY, IOWA
CASE PROCESSING AND SENTENCING
Prepared by:
Mark T. Berg, PhD and Ethan Rogers, MA
University of Iowa
Iowa Public Policy Center
I. Summary ................................................................................................................2
H. Organizational Involvement.................................................................................. 3
Ill. Public Policy Center Research Team................................................................... 3
IV. Timeline.................................................................................................................4
V. Research Questions............................................................................................... 5
VI. Data Collection...................................................................................................... 5
VII. Analyses.................................................................................................................8
VIII. Exploration of Additional Phases......................................................................... 8
Ix. Summary ................................................................................................................9
X. References..............................................................................................................9
The disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in the criminal justice system --also referred to
as disproportionate minority contact (DMC)—is a persistent national concern. DMC can exist at multiple
stages of the criminal justice system, including the various dimensions of police contact, case processing,
sentencing, and punishment. National estimates suggest racial disparities particularly among black and
Hispanic residents may exist across many of these stages. Researchers have speculated about the mechanisms
behind these disparities, some of which include economic disadvantage, criminal behavior, organizational
practices, cultural misunderstandings, legal guidelines, and racial bias.
In response to this national concern, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, the County Attorney, and the
Public Policy Center (PPC) are motivated to conduct an evaluation of racial and ethnic disparities in case
processing and sentencing in Johnson County. The overall purpose of the proposed evaluation is to provide
an empirical estimate of the degree of racial disparities in Johnson County's case processing and sentencing.
While we attempt to control for additional factors that may account for these racial disparities, data and
resource limitations prevent definitive explanations about their sources.
Racial disparities may exist at multiple points throughout case processing and sentencing. Decision -agents,
such as prosecutors and judges, must detetndne whether a case is accepted for prosecution, whether a pretrial
detention is necessary, whether a case is dismissed, whether a plea should be offered, and which type and how
severe of sentence is appropriate. While these decisions can be shaped by procedural guidelines (e.g.
mandatory minimums), there are also moments of considerable discretion. Racial disparities may be
particularly likely during these moments of discretion. Nevertheless, the literature examining racial disparities
in case processing and sentencing has largely focused on disparities in sentencing outcomes, e.g., sentence
type or length (for reviews, see Baumer 2013; Spohn 2000; Ulmer 2012). Moreover, research findings are
seemingly contradictory - some studies find disadvantages for racial minorities, others find no differences by
race, and others find advantages for racial minorities. However, recent county evaluations have suggested
important racial disparities at various stages (Kutateladze and Andiloro 2014; Rosen 2016). In an evaluation
of the New York County District Attorney's Office, Kutateladze and Andiloro (2014) found no racial
disparities in the initial decision to prosecute a case; yet, black and Hispanic defendants were more likely than
similarly -situated defendants to be detained, to receive a custodial plea offer (prison or jail plea offer), and to
be given an incarceration sentence. In contrast, black and Hispanic defendants were mon likely to benefit from
case dismissals than white defendants. Stolzenberg et al (2013) suggest that due to the differing effects of race
at different stages, evaluations should consider race effects at multiple decision making points in addition to
how these racial disparities may accumulate across each point. Additionally, evaluations should aim to
consider racial disparities for different types of offenses, and account for other relevant factors, such as other
defendant demographics, legal considerations, and victim, prosecutor, and judge characteristics.
We suggest following these recommendations in an evaluation of case processing and sentencing in Johnson
County. Our research aim is to examine racial disparities across multiple stages, including case filings, pretrial
detentions, case dismissals, plea offers, and sentences. To do so, we recommend conducting two empirical
assessments. First, we can assess racial disparities in the data currently collected and filed by the county
prosecutor's office. Second, we would collect case data over a single year that includes additional information,
such as information on legal considerations and characteristics of individuals involved (defendant, victim,
prosecutor, judge). Analytical strategies may include descriptive statistics, multivariate regressions, and
propensity score matching.
As an additional component of this study, the PPC research team will also work towards the development of
additional phases, such as an evaluation of racial and ethnic disparities in policing. After the initial assessment
is complete, the PPC, Board of Supervisors, and the County Sheriff will work together to revisit this
evaluation and develop this project.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESSING IN JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA - DECEMBER 2016
An evaluation of Johnson County's case processing and sentencing will require routine communication with
Johnson County agencies, personnel, and community groups during the course of the project A local
advisory committee that includes these groups will be established. The following is a tentative list of
organizations that the research team believes might be involved:
• Johnson County Board of Supervisors
• Public Policy Center of the University of Iowa
• Johnson County Attorney Office
• Johnson County Sheriff's Office
Dr. Mark Berg is a Scholar -in -Residence at the Public Policy Center as well as an
Associate Professor for the University of Iowa in the Department of Sociology. His
research interests primarily include interpersonal violence, mobilization of law, and
the social contest of adolescent development and well-being. He teaches graduate
and undergraduate courses on communities, criminology, and interpersonal
violence. He received his Ph.D from the University of Missouri — St. Louis.
Ethan Rogers recently joined the Public Policy Center team as Research
Coordinator for crime and justice research under the supervision of Dr. Berg.
Ethan has a Master's Degree in sociology from the University of Iowa where he
received training in criminological research and advanced methodological
techniques. He has experience collecting and analyzing data as well as
communicating research findings through evaluation reports and presentations.
Our research team is committed to the mission and goals of the Public Policy
Center (see Public Policy Center Handout). In that spirit, we hope to provide the
Johnson County Board of Supervisors with information regarding disproportionate
minority contact that can be used to both shape policy and engage our community.
We look forward to working with you!
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESSING IN JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA - DECEMBER 2016
FINAL REPORT
We will provide a complete report to offer an assessment of racial disparities in case processing and sentencing in Johnson County, Iowa. In addition to presenting this information to the
Johnson County Board of Supervisors, we expect to present this evaluation at the annual meetings of the Academy of Criminal Justice Science (March 2019) and the American Society of
Criminology (Nov 2019).
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESSING IN JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA- DECEMBER 2016
2017
1 2018
Ian
Feb
Mar
Apt
May
un
July
Aw
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
I=
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
JUIV
Au
Project Initiation
• Establish Project Plan
• Meet with involved agencies
Retrospective Data
• Collect data currently filed by Johnson County
• Report on retrospective case data on July 31 2017
Instrument Development
• Design instrument for case data collection
• Train personnel for dap entry
Data Collection
• Case processing and sentencing dam collection
• Deliver bi-monthly status reports ()lily -Aug) and
monthly status reports (Sept -Jun)
Data Analyses
• Compile all case processing and sentencing data
• Correct errors in data
• Report on prospective case dam on Aug31, 2018
FINAL REPORT
We will provide a complete report to offer an assessment of racial disparities in case processing and sentencing in Johnson County, Iowa. In addition to presenting this information to the
Johnson County Board of Supervisors, we expect to present this evaluation at the annual meetings of the Academy of Criminal Justice Science (March 2019) and the American Society of
Criminology (Nov 2019).
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESSING IN JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA- DECEMBER 2016
Rl. Are there racial/ethnic disparities in case filings in Johnson County?
Rla . ............... in cases accepted for prosecution in Johnson County?
Rlb................ in a prosecutor's decision to reduce the charge filed by officer in Johnson County?
R2. Are there racial/ethnic disparities in pretrial detentions in Johnson County?
R2a . ............... in defendant releases in Johnson County?
R2b . ............... in bail amounts in Johnson County?
R3. Are there racial/ethnic disparities in case dismissals in Johnson County?
R4. Are there racial/ethnic disparities in plea offers in Johnson County?
R4a . ............... in plea offers of a lesser charge in Johnson County? [i.e., are black defendants more or ksr
likely than white defendants to receive a plea offer to a lesser charge than the original tbarge]
R4b . ............... in sentence offers (e.g. custodial sentence vs. probation) in Johnson County?
R5. Are there racial/ethnic disparities in sentences in Johnson County?
R5a . ............... in sentences (e.g. custodial sentence vs. probation) in Johnson County?
R5b . ...............
in length of custodial sentences in Johnson County?
R5c . ................
in length of probation sentences in Johnson County?
R5d . ...............
in fine/restitution amounts in Johnson County?
The information currently collected by Johnson County regarding criminal cases is likely sufficient for an
initial glance at racial disparities in case processing and sentencing. However, without collecting more detailed
information on each case, these estimates would be relatively tentative. Ideally, each case would have
information regarding case outcomes (e.g., case dismissal), legal considerations (e.g., severity of offense), and
characteristics of the defendant (e.g., race/ethnicity), victim (e.g., victim's relationship to offender),
prosecutor (e.g., caseload), and judge (e.g., experience). For a more complete list of variables required for a
full assessment, see Table 5.
Because Johnson County may not currently collect this level of information, we recommend conducting two
separate assessments. Fust, early in the phase, we would assess racial disparities in case processing and
sentencing using the information currently collected by Johnson County. Second, we would assess these racial
disparities using detailed data we collect over a single year. Prosecutors would be asked to provide more
extensive information on each case processed. These recommended variables are largely compiled from
previous evaluations of case processing and sentencing in other states, counties, and agencies (e.g.,
Kutateladze and Andiloro 2014; Rosen 2016). Case processing in Johnson County may be unique from other
counties due to a variety of factors including population size and typical criminal cases. As a result, an
evaluation of case processing and sentencing in Johnson County may require modifications of these variables
and their coding structure. These modifications will be implemented upon conversations with the agencies
involved.
NOTE ON DATA COLLECTION
County criminal justice processing evaluations such as the one proposed raise the question of whether to use
either retrospective or prospective data collection techniques. Retrospective data collection would require
abstracting key variables (e.g., race, criminal history, sex) from current administrative records on prosecution.
A key advantage of retrospective data is that they are usually easier to collect and place a minimal burden on
county agents because they already exist. However, these data are often incomplete and are not adequate for
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESSING IN JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA - DECEMBER 2016
the proposed tasks. Not only are there limitations in the quantity and type of information collected, but there
is also significant amounts of missing data and data errors. Prospective data collection, on the other hand,
allows the research team and the criminal justice agencies to collaborate to collect the information needed for
the evaluation. Some of this information requires new data collection techniques. The following project
recommendations are largely based on the assumption that each phase will require a combination of
retrospective and prospective data collection. Retrospective data collection is a possibility if current
administrative data are reliable and complete and allow us to address the proposed research questions.
TABLE 5. VARIABLES FOR CASE PROCESSING AND SENTENCING
Case Outcomes
Case Acceptance
0 = Case declined for prosecution
1 = Case accepted for prosecution
Cbage Adjustment
0 = Prosecutor charge = Officer charge
1 = Prosecutor charge < Officer charge (Charge reduction)
2 = Prosecutor charge > Officer charge (Charge upgrade)
Pretrial Detention
0 = Release on own recognizance (ROR)
1 = Set bail
2 = Remand defendants into pretrial detention
3 = Held in jail
BailAmomnt
$$
Case Dismissal
0 = Not dismissed
1 = Dismissed at any point in case process
Reason for Dirmirral
0 = Unable to establish element of crime
1 = Lack of speedy prosecution
2 = Covered (combined with other cases)
3 = ACD/ACM dismissal
4 = Defendant died
5 = Other reason (clayton motion granted, civilian wit fail, defective
indictrnent/information/count, DNA evidence, Dismissed -Do not seal, Def
already serving time, For extradition, removal to family court, insufficient GJ
minutes, interest of justice, no controlled substance, def found unfit, transfer
— another court/tribunal, unlawful search and seizure, witness credibility
contradicted, other -not specified, and unknown
Plea Offers
0 = No plea offered
1 = Plea offered
Cbarge Oj%rr
If plea offer, was a reduction in charge offered?
0=No
1 =Yes
Sentence Ofers
If plea offer, what was sentence offered?
0 = Prison or Jail
1 = Conditional discharge
2 = Time Served
3 = Probation/parole
4 = Fine/restitution
5=0
Sentence
0 = Prison or Jail
1 = Conditional discharge
2 = Time Served
3 = Probation/parole
4 = Fine/restitution
5 = Other
Cmstodial Sentence Isn th
Ifprison/jail sentence, length?
Time xe d fen th
If time served, length?
Probation/ anile len h
If probation/parole sentence length?
Fine/restitution amount
If fine/restitution, amount?
Case Disposal
0 = Guilty by plea/conviction
1 = Case Dismissed
2 = ACD
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESSING IN JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA - DECEMBER 2016
3 = Other
Defendant Chuacteristics
Defendant Race/Ethnicity 0 = White (NonHispanic)
1 = Black (Non -Hispanic)
2 = Hispanic
3 = Asian
4 = Other
SexI0 = Female
1 = Male
Defendant SES
Victim Race/Ethnicity
0 = White (Non -Hispanic)
1 = Black (Non -Hispanic)
2 = Hispanic
3 = Asian
4 = Other
Victim -Offender Relationship
0 = Female
Victim Age
0 = Child
Experience
1 = Adult
Victim Sex
0 = Female
1 = Male
Race/ethnicity
0 = White (Non -Hispanic)
1 = Black (Non -Hispanic)
2 = Hispanic
3 = Asian
4 = Other
Sex
0 = Female
1 = Male
Experience
years
Caseload
I Number of cases either average or at the time of case
e Chuacteristicst
0 = White
1 = Black
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESSING IN JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA - DECEMBER 2016
2=
3=
4=
0=
r=
-Wtyle unportant lot a complete evaluation, prosecutor and judge characteristics may be excluded due to a
variation in Johnson County.
1. Descriptive Statistics. Descriptive statistics provide an initial image in racial disparities in case processing
and sentencing. Primarily, these statistics can reveal disproportionate representation of racial groups in
various case outcomes. For example, if black defendants only represent 20% of arrests while representing
40% of cases accepted for prosecution, the statistics reveal a disproportionate representation of black
defendants in cases accepted for prosecution. Descriptive statistics will be presented in tabular form (see
example table 6) or in charts/graphs.
Black
###
##%
##%
##%
##%
Hispanic
###
##%
##%
##%
##%
Asian
###
##%
##%
##%
##%
Other
###
##%
##%
##%
##%
2. Multivariate Regression Models. Multivariate regression models will examine if racial disparities in case
processing and sentences persist after accounting for additional factors, including other defendant
characteristics, legal considerations, and victim, prosecutor, and judge characteristics.
3. Propensity Score Analyses. Propensity score analyses can be used to compare the outcomes of
defendants of different races in similarly situated cases. In other words, cases of white and minority
defendants can be matched on all theoretically important variables related to the case outcome and then we
can compare the difference in outcomes for the two groups.
Due to receiving considerable attention from the community, another valuable phase would be to assess
disproportionate minority contact between the police and racial and ethnic groups. In their day to day
operations, police officers have many opportunities to exercise discretion, from the initial decision to stop a
driver or pedestrian to the final decision to arrest. The Board of Supervisors, with the support of the County
Sheriffs Office, has expressed interest in discussing an assessment of racial and ethnic disparities during
traffic and pedestrian stops. As result, the Public Policy Center will include work towards the development of
additional phases. After the study is fully underway and the initial assessment of the current data is complete,
the PPC, Board of Supervisors, and the County Sheriff will work together to revisit this evaluation and
develop the project.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESSING IN JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA - DECEMBER 2016
In summary, this study can offer an initial estimate of racial and ethnic disparities in case processing and
sentencing over the course of one year in Johnson County. The evaluation can show whether citizens from
different racial and ethnic groups are more of less likely to have their cases accepted for prosecution, to
receive a pretrial detention, to have a case dismissed, to be offered a plea to a lesser charge, and to receive a
custodial sentence, among other case outcomes. While this evaluation can identify potential disparities in
these outcomes, the current data can not identify the underlying cause of them. Without examining countless
alternative explanations, the research team will not be able to make any conclusive statements regarding why
these disparities exist.
This study will also include work towards the development of additional evaluations, such as an assessment of
racial and ethnic disparities in policing. Upon the approval of additional phases of this research project that
extend research beyond the original 18 month contract period, a new proposal, budget, and contract will be
provided for each new phase of the project.
Kutateladze, Besiki Luka, and Nancy R. Andiloro. 2014. Prosecution and Racial Justice in New York County -
Technical Report. National Institute of Justice. U.S. Department of Justice
Stolzenberg, Lisa, Stewart J. D'Alessio, and David Eide. 2013. Race and Cumulative Discrimination in the
Prosecution of Criminal Defendants. Race and Justice 3(4):275-299.
Kutateladze, Besiki L., Nancy R. Andiloro, Brian D. Johnson, and Cassia C. Spohn. 2014. Cumulative
Disadvantage: Examining Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Prosecution and Sentencing. Criminology
52(3):514551.
Rosen, Jeff. 2016. Race and Prosecutions, 2013-2015: A Report of the Santa Clara County District Attorney's
Office.
Baumer, Eric P. 2013. Reassessing and redirecting research on race and sentencing. JurticeQuarter# 30:231-
261.
Ulmer, Jeffery T. 2012. Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. JustiieQuarterly 29:1-
40.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESSING IN JOHNSON COUNTY. IOWA - DECEMBER 2016
r
IP3
1.®oGr CITY OF IOWA CITY
�-''�' MEMORANDUM
Date: April 19, 2017
To: City Manager, City Council
From: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director
Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending March 31, 2017
Introduction
Attached to this memorandum are the City's quarterly financial reports as of March 31, 2017.
The quarterly financial report includes combined summaries of all fund balances, revenues, and
expenditures for Fiscal Year 2017 through the end of the third quarter, which is 75% of the way
through the fiscal year. The March quarterly report also incorporates the budget amendments
that were approved during the Fiscal Year 2018 budget process. Some of the highlights of the
City's financial activity are discussed below.
Revenue Analysis
This revenue analysis pertains to the revenue reports, Revenues by Fund and Revenues by
Type, on pages 4-6. In these two reports, the actual revenues would ideally be near 75% of
budget since we have completed three-fourths of the fiscal year; however, due to accruals and
timing differences, many of these percentages may be above or below 75%.
On page 5, in the report, Revenues by Type, there are a few revenue items worth noting. Under
Licenses, Permits, & Fees, construction permits and inspection fee revenue is already at
146.6% of budget and under Charges for Fees & Services, Building & Development fees are at
136.3% of budget. These revenue totals include construction from last summer and fall, and
they are a good indicator of the amount of construction activity underway. On the other hand,
property tax revenue is at 57% of budget and reflects the timing of the property tax receipts.
The second half property taxes are due in April and should increase this percentage
substantially. Also, on page 6, under Other Financing Sources, Debt Sales revenue is at 54.9%
of budget. We are currently preparing to sell the 2017 general obligation bonds and the 2017
sewer and water revenue bonds which will bring this revenue source up to 100% of budget.
On page 4, in the report, Revenues by Fund, there are also a few revenue items worth noting.
One such fund is the Mass Transit Fund; Mass Transit Fund revenues are only at 28.5% of
budget due to the timing of the receipt of the Federal subsidy. By the end of the fiscal year,
roughly $1.4 million is expected to be received from the Federal government which will raise the
actual versus budget percentage considerably. In addition, CDBG Fund and Home Fund
revenues are at 37.1% and 20.9%, respectively. These funds' revenues are below budget
primarily due to the timing of the grant activity. These percentages could change quickly
depending on when the Federal funds are received.
As of March 31, the combined total actual revenue for all budgetary funds is $112,916,466 or
61.9% of budget. Overall, the City's revenues are not substantially different than projected, and
the anomalies and budget variances can be explained.
Expenditure Analysis
This expenditure analysis pertains to the expenditure reports, Expenditures by Fund and
Expenditures by Fund by Department on pages 7-9. The analysis of the City's expenditures for
Fiscal Year 2017 through March is similar to the analysis for the City's revenues. We generally
expect the actual expenditure levels to be around 75% of budget at this time of year.
Some funds have expenditure activity through the third quarter that differs significantly from the
75% mark. The following funds have a significant expenditure variance above or below 75%:
HOME Fund expenditures are at 16.0% due to the timing of the payout of loans and
grants to applicants.
Debt Service Fund expenditures are at 24.8%, because the general obligation bond
principal payments are not due until June 1.
Governmental Projects expenditures are at 28.8% and Enterprise Projects expenditures
are at 17.6% because many of the capital projects are scheduled for construction this
spring.
Overall, the combined total actual expenditures for all budgetary funds through March are
$124,682,121 or 51.5% of budget. The City's expenditures through the third quarter have a few
major anomalies; however, these can be readily explained.
Conclusion
Generally, there are no major concerns to report with the City's fund balances at the end of
March. One fund, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund, is presented (on
page 3) with negative fund balance at -$67,767. This negative fund balance should be reversed
following the next receipt of CDBG funds. The other fund balances appear to be near
expectations. Additional information is available from the Finance Department upon request.
City of Iowa City
Fund Summary
Fiscal Year 2017 through March 31, 2017
Debt Service Fund
Beginning
Ending
Restricted,
Unassigned
5"' Debt Service
Fund
Year -to -Date
Transfers
Year -to -Date
Transfers
Fund
Committed,
Fund
Permanent Funds
Balance
Revenues
In
Expenditures
Out
Balance
Assigned
Balance
Budgetary Funds
116,266
141
-
-
-
116,407
-
116.407
General Fund
10" General Fund
$ 48,135,654
$ 31,703,293
$ 6,966,189
$ 37,456,630
$13,279,010
$ 36,069,495
$ 14,562,201
$ 21,507,294
Special Revenue Funds
5,455,387
2,051,835
2,454,348
4,581,616
185,000
5,194,954
1,287,299
3,907,655
2100 Community Dev Block Grai
448,892
623,259
-
1,058,867
81,051
(67,767)
-
(67,767)
2110 HOME
-
169,987
-
128,413
-
41,574
-
41,574
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
5,767,142
6,203,927
247,950
3,933,361
1,940,249
6,345,409
-
6,345,409
23DO Other Shared Revenue
152,415
366,780
-
402,909
-
116,285
-
116,285
2350 Metro Planning Ong of J.C.
302,423
182,386
201,191
440,471
-
245,529
-
245,529
2400 Employee Benefits
1,670,848
6,453,276
-
584,490
7,059,523
470,111
-
470,111
2500 Affordable Housing Fund
1,000,000
2,048
-
500,000
35,824
466,225
3,080,190
466,225
2510 Peninsula Apartments
124,888
57,553
-
43,024
-
139,418
-
139,418
26" Tax Increment Financing
239,487
1,276,657
-
-
-
1,516,144
236,684
1,279,460
2820 SSMID-Downtown District
-
167,608
-
158,998
-
8,610
-
8,610
Debt Service Fund
5"' Debt Service
6,000,281
8,391,128
532,918
3,815,723
-
11,108,604
1,385,585
9,723,019
Permanent Funds
6001 Perpetual Care
116,266
141
-
-
-
116,407
-
116.407
Enterprise Funds
710• Parking
10,742,693
4,074,457
-
2,235,027
896,273
11,685,850
5,885,583
5,800,266
715' Mass Transit
5,455,387
2,051,835
2,454,348
4,581,616
185,000
5,194,954
1,287,299
3,907,655
720' Wastewater
30,106,670
8,579,130
3,325,171
19,523,614
4,965,727
17,521,630
8,133,907
9,387,723
730' Water
16,240,827
6,498,681
1,455,652
10,560,727
1.673,779
11.960,655
3,570,364
8,390,292
7400 Refuse Collection
1,245,110
2,124,095
-
2,265,967
-
1,103,239
-
1,103,239
750' Landfill
24,926,190
5,010,706
685,492
3,605,584
514,144
26,502,660
24,125,836
2,376,824
7600 Airport
572,874
241,442
84,907
539,599
65,060
294,565
100,000
194,565
7700 Stan water
1,170,823
1,211,232
-
551,103
905,005
925,946
-
925,946
79" Housing Authority
6,350,911
6,680,870
-
6,954,057
34,565
6,043,158
3,080,190
2,962,968
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects
21,966,585
17,046,739
14,829,350
22,828,682
373,675
30,640,318
-
30,640,318
Enterprise Projects
10,232,849
3,799,238
1,735,717
2,513,261
-
13,254,544
-
13,254,544
Total Budgetary Funds
$192,969,216
$ 112,916,466
$32.518,886
$ 124,682,121
$32,018,886
$ 181,703,561
$ 62,367,649
$119,335,912
Non -Budgetary Funds
Capital Project Funds
Internal Service Projects
$ 66,776
$ 170
$ -
$ 61,633
$ -
$ 5,314
$ -
$ 5,314
Internal Service Funds
810' Equipment
11,749,371
4,422,764
-
3,111,658
-
13,060,478
11,233,150
1,827,328
8200 Risk Management
3,414,156
1,604,964
-
958,514
-
4,060,606
-
4,060,606
830' Information Technology
2,516,722
1,802,192
-
1,135,431
500,000
2,683,482
627,629
2,055,854
8400 Central Services
667,695
174,514
-
121,200
-
721,009
-
721,009
8500 Health Insurance Reserves
9,902,794
6,077,987
-
5,139,798
-
10,840,983
4,282,539
6,558,444
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves
137,107
285,006
-
276,774
-
145,339
-
145,339
Total Non -Budgetary Funds
$ 28,454,622
$ 14,367,597
$ -
$ 10,805,007
$ 500,000
$ 31,517,212
$ 16,143,318
S 15,373,894
Total All Funds
$221,423,838
$ 127,284,063
$32,518.886
$ 135,487,128
$32,518,886
$ 213,220,773
$ 78,510,967
$134,709,806
3
City of Iowa City
Revenues by Fund
4
Fiscal Year 2017 through March 31, 2017
2016
2017
2017
2017
Actual
Budget
Revised
Actual
Variance
Percent
Budgetary Fund Revenues
General Fund
10" General Fund
$ 48,667,850
$ 50,044,369
$ 50,055,719
$ 31,703,293
$ (18,352,426)
63.3%
Special Revenue Funds
2100 Community Dev Block Grant
989,380
706,000
1,678,012
623,259
(1,054,753)
37.1%
2110 HOME
614,958
421,000
813,343
169,987
(643,356)
20.9%
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
8,411,456
7,906,232
8,389,233
6,203,927
(2,185,306)
74.0%
2300 Other Shared Revenue
380,110
-
865,105
366,780
(498,325)
42.4%
2350 Metro Planning Ong of Johnson Co
298,671
319,369
319,369
182,386
(136,983)
67.1%
2400 Employee Benefits
10,516,769
11,144,971
11,144,971
6,453,276
(4,691,695)
57.9%
2500 Affordable Housing Fund
1,000,000
-
-
2,048
2,048
0.0%
2510 Peninsula Apartments
72,243
74,000
74,000
57,553
(16,447)
77.8%
26" Tax Increment Financing
1,030,833
2,276,953
2,276,953
1,276,657
(1,000,296)
56.1%
2820 SSMID-Downtown District
295,284
321,151
317,859
167,608
(150,251)
52.7%
Debt Service Fund
5"' Debt Service
13,301,893
13,645,137
14,403,347
8,391,128
(6,012,219)
58.3%
Permanent Funds
6001 Perpetual Care
384
500
500
141
(359)
28.2%
Enterprise Funds
710' Parking
11,016,908
5,625,275
5,680,448
4,074,457
(1,605,991)
71.7%
715' Mass Transit
4,582,386
7,120,613
7,196,613
2,051,835
(5,144,778)
28.5%
720' Wastewater
22,742,715
12,588,588
12,588,588
8,579,130
(4,009,458)
68.2%
730* Water
13,346,893
9,111,655
9,111,655
6,498,681
(2,612,974)
71.3%
7400 Refuse Collection
3,130,252
3,173,900
3,173,900
2,124,095
(1,049,805)
66.9%
750' Landfill
6,268,826
5,977,982
5,977,982
5,010,706
(967,276)
83.8%
7600 Airport
341,499
359,500
359,500
241,442
(118,058)
67.2%
7700 Storm Water
1,173.615
1,516,221
1,653,147
1,211,232
(441,915)
73.3%
79" Housing Authority
8,819,308
8,501,334
8,608,075
6,680,870
(1,927,205)
77.6%
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects
16,503,591
19,553,084
33,687,473
17,046,739
(16,640,734)
50.6%
Enterprise Projects
1,911,092
2,690,898
4,186,439
3,799,238
(387,201)
90.8%
Total Budgetary Revenues
$175,416,916
$163,078,732
$182,562,231
S 112,916,466
$ (69,645,765)
61.9%
Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues
-
Capilal Project Funds
Internal Service Projects
$ 25,195
$ -
$ -
$ 170
$ 170
0.0%
Internal Service Funds
810 -Equipment
5,912,284
6,379,763
6,379,763
4,422,764
(1,956,999)
69.3%
8200 Risk Management
1,547,056
1,623,145
1,623,145
1,604,964
(18,181)
98.9%
830- Information Technology
1,870,446
2,150,510
2,150,510
1,802,192
(348,318)
83.8%
8400 Central Services
243,265
269,844
269,844
174,514
(95,330)
64.7%
8500 Health Insurance Reserves
7,217,213
8,027,508
8,027,508
6,077,987
(1,949,521)
75.7%
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves
364,364
382,627
382,627
285,008
(97,621)
74.5%
Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures
$ 17,179,823
$ 18,833,397
$ 18,833,397
$ 14,367,597
S (4,465,969)
76.3%
Total Revenues -All Funds
$192,596,739
$181,912,129
$ 201,395,628
$ 127,284,063
$ (74,111,735)
63.2%
4
City of Iowa City
Revenues by Type
Fiscal Year 2017 through March 31, 2017
Budgetary Fund Revenues
Property Taxes
Other City Taxes:
TIF Revenues
Gas/Electric Excise Taxes
Mobile Home Taxes
Hotel/Motel Taxes
Utility Franchise Tax
Subtotal
Licenses, Permits, & Fees:
General Use Permits
Food & Liquor Licenses
Professional License
Franchise Fees
Construction Permits & Insp Fees
Misc Lic & Permits
Subtotal
Intergovernmental
2016 2017 2017 2017
Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent
$ 52,020,805 $ 55,330,224 $ 55,330,224 $ 31,539,339 $ (23,790,885) 57.0%
1,027,218
2,276,953
2,276,953
1,274,895
(1,002,058)
56.0%
35.6%
764,260
746,043
746,043
363,318
(382,725)
48.7%
47.9%
65,497
68,265
68,265
43,309
(24,956)
63.4%
73.1%
1,078,762
1,057,385
1,057,385
602,443
(454,942)
57.0%
105.1%
874,235
901,690
901,690
493,761
(407,929)
54.8%
95.7%
3,809,972
5,050,336
5,050,336
2,777,727
(2,272,609)
55.0%
194.2%
82,496
104,047
104,047
64,379
(39,668)
61.9%
84.1%
92,738
120,650
120,650
78,933
(41,717)
65.4%
84.8%
18,700
18,660
18,660
8,430
(10,230)
45.2%
56.6%
733,644
720,000
720,000
363,404
(355,596)
50.5%
68.3%
2,102,624
1,463,225
1,463,225
2,144,648
681,423
146.6%
66.6%
35,657
36,600
36,600
29.692
(6,909)
81.1%
84.3%
3,065,859
2,463,182
2,463,182
2,689,486
226,304
109.2%
71.1%
Fed Intergovemment Revenue
12,693,466
15,181,625
21,134,364
7,517,234
(13,617,130)
35.6%
Property Tax Credits
2,088,758
1,671,368
1,668,076
799,579
(868,497)
47.9%
Road Use Tax
8,320,117
7,837,116
8,320,117
6,080,798
(2,239,319)
73.1%
State 28E Agreements
2,058,908
1,785,000
1,725,000
1,813,044
88,044
105.1%
Operating Grants
104,197
89,743
129,743
124,192
(5,551)
95.7%
Disaster Assistance
118,068
-
97,071
188,479
91,408
194.2%
Other Slate Grants
6,711,203
4,978,045
6,884,525
5,792,403
(1,092,122)
84.1%
Local 28E Agreements
1,378,455
1 036 149
1,038.149
880,019
(158,130)
84.8%
Subtotal
33,473,172
32,581,046
40,997,045
.23,195,748
(17,801,297)
56.6%
Charges For Fees And Services:
Building & Development
1,719,875
401,750
498,202
678,819
180,617
136.3%
Police Services
112,112
44,121
44,121
130,833
86,712
296.5%
Animal Care Services
10,400
10,000
10,000
7,915
(2,086)
79.1%
Fire Services
9,244
9,000
9,000
10,010
1,010
111.2%
Transit Fees
1,299,179
1,448,900
1,448,900
817,785
(631,115)
56.4%
Culture & Recreation
761,363
812,093
612,093
458,938
(353,155)
56.5%
Library Charges
22
-
-
30
30
0.0%
Misc Charges For Services
71,270
66,692
66,692
51,633
(15,059)
77.4%
Water Charges
9,138,197
8,931,156
8,931,156
6,333,492
(2,597,664)
70.9%
Wastewater Charges
12,264,380
12,201,600
12,201,600
8,338,135
(3,863,465)
68.3%
Refuse Charges
3,491,480
3,608,800
3,608,800
2,404,492
(1,204,308)
66.6%
Landfill Charges
5,686,853
5,341,722
5,341,722
4,502,202
(839,520)
84.3%
Storm water Charges
1,167,517
1,477,710
1,477,710
1,051,049
(426,661)
71.1%
Parking Charges
5,927,772
5 965 154
6,020,327
4,473,943
(1,546,384)
74.3%
Subtotal
41,659,663
40,318,698
40,470,323
29,259,275
(11,211,048)
72.3%
Miscellaneous:
Code Enforcement
253,174
300,500
300,500
162,940
(137,560)
54.2%
Parking Fines
549,575
620,000
620,000
417,295
(202,705)
67.3%
Library Fines & Fees
155,519
160,000
160,000
116,057
(43,943)
72.5%
Contributions & Donations
609,723
517,519
1,082,519
459,174
(623,345)
42.4%
Printed Materials
49,456
44,326
44,326
32,708
(11,618)
73.8%
Animal Adoption
14,190
13,000
13,000
9,250
(3,750)
71.2%
Misc Merchandise
57,644
53,522
53,522
47,994
(5,528)
89.7%
Intra -City Charges
3,112,634
4,003,742
4,003,742
2,841,465
(1,162,277)
71.0%
Other Misc Revenue
739,617
708,915
1,720,423
1,384,428
(335,995)
80.5%
Special Assessments
1,615
604
604
252
(352)
41.7%
Subtotal
$ 5,543,146
$ 6,422,128
$ 7,998,636
$ 5,471,563
$ (2,527,073)
68.4%
City of Iowa City
Revenues by Type
Fiscal Year 2017 through March 31, 2017
2016 2017 2017 2017
Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent
Use Of Money And Property
Interest Revenues
$ 1,040,598
$ 927,821
$ 1,028,708
S 594,228
$ (434,480)
57.8%
Capital Project Funds
Rents
1,265,519
1,256,057
1,256,057
983,966
(272,091)
78.3%
17,154,628
Royalties 8 Commissions
149,751
113,814
113,814
82,031
(31,783)
72.1%
$ 18,833,397
Subtotal
2,455,867
2,297,692
2,398,579
1,660,226
(738,353)
69.2%
$ 201,395,629
Other Financial Sources:
$ (74,111,566)
63.2%
Debt Sales
23,897,097
16,187,000
23,335,480
12,805,000
(10,530,480)
54.9%
Sale Of Assets
7,747,095
993,389
3,083,389
2,623,762
(459,627)
85.1%
Loans
1,744,239
1435 038
1,435,038
894,340
(540,698)
62.3%
Subtotal
33,388,431
18,615,427
27,853,907
16,323,102
(11,530,805)
58.6%
Total Budgetary Revenues
$175,416,916
S 163,078,733
$182,562,232
$112,916,466
(69,645,766)
61.9%
Non -Budgetary Fund Revenues
Capital Project Funds
$ 25,195
$ -
$ -
$ 170
$ 170
0.0%
Internal Service Funds
17,154,628
18,833,397
18,833,397
14,367,428
(4,465,969)
76.3%
Total Non -Budgetary Revenues
$ 17,179,823
$ 18,833,397
$ 18,833,397
S 14,357,597
$ (4,465,800)
76.3%
Total Revenues -All Funds
$192,596,739
$ 181,912,130
$ 201,395,629
$127,284,063
$ (74,111,566)
63.2%
N
City of Iowa City
Expenditures by Fund
Fiscal Year 2017 through March 31, 2017
7
2016
2017
2017
2017
Actual
Budget
Revised
Actual
Variance
Percent
Budgetary Fund Expenditures
General Fund
10" General Fund
$ 49,198,595
$ 54,585,583
$ 55,411,514
$ 37,456,630
$ 17,954,884
67.6%
Special Revenue Funds
2100 Community Dev Block Grant
659,901
719,713
1,596,735
1,058,867
537,868
66.3%
2110 HOME
747,816
428,108
801,716
128,413
673,303
16.0%
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
5,436,882
5,969,763
5,989,213
3,933,361
2,055,852
65.7%
2300 Other Shared Revenue
446,465
-
1,022,683
402,909
619,774
39.4%
2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co.
558,489
616,729
516,729
440,471
176,258
71.4%
2400 Employee Benefits
1,054,857
1,212,865
1,212,865
584,490
628,375
46.2%
2500 Affordable Housing Fund
-
-
1,000,000
500,000
500,000
50.0%
2510 Peninsula Apartments
52,501
56,879
56,879
43,024
13,855
75.6%
26" Tax Increment Financing
-
42,500
42,500
-
42,500
0.0%
2820 SSMID-Downtown District
295,284
321,151
317,859
158,998
158,861
50.0%
Debt Service Fund
5"' Debt Service
15,016,250
15,146,227
15,390,400
3,815,723
11,574,677
24.8%
Permanent Funds
6001 Perpetual Cam
-
-
-
-
-
0.0%
Enterprise Funds
710' Parking
3,212,740
3,490,001
3,516,896
2,235,027
1,281,869
63.6%
715' Mass Transit
6,917,901
10,251,640
10,516,640
4,581,616
5,935,024
43.6%
720• Wastewater
10,674,085
10,593,521
21,258,521
19,523,614
1,734,907
91.8%
730' Water
7,686,557
8,558,936
12,732,640
10,560,727
2,171,913
82.9%
7400 Refuse Collection
2,935,579
3,142,730
3,159,730
2,265,967
893,763
71.7%
750' Landfill
4,550,095
4,505,413
4,929,566
3,605,584
1,323,982
73.1%
7600 Airport
408,276
372,709
632,709
539,599
93,110
85.3%
7700 Storm water
738,102
624,077
864,553
551,103
313,450
63.7%
79" Housing Authority
8,334,915
7,655,761
7,766,702
6,954,057
812,645
89.5%
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects
19,479,006
35,452,225
79,144,971
22,828,682
56,316,289
28.8%
Enterprise Projects
3,893,109
4,517,923
14,319,041
2,513,261
11,805,780
17.6%
Total Budgetary Expenditures
$142,297,407
$168,264,454
$ 242,301,062
$ 124,682,121
$ 117,618,941
51.5%
Non -Budgetary Funds Expenditures
Capital Project Funds
Internal Service Projects
$ 424,014
$ -
$ 66,777
$ 61,633
5,144
92,3%
Internal Service Funds
810` Equipment
5,181,051
4,809,295
6,121,634
3,111,658
3,009,976
50.8%
8200 Risk Management
1,431,387
1,571,941
1,571,941
958,514
613,427
61.0%
830' Information Technology
1,834,060
2,108,294
2,108,294
1,135,431
972,863
53.9%
8400 Central Services
234,097
251,840
251,840
121,200
130,640
48.1%
8500 Health Insurance Reserves
7,934,757
8,002,151
8,002,151
5,139,798
2,862,353
64.2%
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves
370,061
375,896
375,896
276,774
99,122
73.6%
Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures
$ 17,409,427
$ 17,119,417
$ 18,498,533
$ 10,805,007
$ 7,693,526
58.4%
Total Expenditures - All Funds
$159,706,834
$185,383,871
$ 260,799,595
$135,487,128
$ 125,312,467
52.0%
7
City of Iowa City
Expenditures by Fund by Department
Fiscal Year 2017 through March 31, 2017
8
2016
2017
2017
2017
Actual
Budget
Revised
Actual
Variance
Percent
Budgetary Funds Expenditures
General Fund
10" General Fund
City Council $
107,734 S
109,426 $
109,426 $
77,525 $
31,901
70.8%
City Clerk
524,931
536,351
536,351
397,153
139,198
74.0%
City Attorney
681,567
738,002
742,002
532,896
209,106
71.8%
City Manager
2,154,215
2,522,541
2,556,385
1,540,234
1,016,151
60.3%
Finance
3,598,454
4,243,950
4,082,106
2,934,024
1,148,082
71.9%
Police
12,443,824
13,313,329
13,456,740
9,590,994
3,865,746
71.3%
Fire
7,488,024
7,876,882
7,973,264
5,718,011
2,255,253
71.7%
Parks & Recreation
7,337290
8,079,336
8,121,736
5,431,498
2,690,238
66.9%
Library
6,083,035
6,347,022
6,347,022
4,556,705
1,790,317
71.8%
Senior Center
823,993
954,090
1,010,358
620,526
389,832
61.4%
Neighborhood & Development Services
6,614,830
6,892,339
7,503,809
4,329,628
3,174,181
57.7%
Public Works
1,342,700
2,317,845
2,317,845
1,286,658
1,031,187
55.5%
Transportation & Resource Management
-
654,470
654,470
440,778
213,692
67.3%
Total General Fund
49,198,596
54,585,583
55,411,514
37,456,630
17,954,884
67.6%
Special Revenue Funds
2100 Community Dev Block Grant
Neighborhood & Development Services
659,901
719,713
1,596,735
1,058,867
537,868
66.3%
2110 HOME
Neighborhootl& Development Services
747,816
428,108
801,716
128,413
673,303
16.0%
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
Public Works
5,436,882
5,969,763
5,989,213
3,933,361
2,055,852
65.7%
2300 Other Shared Revenue
Neighborhood & Development Services
446,465
-
1,022,683
402,909
619,774
39.4%
2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Cc
Neighborhood & Development Services
558,489
616,729
616,729
440,471
176,258
71.4%
2400 Employee Benefits
Finance
1,054,857
1,212,865
1,212,855
584,490
628,375
48.2%
2500 Affordable Housing Fund
Neighborhood & Development Services
-
-
1,000,000
500,000
500,000
50.0%
2510 Peninsula Apartments
Neighborhood & Development Services
52,501
56,879
56,879
43,024
13,855
75.6%
26" Tax Increment Financing
42,500
42,500
-
42,500
0.0
Finance
-
2820 SSMID-Downtown District
Finance
295.284
321.151
317,859
158.898
158,861
50.0%
Total Special Revenue Funds
9,252,195
9,367,708
12,657,179
7,250,532
5,406,647
57.3%
Debt Service Fund
5"• Debt Service
Finance
15,016,250
15,146,227
15,390,400
3,815,723
11,574,677
24.8%
Total Debt Service Fund
15,016,250
15,146,227
15,390,400
3,815,723
11,574,677
24.8%
Permanent Fund
6001 Perpetual Care
0.0%
Parks & Recreation
-
Total Permanent Fund
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
S -
0.0%
8
City of Iowa City
Expenditures by Fund by Department
Fiscal Year 2017 through March 31, 2017
W
2016
2017
2017
2017
Actual
Budget
Revised
Actual
Variance
Percent
Enterprise Funds
710' Parking
Transportation & Resource Management
$ 3,212,740
$ 3,490,001
$ 3,516,896
$ 2,235,027
$ 1,281,869
63.6%
715' Mass Transit
Transportation & Resource Management
6,917,901
10,251,640
10,516,640
4,581,616
5,935,024
43.6%
720' Wastewater
Public Works
10,674,085
10,593,521
21,258,521
19,523,614
1,734,907
91.8%
730• Water
Public Works
7,686,557
8,558,936
12,732,640
10,560,727
2,171,913
B2.9%
7400 Refuse Collection
Transportation & Resource Management
2,935,579
3,142,730
3,159,730
2,265,967
693,763
71.7%
750' Landfill
Transportation & Resource Management
4,550,095
4,505,413
4,929,566
3,605,584
1,323,982
73.1%
7600 Airport
Airport Operations
408,276
372,709
632,709
539,599
93,110
85.3%
7700 Storm water
Public Works
738,102
624,077
864,553
551,103
313,450
63.7%
79" Housing Authority
Neighborhood & Development Services
8,334,915
7,655,761
7,766,702
6,954,057
812,645
89.5%
Total Enterprise Funds
45,458,251
49,194,788
65,377,957
50,817,292
14,560,665
77.7%
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects
19,479,006
35,452,225
79,144,971
22,828,682
56,316,289
28.8%
Enterprise Projects
3,893,109
4,517,923
14,319,041
2,513,261
11,805,780
17.6%
Total Capital Project Funds
23,372,115
39,970,148
93,464,012
25,341,943
68,122,069
27.1%
Total Budgetary Expenditures
$142,297,407
$ 168,264,454
$ 242,301,062
$124,682,121
$117,618,941
51.5%
Non -Budgetary Funds Expenditures
Capital Project Funds
Internal Service Projects
$ 424,014
S -
$ 66,777
$ 61,633
$ 5,144
92.3%
Total Capital Project Funds
424,014
-
66,777
61,633
5,144
92.3%
Internal Service Funds
810' Equipment
Public Works
5,181,051
4,809,295
6,121,634
3,111,658
3,009,976
50.8%
8200 Risk Management
Finance
1,431,387
1,571,941
1,571,941
958,514
613,427
61.0%
830' Information Technology
Finance
1,834,060
2,108,294
2,108,294
1,135,431
972,863
53.9%
8400 Central Services
Finance
234,097
251,840
251,840
121,200
130,640
48.1%
8500 Health Insurance Reserves
Finance
7,934,757
8,002,151
8,002,151
5,139,798
2,862,353
64.2%
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves
Finance
370,061
375,896
375,896
276,774
99,122
73.6%
Total Internal Service Funds
16,985,412
17,119,417
18,431,756
10,743,375
7,688,381
5B.3%
Total Non -Budgetary Expenditures
$ 17,409,427
$ 17,119,417
$ 18,498,533
$ 10,805,007
$ 7,693,526
58.4%
Total Expenditures -All Funds
$ 159,706,834
$185,383,871
$ 260,799,595
$135,487,128
S 125,312,467
52.0%
W
Visit the
• 1-380
Planning
• Study
website
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
1=380 Planning
Study
The Iowa Department of Transportation is conducting a planning study of Interstate
380 between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City and would like your input. The study will be
developed and released through a series of technical reports that identify the existing
conditions of 1-380, the way the system is performing, short- and long-term issues, and
strategies to improve the route.
These technical memorandums will make recommendations that will conclude in an
investment strategy (or vision) for the corridor. Each report will be accessible online
as it becomes available on the Iowa DOT's 1-380 Planning Study website at:
www.iowadot.gov/1380PlanningStudy.
The Iowa DOT is asking interested parties to take a few minutes to review the materials
on the 1-380 Planning Study website. The website offers a way for those interested to
receive future emails or text messages regarding the study. Use the "Stay Connected"
link on the 1-380 Planning Study website to sign up.
For more information regarding the 1-380 Planning Study, contact the Iowa DOT's office
listed below.
The Iowa DOT will be using the hashtag #1380lowaPlan and you can use that key
phrase to find relevant tweets about the planning study. When posting to Twitter
about the planning study, please use #13801owaPlan and reference @iowadot in your
post.
More information will be
posted as it becomes available at:
www.iowadot.gov/138OPlanningStudy.
Catherine Cutler, transportation planner
Iowa DOT District 6 Office
5455 Kirkwood Blvd. SW
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52404
Phone: 319-364-0235 or 800-866-4368
Email: catherine.cutler@iowadot.us
Comments: http://bit.ly/lowadot906882
Federal and state laws prohibit employment and/or public accommodation discrimination on the basis of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, national
origin, pregnancy, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or veteran's status. If you believe you have been discriminated against please contact the bwa Civil
Rights Commission at 800457-4416 a bwa Department ofLansportistlons affirmative action officer.
Julie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
City of Iowa City <CityoflowaCity@public.govdelivery.com>
Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:31 AM
Julie Voparil
Council Listening Post scheduled for April 27
D SHRRE Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.
°� IOWA CIN
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: 04/20/2017
Contact: Julie Voparil, Deputy City Clerk
Phone: 319-356-5040
Reminder: Council Listening Post scheduled for April 27
Join Iowa City Council members at their next community listening post.
The sixth City Council Listening Post will be held on Thursday, April 27, 2017 from 5 to 7 p.m. in the
lobby of the Broadway Neighborhood Center, 2105 Broadway Street. Council listening posts provide
opportunities for the community to engage with City leaders on topics that are important to them in
an informal setting.
Two Council members are in attendance at each event and report back to the entire Council on
what they have heard from the community during their discussion. All community members are
encouraged to stop by and meet with Council representatives to discuss any community issue.
No formal agenda or presentation is planned.
For additional information, questions, or suggestions on future locations for listening posts, contact
Deputy City Clerk Julie Voparil at Julie-Voparil(a)iowa-citv.org or 319-356-5040; or Equity Director
Stefanie Bowers at Stefanie-Bowers(cDiowa-city.org or 319-356-5022.
1 t �
w3Q
t'1:lirtl
�•Ei� Questions?
Contact Us
CITY Of 1O11'A CITY
uaxoana unurun
STAY CONNECTED:
W U In v
SUBSCRIBER SERVICES:
Manage Preferences I Unsubscribe I Help
IP5
Julie
TT.
Subject: FW: City to offer workshop for those looking to launch a business
Attachments: Building Business Bascis flyer.pdf
From: City of Iowa City[mailto:CityofIowaCity@public.govdelivery.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 12:05 PM
To: Geoff Fruin
Subject: City to offer workshop for those looking to launch a business
O SHARE Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.
10WACITY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: 04/19/2017
Contact: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services
Phone: 319-356-5244
Learn how to launch your own business at upcoming
Building Business Basics workshop
Have you ever dreamed of starting your own business? Sign-up for the City of Iowa City's Building
Business Basics workshop and learn how to make your dream a realty.
This workshop is free to those who register early, and will take place from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on
Saturday, May 20, 2017 at the Iowa City Kirkwood Community College Campus, 1816 Lower
Muscatine Road, Room 137. Lunch will be provided.
Participants will learn the nuts -and -bolts basics of launching a business through five workstations
that people will rotate to every 20 minutes. Business topics range from marketing and sales to
analysis, financing and resources. A roundtable lunch with small business owners will close out the
day where attendees will be invited to sit with a business owner most aligned with their own goals to
discuss ideas and ask questions.
To take advantage of free admission, register early by emailing neighborhoodstaiowa-citv.org or
call Neighborhood Services at 319-356-5230. You can also RSVP to the event on the City of Iowa
City Government Facebook page. The workshop will cost $5 for walk-ins on the day of the event.
Residents of all ages, backgrounds, levels of education, income, and experience are encouraged to
attend. If you need translation services, please contact Tracy Hightshoe at 319-356-5230 or
neighborhoods(o) owa-city.orq by May 10. We will do our best to accommodate your request.
ildinG _
=Bun
usiess Basics
w.M rwwrr. o.� y�
rwrrr•�e.wr
t
— 4
�®rte,►
.rays
CITY of IOWA CITY
uKscocrrror lnw►rua
STAY CONNECTED:
Questions?
Contact Us
SUBSCRIBER SERVICES:
Manage Preferences I Unsubscribe I Help
Building Business Basics
Five Workstations
1. What's your business idea?
2. Who are your customers?
3. How will your business operate?
4. Where will the money come from?
5. What resources are available?
For workstation specifics view our workshop flyer.
This email was sent to geoff-fruin(aZiowacitv.oro using GovDelivery, on behalf of: City of Iowa City .410 E
Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240
2
7v• qn rro .w.e o.�'
Register for this upcoming business education program:
0" Building
MEN
■ ■ ■ Business Basks
to learn how to develop a plan to
launch your own business!
Saturday, May 20, 2017 ■ 9:30 a.m.-1 p.m.
Kirkwood Community College - Iowa City Campus Commons
1816 Lower Muscatine Road, Room 137
Please RSVPI Workshops are free for those who
pre -register, or $5 at the door. Lunch provided.
Register by e-mail to neighborhoods@iowa-city.org or
RSVP to the event on the City of Iowa City Government
Facebook page, or call Neighborhood Services
at 319-356-5230
■ 9:30-9:50 a.m.: Introduction
join us from 9:30 a.m.-1 p.m.
to work on your game plan!
We are committed to improving
opportunities for women, immigrants
and persons of color to start their own
businesses. Diverse businesses support
inclusive communities! Sign up for
this free program to help launch your
business successfully!
Schedule & Workstations
■ 10 a.m.-Noon: Five workstations available. Each will
focus on major concepts of a business plan. Participants
rotate to the next station every 20 minutes to learn
about a new topic.
■ Noon -1 p.m.: Roundtable lunch with small business
owners. Participants may sit with the business owner
most aligned with their proposed business.
Workstation #1:
What's your business idea?
Organization and management, creating your company
description or product.
Workstation #2:
Who are your customers?
Market analysis, sales and marketing.
Workstation #3:
How will your business operate?
Financial projections (realistic revenues/expenses).
Workstation #4:
Where will the money come from?
Financing needed and available
financial programs, etc.
Workstation #5:
What resources are available?
Find out who can provide assistance, understanding
city and county permits, licenses,
credit repair assistance.
If you need translation services, please contact
Tracy Hightshoe at 319-356-5230 or
neighborhoods@iowa-city.org by May 10. We'll do our
best to try to accommodate your request.
Sponsors: ry��
o-�"'oo ■MIUYYGSt0 )I I(
} ❑kHINS Book ' Bank
Mlimc� CITY OF IOWA CITY
'o C 4 QM Sankoja Outreach Connection UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
� A1��
Iowa City Police Department and University of Iowa DPSL=
Bar Check Report - March, 2017
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.
The bar check ratios are calculated by dividing the number of citations issued to the patrons at that
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
61,-,ris Nam^
Vi;iV
Citations
Ratio
Busincss Name
Visits
Citation:
R,. do
Union Bar
101
132
1.3069307
Union Bar
101
81
0.8019802
Summit. [The]
65
53
0.8153846
Summit. [The]
65
24
0.3692308
Eden Lounge
27
17
0.6296296
Sports Column
72
15
0.2083333
Sports Column
72
22
0.3055556
Eden Lounge
27
5
0.1851852
DC's
78
21
0.2692308
Airliner
19
3
0.1578947
Pints
32
7
0.2187500
DC's
78
11
0.1410256
Airliner
19
4
0.2105263
Fieldhouse
51
6
0.1176471
Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's]
102
19
0.1862745
Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's]
102
7
0.0686275
Fieldhouse
51
9
0.1764706
Blue Moose-
26
1
0.0384615
Martini's
36
6
0.1666667
Pints
32
1
0.0312500
Only tho<: establishments with at least 10 bar checks die listed in the chart
Current Month Top 10
Under 21 Citations PAULA Citations
Busnes, NoniL
Vi.,i s Citoti
Ratio
Business Name
\+sits
Citations
RLItIO
Eden Lounge
2
2
1.0000000
Cactus Mexican Grill (245 s. Gilb
1
6
6.0000000
Union Bar
10
9
0.9000000
Summit. [The]
3
7
2.3333333
Sports Column
7
3
0.4285714
Airliner
1
1
1.0000000
Summit. [The]
3
1
0.3333333
Union Bar
10
8
0.8000000
Fieldhouse
9
2
0.2222222
Sports Column
7
3
0.4285714
Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's]
10
2
0.2000000
DC's
8
1
0.1250000
Fieldhouse
i
9
1
0.1111111
-exception to 21 ordinance Page 1 of 6
Iowa City Police Department
and University of Iowa DPS
Bar Check Report - March, 2017
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
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Airliner
1
0
1
19
4
3
0.2105263
0.1578947
American Legion
0
0
0
Atlas World Grill
0
0
0
Bardot Iowa
2
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
Baroncini-
0
0
0
Basta
0
0
0
Big Grove Brewery
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Blackstone-
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Blue Moose-
1
0
0
26
2
1
0.0769231
0.0384615
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]
10
2
0
102
19
7
0.1862745
0.0686275
Brown Bottle, [The]-
0
0
0
Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar-
0
0
0
Cactus 2 Mexican Grill (314 E Burlington)
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Cactus Mexican Grill (245 s. Gilbert)
1
0
6
5
0
8
0
1.6
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
- exception to 21 ordinance Page 2 of 6
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)
Clarion Highlander Hotel
0
0
0
Clinton St Social Club
0
0
0
Club Car, [The]
0
0
0
1
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
8
0
1
78
21
11
0.2692308
0.1410256
Deadwood, [The]
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Devotay"
0
0
0
Donnelly's Pub
0
0
0
Dublin Underground, [The]
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Eagle's, [Fraternal Order of]
0
0
0
Eden Lounge
2
2
0
27
17
5
0.6296296
0.1851852
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
Englert Theatre'
0
0
0
Fieldhouse
9
2
1
51
9
6
0.1764706
0.1176471
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
8
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
Grizzly's South Side Pub
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Hilltop Lounge, [The]
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Howling Dogs Bistro
0
0
0
IC Ugly's
0
0
0
7
0
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
Under 21 PAULA
Ratio Ratio
(Pre,12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo)
India Cafe
0
0
0
Iron Hawk
0
0
0
Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack
0
0
0
Jobsite
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Joe's Place
1
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
Joseph's Steak House—
0
0
0
Linn Street Cafe
0
0
0
Los Portales
0
0
0
Martini's
3
0
0
36
6
0
0.1666667
0
Masala
0
0
0
Mekong Restaurant—
0
0
0
Micky's—
0
0
0
Mill Restaurant, [The]—
0
0
0
Moose, [Loyal Order of]
0
0
0
Mosleys
0
0
0
2
0
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—
0
0
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
32
7
1
0.21875
0.03125
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
1
0
0
0
0
Rice Village
0
0
0
"exception to 21 ordinance Page 4 of 6
Business Name
Monthly Totals
Bar Under2l PAULA
Checks
I Prev 12 Month Totals
Bar Under2l PAULA
Checks
I Under2l PAULA
Ratio Ratio
(Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo)
Ride
0
0
0
Ridge Pub
0
0
0
Riverside Theatre—
0
0
0
Saloon—
0
0
0
2
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
7
3
3
72
22
15
0.3055556
0.2083333
Studio 13
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Summit. [The]
3
1
7
65
53
24
0.8153846
0.3692308
Sushi Popo
0
0
0
Szechuan House
0
0
0
Takanami Restaurant—
0
0
0
Taqueria Acapulco
0
0
0
TCB
1
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
10
9
8
101
132
81
1.3069307
0.8019802
VFW Post #3949
0
0
0
Vine Tavern, [The]
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Wig & Pen Pizza Pub—
0
0
0
Yacht Club, [Iowa City]—
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
Yen Ching
0
0
0
Z'Mariks Noodle House
0
0
0
exception to 21 ordinance Page 5 of 6
MonthlV Totals Prev 12 Month Totals Under2l PAULA
Bar Under2l PAULA Bar Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio
Checks Checks (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo)
Totals 63 19 27 1 741 295 162 1 0.3981107 0.2186235
Off Premise 0 0 1 0 0 106 0 0
Grand Totals 1 1 28 1 1 268
exception to 21 ordinance Page 6 of 6
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 6, 2017 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark
Signs, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Bob Miklo, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: Paula Swygard, Mark Seabold, Ross (William) Nusser, Nick
Lindsey
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) the Commission recommends setting a public hearing for April
20 for discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to address mitigating impact of
redevelopment on existing tenants of multi -family buildings (CPA17-00001).
By a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) the Commission recommends approval of an application
submitted by Kevin Hanick for a rezoning of approximately 10.26 acres from Low Density
Multifamily Residential (RM -12) to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily
Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a preliminary sensitive areas development plan and plat of
Larson Subdivision, a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard
between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue (REZ1 6-00008/SUB1 6-00012).
By a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) the Commission recommends approval to add the new
zoning standards for the Orchard Subdistrict amending Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings
and Eastside Mixed Use District Form -based Development Standards.
By a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) the Commission recommends approval of REZ17-00003 a
proposal to rezone approximately 0.705 acres of property at 619 and 627 Orchard Court from
Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) Zone to Riverfront
Crossings -Orchard (RFC -O) Zone, subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring
dedication of land along the Orchard Court frontage to widen the pedestrian area within the
public right-of-way to a minimum of 15 feet measured between the street curb and the new front
property line.
By a vote of 5-1 (Dyer voting no, Freerks absent) the Commission recommends approval of
REZ17-00004, a request for a rezoning from CB -2, Central Business Services Zone, to CB -5,
Central Business Support Zone subject to design review.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There were none
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 17
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM (CPA17-00001):
Consider a motion setting a public hearing for April 20 for discussion of an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to address mitigating impact of redevelopment on existing tenants of multi-
family buildings.
Miklo explained this item is a formality to set a date for community input and the Staff report
regarding this item will be delivered at the April 20, 2017 meeting.
Theobald moved to set a public hearing for April 20 for discussion of an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan to address mitigating impact of redevelopment on existing
tenants of multi -family buildings (CPA17-00001).
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent).
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ16-00008/SUB16-00012):
Discussion of an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a rezoning of approximately 10.26
acres from Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) to Planned Development Overlay/Low
Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a preliminary plat of Larson Subdivision,
a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory
Heights Lane and First Avenue.
Miklo noted that this property was reviewed by the Commission earlier this year for a rezoning
to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) and the Commission recommended approval and the
Council has since approved. The Applicant then submitted a subdivision application for a
preliminary plat to create two lots, a larger lot for the multi -family development and a smaller lot
for a single family home. During the review of the subdivision Staff determined there was
development activity proposed in the protective slope buffer for the stormwater management
basin and that requires a Planned Development Overlay, which is beyond what Staff can
approve with regards to sensitive areas. Therefore this item is a rezoning as well as a
preliminary plat application.
Both proposed lots conform to the underlying zoning and conform to the subdivision
requirements. The subdivision standards typically require street connectivity to adjacent
properties. However in this case due to steep ravines Staff is not recommending a street
connection and rather a private lane or driveway serve the multi -family development and then
the existing single family home will be served by Dubuque Road.
Miklo stated there will some disturbance to the environmentally sensitive areas, the ravines, in
order to allow the installation of a stormwater management facility. The plan does show a
grading limit line which generally coincides with the edge of the woodland with the exception of
the area for the stormwater basin. The ordinance does allow for reduction of buffers if done in a
design that is sensitive and minimizes the damage to slopes and woodlands. Staff has
reviewed this plan and the recommendations approval of the buffer reduction.
Signs mentioned the issue of connectivity to another street, and in the future if this area is
further developed is there a proposal to put another street in the area. Miklo said because of
the ravines that run through the area, Staff would not recommend that they be disturbed for a
street.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 17
Hensch opened the public hearing
Seeing no one Hensch closed the public hearing
Signs moved to approve an application submitted by Kevin Hanick fora rezoning of
approximately 10.26 acres from Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) to Planned
Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a
preliminary sensitive areas development plan and plat of Larson Subdivision, a 2 -lot,
12.28 -acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory
Heights Lane and First Avenue (REZ16-00008/SUB16-00012).
Dyer seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent).
CODE AMENDMENT:
Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use
Districts Form Based Development Standards, to add zoning standards for the new Orchard
Subdistrict within the Riverfront Crossings District located north of Benton Street and west of
Orchard Street.
Howard reminded the Commission that last year they recommended amending the City's
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan to include a new subdistrict on the west side of Riverfront
Crossings north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street. Based on the Commission's
recommendation, the City Council amended the master plan to expand the boundary of the
district to include a new Orchard Subdistrict. Several new pages were added to the plan
describing the desired character of this new subdistrict and the goals of objectives for
redevelopment of the area. In order to facilitate implementation of these goals, the form -based
code for Riverfront Crossings needs to be amended to include zoning standards for the Orchard
District. Howard stated that the area is currently fully developed under the current zoning with a
mix of duplexes, multi -family buildings and a few single family dwellings. She noted that the
existing development creates an unpleasant environment for walking and biking. The duplexes
along Orchard Street have auto -oriented frontages with large garages and driveways that
interrupt the sidewalk, there is front yard parking and few street trees. Several of the single
family dwellings are located with no street frontage or pedestrian access and can only be
accessed from a narrow gravel drive. There is also an abrupt change from the scale of the
single family neighborhood to the west and the higher intensity mixed use and commercial
development planned along Riverside Drive. The existing zoning is low density single family
and medium density single family (RS -5 & RS -8), which doesn't create any incentive for
redevelopment. Adopting a new form -based zoning district will help achieve the goals of the
Master Plan while at the same time create an incentive for redevelopment.
Howard showed some photos of the area. Next she showed some images of the area from the
Master Plan of redevelopment concepts that would be complementary in mass and scale to the
adjacent single family neighborhood, create a transition from the larger scale mixed-use and
commercial buildings along Riverside Drive to the single family neighborhood to the west,
improve the design quality of development and create a better and more visible street access.
The development character and scale of buildings should be appropriate for transition from the
larger scale mixed-use to the adjacent single family. Buildings should front tree -lined streets,
parking should be located behind or within buildings with minimal surface parking lots, using
rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor setbacks and landscaping to create that transition to the
single family neighborhood to the west, and a development program that limits the types of
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 17
buildings to cottage homes, row houses, townhouses, live/work townhouses, and two to three
story multi -dwelling buildings with upper floor stepbacks. The master plan calls for a high level
of design in exchange for the higher level of density.
Howard stated that Staff looked at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and from that guidance
created form -based zoning standards for the new Orchard subdistrict. These new standards
would be incorporated into the Riverfront Crossings form -based code, so that properties within
the area can be rezoned and redeveloped according to the new standards. Similar to the rest of
the Form Based Code there is a regulating plan, standards that apply to just this subdistrict, and
frontage type, building type and parking type standards. The larger regulating plan for
Riverfront Crossings has been amended to add the Orchard Subdistrict and designates the
primary streets. Orchard Street and the cul-de-sac bulb (Orchard Court) will become primary
streets. The regulating plan also shows the location of a proposed pedestrian street that would
run parallel to Orchard Street and provide an opportunity for additional buildings frontages
opening toward this new green space. As the area redevelops, this regulating plan will provide
guidance to location of new street frontages and street alignments that will provide the
opportunity for redevelopment according to the plan. This new street pattern would be created
through a subdivision process. Howard next showed the amended building height diagram for
Riverfront Crossings with the Orchard Subdistrict added. It will have the same three story
limitation as is on the far east side of Riverfront Crossings, and will require an upper floor
stepback above the 2nd story. Since this area is so close to low -scale single family residential,
no bonus height will be allowed. Howard discussed the building placement. Setbacks along
street frontages is 6' minimum, 12' maximum, side setback is 10' minimum, rear setback is 10'
minimum or 5' minimum if along an alley and the setback from RS -8 zone boundary is 30'
minimum. The RS -8 zone setback was included to allow for a larger buffer between this district
and the single family neighborhood to the west. Howard noted that in addition to this zoning
setback there is a natural wooded drainageway along the western boundary of the district that
will provide additional buffer.
Howard noted that the code also includes parking placement standards that restrict parking
areas to locations behind or within buildings and screened from street frontages.
Since the Orchard Subdistrict is primarily intended for residential uses, commercial and mixed
use building types are not allowed. The only residential building types that would allow small
commercial spaces would be live -work townhouses, which would only be allowed along the
Orchard Street frontage.
Howard stated that residential densities will be controlled by the limit on building height, required
setbacks and the amount of parking required. The number of three bedroom units could not
exceed 20% of the total number of units within a building. Building design standards would be
the same as other subdistricts in Riverfront Crossings (fagade composition, building articulation,
windows, entries, building materials, etc.) Howard noted that the minimum parking
requirements will need to be added to the applicable parking table in the parking chapter of the
zoning ordinance. Parking would be required at the same ratios as the West Riverfront
Subdistrict. This will be included in the ordinance amendments forwarded to Council. Usable
open space would be required as it is in the rest of Riverfront Crossings (10 square feet per
bedroom).
Howard concluded describing a couple of additional minor amendments proposed to the
Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code, including a reduction in the required parking setback
for buildings with ground level residential uses from 30' min. to 20' min. This situation has come
up a number of times with residential liner buildings, such as the Sabin Townhomes where the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 17
current 30' minimum is difficult to comply with. While Staff does have the ability to adjust the
setback for these situations, it is likely to be a regularly requested adjustment, so staff
recommends that the code be amended. Staff also recommends making several changes to
Table 2G-5, Permitted Frontage Types. For Apartment Buildings and Multi -Dwelling Buildings
that have ground floor units with individual entries, terrace frontages would be an attractive and
appropriate choice. Staff recommends adding this frontage type to the table for these building
types.
Hensch asked about the live -work townhomes and what type of businesses might choose that
type of building. Howard stated that they haven't had any built in Iowa City yet so it is just a
possibility. A live -work townhouse is designed with ground level flex space in an open floor plan
that can be used for a small business combined with living quarters that extend onto a loft space
or upper floor. The living area can be accessed directly from the commercial space, so may be
ideal for someone that wants to live and work in their home.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Paula Swvoard (426 Douglass Street) shared with the Commission a bigger picture of the
neighborhood and drew their attention to the greater area known as the Miller Orchard
Neighborhood. She also pointed out there is no other traffic outlet for this new district (Orchard
Subdistrict) other than Orchard Street, which flows onto Benton Street which is a busy street
and people will (and do) use Hudson Avenue and Miller Avenue to cut through to the
commercial areas along Highway 1. It is so busy now that she can no longer in the mornings
access Benton Street from Orchard Street due to traffic. Swygard next showed photos of the
neighborhood, the new Kum & Go with the duplexes behind. When discussing a transitional
neighborhood, everything is at the same height and there is no need for transition behind it. If
the duplexes are redeveloped into a three-story building it will be a step up from Riverside Drive,
and then a step back down to the residential area to the west. The next photo was of the
Riverside West Building and she commented on how nice that the bottom three stories were
darker in color and the top areas lighter. There is no transition from the height of the Riverside
West Building and the Kum & Go. She showed a picture of the backside of the Riverside West
Building and pointed out that they nicely stepped down the dark area two stories so it draws the
eye almost level with the current housing. The next picture was of the house that is immediately
to the west of the proposed three-story building the Commission has seen designs for. Some
call it a two-story house but it is really a one and a half story so the size of the homes are not
compatible with a three-story building even with a pedestrian walkway in between. Swygard
also showed images of the proposed three-story building and the length of it, noting the mass of
the building. It will also result in a large increase in the number of units and people along one
street. Riverside West has 96 units, the proposed building on the corner has 36 units, and then
another building of 21 units. There is also another proposed rezoning that would result in an
additional 45 units in that area. So that will total 198 units along Orchard Street. That includes
81 one bedroom units. The neighborhood looks at that area, realizing it will be redeveloped, it is
disappointing to see all the one bedroom units that will encourage student housing so close to
campus. This area is part of the University Impact Area which was established to help stabilize
areas next to the University. The neighborhood is eligible for efforts to preserve affordable
housing in the area and with these proposed buildings it will be reducing the area available for
affordable housing. Swygard noted that if this is intended to be a lower density residential
development why are there so many one bedroom units proposed. If anything, what can the
Form -Based Code do to mitigate. Moving forward, looking at the Form Based Zoning Code, she
asked for the Commission to keep in mind it is an affordable area close to the University which
is rare. Swygard has a few suggestions, there is the three-story building but could there be a
transition to two-story buildings, or to encourage more traditional residential style rather than the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 17
urban design on Riverside Drive. Swygard noted that when Staff mentioned a low wall and S-2
screening she would like to see a requirement added for fencing because even with the best
efforts to put in sidewalks and pathways are not always honored by pedestrians. Because the
area is so close to commercial, people cut through residential areas to get to the commercial.
She would also like to see RS -8 and RS -5 privacy protected with higher screening standards
than just S-2. Swygard finished by showing options of more residential for the area and asked if
the purpose was to blend in with the neighborhood or with Riverside Drive.
Mark Seabold (Shive-Hattery) talked about the process they have been going through with the
City since the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved through the Commission and
Council. He stated that City Staff has done a great job of keeping the neighborhood and
transitions and scale in the forefront of the discussions and have been very mindful. He noted
there are a lot of things with the Orchard Subdistrict that are very nice including the pedestrian
walkway and the plan for how future streets will be laid out. With regards to scale of units, the
market right now for units is smaller, the trends show people want a small affordable place that
allows them to use their money more wisely and live a little more sustainably. So the one
bedroom and efficiency units are very desirable right now. It is not just from a student stand
point but young professionals and people just starting out choosing to live in these units.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Martin moved to add the new zoning standards for the Orchard Subdistrict amending
Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use District Form -based
Development Standards, as described in April 6, 2017 packet.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Hensch agreed with the traffic congestion in the area and asked whether there would be a street
connection in the future to the west to Michael Street. Howard showed the aerial photo and
noted that anytime there is increased development there needs to be the streets available to
support the added density. It is during the rezoning and subdivision process that streets and
access are looked at and added to support the increased density. She noted there is a ravine
and drainage way along the western boundary of the new district that causes a natural buffer
from those single family houses to the Orchard Subdistrict. She noted that there are no plans to
create a new street connection west to Michael Street for several reasons. Such a street
connection would add traffic from this higher density area into the lower density area to the
west. In addition, the topography and natural drainageway would make it difficult and costly to
create this connection, not to mention that there is currently a house that would have to be
demolished in order to create the connection. While a new street would need to be extend to
support additional development it would dead end with a turn -around or cul-de-sac on the
western edge of the district. Howard acknowledged that would mean that all traffic from the
Orchard District would flow from Orchard Street out to Benton Street.
Signs asked about the plan to create the pedestrian tunnel on the west side of Riverside Drive.
Howard said they are working on the plans for that now and believes it is in the budget for the
next construction season.
Signs asked if there were any plans to put a signal at the Orchard Street/Benton Street
intersection. Howard explained that unfortunately it is so close to the signalized intersection of
Benton Street/Riverside Drive that it is not possible from a traffic control standpoint. There may
be a possibility for a left turn lane to be added, which will have to be taken into account during
any future rezoning and subdivision process for property at the northwest corner of that
intersection.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 17
Hensch asked what the elevation change was form the ravine to the houses. Howard believes it
is between 5' and 10' elevation change, but is uncertain.
Signs noted that through the Comprehensive Plan change the Commission has already
authorized this district and the activity discussed tonight is primarily to set the criteria for
development in line with the rest of the Riverfront Crossings District and the comprehensive
plan. Howard confirmed that was the case, the idea behind the Form -Based Code is supposed
to be specifically designed for what the goals were expressed in the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment that was made last year. So with regard to building height, scale, frontage
conditions, etc. are done through building articulation standards, building design standards,
building height and upper floor stepback requirements.
Hensch asked what the process would be if this were approved to get the traffic engineer to
study this area. The traffic issues with redevelopment are a valid concern. Howard stated that
once the City gets applications for rezoning and subdivision of property at the intersection, it
would be appropriate to study the traffic implications to see if any improvements are needed.
Signs agreed that one of the biggest concerns is the traffic in the area. Even now with just
adding the Kum & Go on the corner, the ability to turn left onto Benton Street from Orchard
Street is very difficult. Adding new development, and the fact that the Riverside West Building
isn't at full capacity yet, it is apparent there will be a traffic problem down the road. Signs stated
in response to the first speaker (Swygard) he is afraid that ship has already sailed when the
Comprehensive Plan was amended. Signs reiterated he voted against that amendment but will
be voting in favor of this code amendment because he feels it is a step that has to be taken to
allow for developments to even be considered. The next opportunity for review of specific
issues is at rezoning and site plan approvals.
Theobald noted that she sees now why Signs did not want to approve the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, unfortunately now too late. She stated Swygard did a good job showing how much
increased housing would be allowable in one spot. When the Commission saw a plan for just
part of it, there wasn't just one long building but two with a walkway. She added that she drives
down Benton Street every day and it does seem to be just one long building after another and
this will just add to that feeling and it will be a big transition from those single family houses to a
building of this size.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent).
REZONING ITEMS:
1. (REZ17-00003): Discussion of an application submitted by M&W Properties for a rezoning
from Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family (OPD -RS -5) zone to
Riverfront Crossings- Orchard Zone (RFC -0) for approximately 0.705 acres of property
located at 619 and 627 Orchard Court.
Howard stated that the owners of the property along the cul-de-sac bulb of Orchard Court
have indicated they would like to redevelop the properties with a new 3 -story multi -dwelling
building designed according to the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code once the
Orchard District standards are approved by the City Council. The properties right now are
zoned OPD -RS -5 through a Planned Development Overlay which is why multi -family
buildings were allowed in a single family zone. The properties along Orchard Street are
zoned RS -8 and then to the east is the Riverfront Crossings West Subdistrict. Howard
noted that the property currently contains a four-plex, a single family house and a front
surface parking lot. The proposed concept is for a three-story multi dwelling building. On the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 17
side facing the cul-de-sac it would step back after the first story and along the south side the
building would step back above the second story. It will contain approximately 45 efficiency
units. There will be a structured parking within the building behind ground level dwelling
units. There would be shared open space on the second floor terrace. The applicants are
considering a green roof system facing on the terrace facing west. The applicants have
received a resolution of support from the City Council for workforce housing tax credits. As
discussed earlier, the largest issue is traffic and pedestrian circulation. Of course as the
area exists today it is not ideal, all the units along Orchard Street have street facing
garages/driveways that interrupt the sidewalks. The redevelopment will result in a higher
density but Staff believes it will create a better condition along the street for pedestrians.
While there will be an increase in traffic, the only way to encourage redevelopment in this
area is to allow for greater density. Howard noted that Orchard Street has a right-of-way of
60' and Orchard Court only has a 50' right-of-way width so Staff is recommending an
increase to 60' along the edge of the property until it reaches the cul-de-sac bulb so there is
at least 15' between the edge of the curb and the property line to allow for a 5' sidewalk.
The applicant has agreed to dedicate this additional right-of-way with this rezoning. If there
were any additional development in the Orchard District, it is likely that a subdivision would
be necessary in order to create adequate street infrastructure.
Staff recommends approval of REZ17-00003, a proposal to rezone approximately 0.705
acres of property at 619 and 627 Orchard Court from Planned Development Overlay - Low
Density Single Family (OPD -5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings -Orchard (RFC -0) Zone,
subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring dedication of land along the Orchard
Court frontage to widen the pedestrian area within the public right-of-way to a minimum of
15 feet measured between the street curb and the new front property line.
Hensch asked if in the concept plan submitted it was all efficiency units. Howard confirmed
that was correct. Hensch asked then if the target audience would be individuals that work at
The University of Iowa or UIHC and is there a way to encourage those to be pedestrians or
bicyclists to get to and from work. That may be a way to help with the traffic congestion.
Howard noted that the parking requirements are lower in Riverfront Crossings so not
everyone in this building will have a parking spot and be able to have a car. Therefore
constraining the parking in the area may encourage residents to use alternative
transportation. Howard said the requirement is 0.75 parking spaces per bedroom.
Dyer asked if there were any provisions for bicycle parking in the parking area. Howard
stated that there is a bicycle parking requirement in Riverfront Crossings of one space per
unit. Howard said the City has only received a concept for the building, so it is unclear
where they would put the bicycle parking, but perhaps the applicants could address the
question.
Signs asked if in the Riverfront Crossings District there is a 10% affordable housing
requirement and there is City input (i.e. City Workforce Zoning) would that trigger 15%
affordable housing. Howard said the Workforce tax credit is a State tax credit program that
the developer can apply for. They would also be required to comply with the Riverfront
Crossings affordable housing requirement of 10%. Hektoen stated that the 15% is triggered
when a developer requests Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and that is not the case in this
application as of this point. Signs noted that the state tax credit places a cap on the cost of
construction of the units, not a cap on the rent of the units.
Dyer asked if there was any intention to provide affordable units. Hektoen replied that they
have to provide at least 10% of the units as affordable per Riverfront Crossings Code.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 17
Hensch opened the public hearing
Mark Seabold (Shive Hattery) has been working with the applicants throughout the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as well as this rezoning request. He reiterated
that they have been working closely with City Staff and the design of this concept works
within the zoning. Everything they are planning for this property is directly related to the
Code Amendment item the Commission just approved. Seabold stated that all the parking
will be within the building so they will be eliminating all the surface parking and increasing
the frontage to be more walkable and pedestrian friendly. Additionally above each parking
spot will be a bicycle hanging rack as well as other bicycle parking around the building. The
linear structure of the building will provide for a green space on the second story and a
potential green roof. The first story will all have patios at grade level so while they will be
smaller units there are lots of opportunities for open spaces and large windows for lots of
light in the units. Seabold noted that the Riverfront Crossings area is exciting and makes for
lots of opportunities.
Dyer asked if there would be sidewalk access to the other development on Riverside Drive.
Seabold said that has not been discussed and he is unsure of what their pedestrian access
is through their property. From the images it appears there is a sidewalk they can connect
to that would lead right up to their building.
Signs stated he encourages them to do whatever they can to cool the environment around
Orchard Court, right now it feels like a concrete jungle, so adding the green roof and more
green space is a plus. Additionally to encourage tenants to be pedestrians and bicyclists
will be important as the traffic circulation in that area is a real concern.
Dyer shared a concern that this development would eliminate the affordable housing that is
in that area now. Seabold stated these units are being designed to be affordable, and will
be much nicer. Dyer noted a concern about the people being displaced and Seabold said
the rents should be comparable so they will have options.
Dyer also noted that there would not be a sidewalk that would take pedestrians to the
proposed tunnel, for those walking to UIHC or the law school, one would have to walk all the
way around. Seabold noted that the railroad tracks on the north side of this property is very
steep and not conducive to a sidewalk.
Howard clarified with regards to the affordability issue and student housing, she noted that
when there are larger units, students can typically outbid a family or a single person. So,
even many of the older, lower quality large units around campus are renting for $1500-
$2500 per month, which prices out singles or families, whereas students can live together
and pool their funds to afford the higher rents for the larger units. In recent years the City
has been encouraging development of smaller, more affordable units to create an
opportunity for more permanent residents to afford to live in areas near downtown and
campus.
Paula Swyaard (426 Douglass Street) commented that once they put the tunnel in under the
railroad the sidewalk there will end at Myrtle Street because across from there is University
property. One can go up Myrtle Street and access UIHC that way.
Howard noted at the same time they are doing the tunnel they will be installing a signalized
crossing at Myrtle Street and Riverside Drive. So pedestrians will be able to cross there and
travel along the trail on the east side toward downtown.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 10 of 17
Swygard noted that currently one could cross at Benton Street and Riverside Drive and take
the bike/walking path to downtown. However she would not recommend riding a bicycle on
Benton Street. She noted there is also a well-known path to UIHC that is a loosely kept
secret in the neighborhood. Swygard stated she would prefer a development that looked
more residential but understands the look of Riverfront Crossings is more an urban look.
Where this particular development will be built it won't matter as much, but as development
happens closer to the residential area she hopes developers and City Staff will keep that in
mind. Swygard added that the ravine area is a mess and hopefully it will get cleaned up.
With regards to the concept of people wanting to live close to downtown and this will be
workers at the University, she has her doubts. The pedestrians in the area now are
students.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to approve REZ17-00003 a proposal to rezone approximately 0.705
acres of property at 619 and 627 Orchard Court from Planned Development Overlay -
Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings -Orchard (RFC -O)
Zone, subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring dedication of land along
the Orchard Court frontage to widen the pedestrian area within the public right-of-way
to a minimum of 15 feet measured between the street curb and the new front property
line.
Martin seconded the motion.
Signs commented that students do have an amazing ability to find the shortest path
between any two points. Based on everything else that's been done in this area, he
believes this is a natural addition that seems to make sense. He has seen the similar
structure built over by the Dental School and likes it, so based on the visuals the
Commission has seen for this development he likes what he is seeing and hopes it is
developed that way. Signs believes there is a market for smaller units, and yes there will
likely be students in some of them, but there is a market for young professionals and
graduate students that want to live in a building like this.
Martin agreed and is very excited to see some development in this area, it is a good
revitalization. She praised City Staff on working so close with the developers, architects,
designers to put together a nice development for this area.
Theobald stated she likes the proposed development a lot and has been in one of the units
that this development will replace and it will be a good thing to have that unit gone. She
added she hopes the green roof concept works, it would be wonderful to have that.
Parsons agreed that it is nice to see this area take shape and this development will be a
nice addition.
Hensch stated this is a good opportunity to show how to do this right and hopes it moves
forward with the concepts of a more cool environment with a green roof and promotion of
pedestrian and bicycle traffic rather than cars. He empathized with the concerns of students
moving into the units and hopes that will not be the case, there needs to be a place for
young professionals that work at UIHC. It would help individuals to be able to live in Iowa
City and not have to commute in from other areas of Johnson County.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent).
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page it of 17
2. (REZ17-00004): Discussion of an application submitted by William Nusser for a rezoning
from Central Business Service (CB -2) zone to Central Business Support (CB -5) zone for
approximately 4,550 square feet of property located at 202 North Linn Street (Corridor State
Bank property).
Walz presented the staff report and stated the applicant, William Nusser, is seeking a
rezoning for the property widely known as the Pearson's Pharmacy and more recently the
home of Corridor State Bank. It is located at the corner of Market and Linn Streets, and the
other three corner properties at this intersection are all zoned CB -5. The lot includes a non-
conforming surface parking area with 5 parking spaces located between the building and the
Market Street right-of-way. In this zone the parking is meant to be at the rear of the building,
not in front. It is meant to be a pedestrian oriented zone. Additionally the zone calls for
street facing windows, which this building lacks along its fagade. Walz stated this property is
appropriate for development and part of the reasons for seeking the rezoning is the change
in parking.
The Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, contains a discussion of the Northside
Marketplace, which includes this property and notes a desire to preserve the "distinct
identity and scale" of the commercial district as different from the Downtown. Many describe
this area as "Old Iowa City" and attracts more long-term residents, there is less of the hustle
and bustle of downtown and less of a student orientation. The Central District plan identifies
the historic character of the Northside Marketplace as one of its greatest assets. It is known
for an area that has a lot of unique, locally owned businesses so when the Central Business
Plan was created there was a concern that too much redevelopment or development at too
large a scale or density may diminish the traditional main street character of the
neighborhood.
The Plan encourages development that is sensitive to the neighborhood's history and
architectural elements. The subject property is not considered a historically significant
structure and does not currently contribute to other goals of the Northside Marketplace. The
goals of the Northside Marketplace are to preserve and promote the unique aspects of the
Northside Marketplace and establish policies and regulations that will preserve the existing
scale and main street commercial character of the Northside Marketplace. Walz explained
that the Downtown District to the south is more intensive commercial and is separated from
the Northside Market Place by University buildings.
This area takes a step down, although there are taller buildings on the corners but are still
limited in height to three or four stories. Then as one travels north the neighborhood steps
back further to one story or two story buildings. There are some three story buildings, but
they have set backs at the upper level. It is a transitional area between the higher intensity
downtown to the lower density residential area. Another goal was to adopt zoning
regulations to ensure that new development is consistent with the existing mainstreet
character of the area and encourage mixed-use buildings with 1 • to 3- bedroom apartments
above commercial storefronts. Additionally the Plan encourages the improvement of the
environment for pedestrian safety.
Walz explained that a number of these goals have shaped recent zoning decisions. In 2012
a rezoning of the comer property at 221-225 North Linn Street from a RNS-12 to CB- 2
included requirements for design review approval, a maximum number of dwelling units, and
a limit on the height of the building to 3 stories with a step -back at the third story. In 2013 the
Board of Adjustment granted a variance from the parking requirements to allow
redevelopment of property at 211 North Linn Street within the CB -2 zone. (The property had
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 12 of 17
no alley access and was too narrow to provide vehicle access from the street.) The new
building was required to secure design review approval and was limited to three stories with
a step back at the third story. In 2014 the City approved the rezoning of 203 North Linn
Street (the former Northside and Haunted Bookshop), a 4,000 sq. foot property directly to
the west of the subject property, from CB -2 to CB -5 with a historic landmark designation.
The rezoning was requested by the owner specifically to alleviate the commercial parking
requirements for the commercial floor of the building based on the concerns of preserving a
historic building. Developers were required to make updates such as a sprinkler system and
also a conditional zoning agreement put on the property that if it were ever to be destroyed
by fire or a disaster; the building height would be limited. Other corner properties at the
intersection, which are all zoned (CB -5), include the two story, historic Brewery Square
building on the southwest corner of Market and Linn Streets and the recently developed
Writers Block, a four story building on the southeast corner.
Walz stated the application property is currently zoned CB -2 and explained the differences
between the CB -2 and the CB -5. The CB -5 allows a greater residential density than is
permitted in the CB -2 zone. There was a chart in the Commissioners packet to show the
density differences. The CB -5 zone also allows a taller building than would be permitted in
the CB -2 zone which gives greater redevelopment potential. The building height is based
on a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and in CB -2 a maximum of two square of floor area for
each one square foot of lot area. Through bonus provisions, the FAR of building may be
increased to three. The maximum building height in the CB -5 zone is 75 feet with a FAR of
three. Similar to the CB -2 zone, bonus provisions may allow an increase the FAR up to five.
Walz listed the applicable bonus provisions in the Staff report. The logical ones that may be
applied to this property would be the architectural elements such as masonry, provision of
pedestrian activity areas, or usable open space for passive recreational uses of residents
(i.e. balconies, terraces, and rooftop gardens designed and improved for outdoor activities).
An additional FAR bonus provision may be granted for the provision of funds for all street
furniture, lighting and landscaping improvements along the adjacent street right-of-way in
accordance with any adopted streetscape plan approved by the City, however an approved
streetscape plan has already been installed for this area and so this provision would not
apply.
Walz explained the biggest difference in creating development potential here in the CB -5 is
the reduction in parking. CB -5 has a lower parking requirement for both commercial and
residential uses. For commercial uses in the CB -5 zone there is no parking requirement.
The differences in the parking requirements for the residential uses are outlined in the Staff
report. In a CB -2 zone the minimum parking requirement for a one bedroom or efficiency is
0.75 parking space per unit, and in the CB -5 that is reduced to 0.50 parking space per unit.
Walz noted there is a parking benefit for elder housing (a permanent designation) of one
space for every two units but this parking benefit is only realized with two bedroom elder
units.
Walz stated on such a small lot as the applicant property, the ability to provide parking is
quite limited. Staff had suggested to the applicant to make use of the service alley but the
applicant is probably not going to pursue that opportunity because they would like to provide
underground parking with a ramp directly off Market Street. Walz did acknowledge that
parking is somewhat of a delicate issue in the Northside Marketplace. There are a number
of surface lots: one is a public, city -owned, lot but the other is private and could be
developed. Parking in this area is scarce at peak hours, the closest public parking garage,
the Clock Tower Place facility located on Iowa Avenue, two blocks to the south.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 13 of 17
Walz summarized that the lower parking standards required for the CB -5 zone along with
the additional density and FAR would greatly enhance the development potential of this
somewhat small corner lot and would anchor that corner in a way that is more pedestrian
friendly.
Staff recommends that REZ17-00004, a request for a rezoning from CB -2, Central Business
Services Zone, to CB -5, Central Business Support Zone, be approved subject to design
review. The applicant has submitted a concept to City Staff in the last 24 hours and will
show that to the Commission this evening. He has also conducted two neighborhood
meetings, and Walz distributed an email received from one neighbor (Patrick Gilpin) that
speaks to the issue of parking as well as a letter from Joseph Holland expressing concerns
about parking.
Hensch asked about the service alley and if that was public owned alley. Walz stated it is
public owned but is not a right-of-way so it functions a bit differently. Most of the businesses
along the alley use it for trash and recycling services. A car can pass through, but it is tight.
Hensch commented upon a quick review of the email from Gilpin is that his opposition is that
there is not a minimum of one parking place per unit, but that is not consistent for either a
CB -5 or CB -2 zone.
Parsons asked if the City has ever considered turning that public service parking lot into a
small ramp. Walz said that has not been explored in detail, it is a rather small area but not
out of the realm of possibilities. Miklo added the cost versus the amount of spaces achieved
was not reasonable when looked at several years ago.
Dyer asked when the bank building was built. Miklo replied in the late 1950's. Dyer asked if
the building could be considered historical as an example of Mid-century architecture. Miklo
said it could likely have been prior to the remodel, but would no longer be eligible because
of the significant changes to the exterior.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Ross (William) Nusser (13 Briar Ridge) thanked the Commission for considering the request
before them and for City Staff for working with him on this application. This property is not
easy to work with, it is a small parcel and has many challenges in designing a concept. He
will share a concept with them on what the building could be, but wanted to stress it is just a
concept. He would like to continue to hold neighborhood meetings to get better feedback on
design, noting that this rezoning will also be subject to design and site review.
The CB -2 zoning in the Northside, which is what his property is currently zoned, is very
prohibitive to any use, commercial or residential. The parking requirement, especially for a
lot that is 65' by 75' prohibits some uses. For example, if a restaurant wanted to build on
that spot there would need to be 36 parking spots, retail is significantly lower.
He said that parking in Iowa City has always been a problem, and he feels there are two
options. One is to require more parking on spaces throughout downtown, but that would
stunt the growth of the city. The other is to deal with parking as the city grows and be
thoughtful on how to deal with it. Other cities of the same size are dealing with the exact
same problem.
Nusser said that the Northside today looks nothing like it did 25 years ago. The restaurants
are excellent and the streetscapes have been improved dramatically and the neighborhood
has developed in a very pleasing way. 25 years ago the neighborhood looked very different,
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 14 of 17
where Bluebird is was once a paint store and Bluebird was able to tie in the history of that.
Tying in the history of the neighborhood is very important. Nusserjust wants to add to this
neighborhood, enhance the pedestrian experience, add an element of housing that is more
inclusive to all, and to provide if possible a public experience for this property. Many folks
remember Pearson's and that was a phenomenal place where people gathered. Nusser
would like to keep with that history and provide a new development. The new development
will not look anything like the old Pearson building but there are ways to incorporate the
Northside atmosphere into the new development. Nusser stressed again that the concept
plan is just a concept and he is 100% open to changing, it is just an idea of what could be
there.
Nusser shared the concept plan and stated it is an example of what the maximum concept
for the lot could be. As previously mentioned there were Good Neighbor meetings held, one
with the general public, one with the Downtown District, and one with the Northside
Business owners. One of the key items was they wanted to tie in the existing streetscape as
well as the lines of the buildings so that is what they tried to achieve with the differential of
materials proposed. The glass above as well as the balconies keep it less intrusive to the
surrounding buildings. The rooftop area is undecided but could either serve the residents of
the building or be a public space, but if it were to be a public space that would be a separate
proposal.
Nusser said that another point that was brought up at the Good Neighbor meetings was the
importance of a variety of businesses, so they are showing perhaps a restaurant and a retail
experience. Nusser noted that in the current zoning this would not be possible regardless
because of the residential above. With regards to the composition of units, especially
residential, it is also undecided. He has had conversations with TRAIL (Tools and
Resources for Active, Independent Living) regarding senior living as that is scarce in Iowa
City and he is exploring that as an option. Additionally the first level above the commercial
space is undecided if it will be office or residential space, and there are different parking
requirements for each.
In closing Nusser reiterated that this site is underutilized and redevelopment is truly
appropriate. When it was Pearson's it was great, the bank has been phenomenal in the
redevelopment process, but the site is currently not serving the neighborhood in a way that it
could potentially do.
Hensch asked how he envisions handling what parking they will have to provide. Nusser
said there would be an entrance off Market Street near George's to a parking garage under
the building and that would allow for seven spaces. Walz added they would need to either
obtain a new curb cut on the property or widen the existing one.
Hensch asked if the top story was a bonus height story. Nusser said it was not, it will just be
an open area, and he respects the neighborhood and will not seek a bonus provision.
Hensch asked how close this concept was to Nusser's actual vision of the property. Nusser
said it was very close, the things he is amendable to is how the building will impact
surrounding areas as with building materials, etc. but is open to feedback and wants to be a
good partner with the City and community.
Parsons asked how much underground parking is possible for a 4500 foot building. Nusser
replied it is seven spaces, there needs to be space for a stairway and an elevator.
Dyer asked about bicycle parking. Nusser replied there will be bicycle parking.
Signs asked the vision for number of units and how many bedrooms per unit. Nusser stated
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 15 of 17
he cannot speak directly to the number of units at this time as that has not been figured out.
If it is to be senior housing it will likely be two bedroom units, for any other type of housing
they will be one bedroom.
Dyer asked why senior housing would be two bedrooms. Nusser stated that when he met
with TRAIL it was mentioned that as people downsize they are downsizing from large
houses with four or five bedrooms and it is important to them to have a guest bedroom or
space for a home office. Dyer noted there are other seniors that may come from smaller
houses and Nusser acknowledged that is correct.
Walz clarified that the FAR would allow for three stories where the build -out wall is to the
property line and to get the additional two stories bonus requirements would have to be met.
If upper stories were stepped back it could be different.
Nick Lindsey (Architect, Neumann Monson) stated the intent would be to provide bicycle
parking for every resident in the building both below ground and above ground. They are a
big proponent of encouraging sustainable transportation.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to approve REZ17-00004, a request for a rezoning from CB -2, Central
Business Services Zone, to CB -5, Central Business Support Zone be approved
subject to design review.
Martin seconded the motion.
Dyer commented that she believes the project is premature, there needs to be a clearer
concept of what it will be so they can better judge the impact on parking. Since parking is so
limited in this area, there needs to be more information on how many units there will be.
Dyer noted it is often impossible to find parking in this neighborhood and often forgoes
patronizing the businesses in the neighborhood because she cannot find parking.
Signs stated that he has never had trouble finding parking in that neighborhood, but did
admit he is probably not there on evenings and weekends as much. Signs noted he loves
the concept and is pleased that the applicant has been reaching out to the community and
getting input. He likes the change of building materials on the two floors to acclimate to the
neighboring buildings and does think a taller building on this corner makes sense and fits in
with a lot of the concepts they discuss in the downtown. He understands Dyer's concern
about not seeing a more solid concept but his feeling is based on the presentation there is a
good idea of a concept and are taking a lot of important things into consideration.
Hensch noted it appears it will be a pedestrian oriented building which he is completely in
favor of in the Northside Neighborhood. Parking is an issue, but noted similar to Signs he
has never had an issue parking there but is often there midday and not evenings or
weekends.
Dyer noted another parking problem in that area is the churches and in the daytime funerals
cause parking issues in that neighborhood. Hensch agreed and often wondered why the
churches haven't banned together and tried to come up with a parking solution. Parsons
said there is on street parking allowed all along the streets on Sundays so that helps out and
special funeral signs are placed to add parking as well.
Signs also commented on the issue of the two bedroom units, and sees it as part of the
thought process and proof that it is well thought out, if the idea is the next level from the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 16 of 17
family home but not yet to an assisted living situation, based on his experience with his
customers they want more than one bedroom. As for the parking issue, he believes as a
community there needs to be a bigger conversation about parking in the downtown and near
downtown areas. There needs to be a larger vision.
Martin agreed, she has never had a parking issue there and she is there evenings. What
she likes about zoning this to CB -5 regardless of what goes there, the Downtown Master
Plan denotes the corner lots as the "bookends" and this concept fits that very well.
Conceptually she likes the vision.
Theobald added she has had numerous parking issues in this neighborhood, but the parking
problem already exists and while this will add to it, the issue is already there. The idea of
senior housing is good and is needed. It would be an area that would be popular.
Martin asked if this is rezoned to CB -5 now, will the Commission ever see the concept plan
again. Miklo said it would not come before the Commission. Martin asked if this were to be
senior specific housing, could it only be senior housing or could it be mixed. Walz said it
could be mixed and once something is senior housing it must always be senior housing, due
to the parking benefit.
Parsons noted that the area is underutilized and seeing that the other properties at this
intersection are CB -5 it would tie that intersection in together.
Hensch stated he was originally concerned about approving this application, but after
hearing concept from the applicant and trusting they will follow through with their concepts
he is in support.
Dyer reiterated it is still premature as they don't know if it will be a three story or five story
building and they will not see the final plans. They won't know what benefits will be applied
for, whether there will be a setback, and although the other buildings on the corners are CB -
5 one is because of a historic designation exemption. If this building were to be five stories
it would be higher than any other buildings in the area. A five story building in this area
would not comply with the step down envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Martin asked the process if this was approved. Walz said the rezoning would go to City
Council, if approved the site review would come before Staff and design review. Martin said
that she liked the materials shown in the concept with brick on the lower floors to tie into the
existing buildings. Miklo noted that the drawing showed corten steel, not brick. Nusser said
it could be brick.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (Dyer voting no, Freerks absent).
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 2 and March 16, 2017.
Theobald seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Signs moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2016-2017
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
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
1/19
2/2
3/2
3/16
4/6
DYER,CAROLYN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
SIGNS, MARK
--
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
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