Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-21 Info Packet►r 1fA;��0 CITY of IOWA CITY www.icgov.org City Council Information Packet December 21. 2017 IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule Miscellaneous IP2 Memo and copy of report from Mayor: Mayor's report on National League of Cities' City Summit IP3 Memo from City Manager: Waste Minimization efforts and curbside services update IP4 Memo from City Clerk: 2018 Listening Post Tentative Schedule IP5 Power point from Police Chief: Iowa City Crime Trends and Responses IP6 Downtown City Gardens — Johnson County Master Gardener — 2017 Report IP7 Bar Check Report — November 2017 Draft Minutes IP8 Planning and Zoning Commission: December 7 12-21-17 IP1 i r City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule 1 ^ r � Subject to change CITY OF IOWA CITY December 21, 2017 Date Time Meeting Location Tuesday, January 2, 2018 8:00 AM Special Formal (Organizational Meeting) Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:00 PM Work Session 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Saturday, January 6, 2018 8:OOA-5:OOP Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:OOP-7:OOP Budget Work Session (CIP) Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:00 PM Iowa City Conference Board Mtg. Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, January 22, 2018 4:00 PM Reception Coralville City Hall 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting Tuesday, February 6, 2018 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 20, 2018 5:00 PM Iowa City Conference Board Mtg. Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 6, 2018 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting -77-717r- IP2 Kellie Fruehling From: Jim Throgmorton Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 12A5 PM To: Council Cc: Pauline Taylor, John Thomas; Susan Mims; Kingsley Botchway; Terry Dickens; Rockne Cole Subject: Report re: NLC City Summit Attachments: Mayor's report on National League of Cities' City Summit.docx; NLC-SML Preemption Report Feb 2017.pdf Fellow Council members, Please see the brief attached report concerning the National League of Cities' "City Summit." Please do not hit "Reply to all." Mayor Jim Throgmorton Iowa City City Council, At -Large To: City Council From: Mayor Jim Throgmorton Subject: Report on National League of Cities "City Summit" Date: December 15, 2017 On November 15-18, 2017, I attended the National League of Cities' (NLC) annual "City Summit" in Charlotte, North Carolina. For details about the Summit, see: http://citvsummit.nic.ore/ Attended by roughly 4,000 city leaders, the City Summit proved to be quite a different experience from the Mayor's Innovation Project and Mayors Institute on City Design events I attended during the summer. Whereas those events were intimate, involved many face to face conversations with other mayors, and were very focused on just a few important topics, the City Summit required me mainly to observe and listen. In what follows, I provide you with a short report about the event and what I learned. I attended a couple general sessions, the first of which included an excellent speech by NLC President and Cleveland OH city councilman Matt Zone. "Leaders lead!" he emphasized; we members of the NLC have been given a great opportunity to lead our cities, and we should use that opportunity to benefit all our residents. That session also included a powerful presentation by Nashville TN Mayor Megan Barry about the opioid epidemic, a humorous and informative presentation by retired astronaut and Navy Captain Mark Kelly, and an inspiring appearance by former state legislator and U. S. Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. The second general session included a panel on building inclusive and equitable communities, Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institution speaking about the urban -rural divide, and a panel on state and federal preemption of local authority. It is clear that many city leaders are very concerned about the extent to which their state legislatures are preempting local authority. (See the attached NLC report, "City Rights in an Era of Preemption: A State -by -State Analysis.") In addition to these general sessions, I also attended "Solutions Sessions" about "Using Transparency to Rebut Public Misinformation and Misunderstandings," "Facebook for Local Government: Tools, Tips, and Best Practices," and "Energy and Cities: Setting Priorities," along with a Workshop on "Strategies to Counter State Preemption." I attended a couple of receptions. One was the NLC Sustainable Cities Institute reception, after which I had a very enjoyable conversation over dinner with Coralville Mayor John Lundell. The other was a reception sponsored by the Iowa League of Cities. I was surprised not to see more attendees from Iowa cities, but I also had a potentially very fruitful conversation with Ames Council member Tim Gartin. Gartin asked whether our council might be interested in doing a friendly, "Live Heathy Iowa" competition with Ames' council. (For details about Live Healthy Iowa, see: (httns://www.livehealth3iowa.ore/1 He also raised the possibility of our council meeting with Ames' some evening halfway between our cities. Please let me know if you are interested in either of these possibilities. I also participated in a meeting of the University Communities Council, of which I am a member. This year's meeting focused primarily on the relationship between the I" Amendment right of free speech and efforts to restrict hate speech that incites violence. At the end of this meeting, I had a fruitful conversation with Mayor Mark Meadows of East Lansing, MI. And, of course, I wandered through the exhibit hall and talked with many vendors about their products. I have shared specific bits of information about some of those vendors and products and with our City Manager. Facebook Live looks like a tool some City Council members might want to use. While attending the City Summit, I also had the opportunity to describe the purpose of the December 1 "Mayors Panel" in an Iowa Public Radio interview with Julie Englander. I should end with a word about Charlotte itself. It's big, roughly 800,000 people if I remember correctly, and I only saw bits of the downtown. The city is clearly growing up as well as out. Please let me know if you have any questions about the event. iNfe City Rights in an Era of Preemption: A State -by -State Analysis NLCNATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CENTER FOR CITY SOLUTIONS About the National League of Cities The National League of Cities (NLC) is the nation's leading advocacy organization devoted to strengthening and promoting cities as centers of opportunity, leadership and governance. Through its membership and partnerships with state municipal leagues, NLC serves as a resource and advocate for more than 19,000 cities and towns and more than 218 million Americans. NLC's Center for City Solutions provides research and analysis on key topics and trends important to cities and creative solutions to improve the quality of life in communities. About the Authors Nicole DuPuis is Principal Associate, Urban Innovation, of NLC's Center for City Solutions Trevor Langan is Research Associate of NLC's Center for City Solutions Christiana McFarland is Research Director of NLC's Center for City Solutions Angelina Panettieri is Principal Associate, Technology and Communications, of NLC's Federal Advocacy Department Brooks Rainwater is Senior Executive and Director of NLC's Center for City Solutions Acknowledgements This report is the third project outcome of a research collaborative between NLC and the state municipal leagues. We are grateful for the guidance, data verification and preemption narratives from state municipal leagues. The authors would also like to thank Courtney Bernard and Men St. Jean for editing and Soren Messner-Zidell and JoFlla Straley for designing the report. Methodology This study of state preemption began with collecting preemption data for each policy area from secondary sources (identified on page 3). State municipal leagues then verified the data for their states to ensure timeliness and accuracy. A total of 38 state leagues responded to our requests for comment. Photo credits: All photos Getty Images 2017. 2017 © National League of Cities Table of Contents 1 From the Director 3 Introduction 6 Minimum Wage 8 Paid Leave 10Anti-Discrimination 12 Sharing Economy 17 Municipal Broadband 20 Tax and Expenditure Limitations 23 Other Areas of Preemption 24 Recommendations & Conclusion City Rights in an Era of Preemption From the Director State preemption is a threat to local control and city success. Our nation's local elected leaders work tirelessly every day to reflect their community's values and represent community members. These leaders represent the level of government closest to the people they govern, and they focus on the critical issues that matter to the people of this great nation. Ultimately, people who live in cities want control over their own destinies. But when states seek blanket policies that run counter to the values of its cities, local leaders do not stand down. We see many instances where state -level politicians work to usurp the will of people in cities both through preemption and Dillon's Rule provisions. As a result, the work of city leaders and the mandate of the people is undermined. Consistently, state legislators have stricken down laws passed by city leaders in four crucial areas of local governance: economics, social policy, health and safety. Our report, "City Rights in an Era of State Preemption," focuses specifically on the areas of economic and social policy. While we draw distinctions between these two policy areas in our analysis, there is a consistently strong linkage between social and economic policymaking and their ultimate outcomes. In the economic sphere, there has been a concerted effort to impinge on the ability of cities to regulate economic activity taking place in communities. While a range of local laws have been preempted, this analysis centers on local minimum wage ordinances, the implementation of municipal broadband and the regulation of sharing economy activity in the ride -hailing and home -sharing space. When it comes to social policy, aggressive state action has limited the ability of city leaders to expand rights and provide opportunities to community members. Recently, we have observed states curtailing the ability of cities to pass laws supporting inclusive, family -friendly communities—particularly as it pertains to the areas of LGBTQ rights and paid leave laws. In some cases, state preemption does not mean progress is lost and can even lead to improved policy statewide. However, preemption that prevents cities from expanding rights, building stronger economies and promoting innovation can be counterproductive and even dangerous. When decision-making is divorced from the core wants and needs of community members, it creates a perilous environment. Local control and city rights are priority number one. We know well that innovation happens in cities and then percolates upwards. This process should be celebrated, not stymied. BROOKS RAINWATER Senior Executive and Director of NLC's Center for City Solutions Local control and city rights are priority number one. City Rights in an Era of Preemption Introduction What is preemption? Preemption is the use of state law to nullify a municipal ordinance or authority. State preemption can span many policy areas including environmental regulation, firearm use and labor laws. States can preempt cities from legislating on particular issues either by statutory or constitutional law. In some cases, court rulings have forced cities to roll back ordinances already in place. Preemption on the rise State legislatures have gotten more aggressive in their use of preemption in recent years. Explanations for this increase include lobbying efforts by special interests, spatial sorting of political preferences between urban and rural areas, and single party dominance in most state governments.' This last point is particularly mportant. As preemption efforts often concern a politically divisive issue, they rely on single party dominance to pass through state legislatures. As of the 2016 election cycle, Republicans have twenty-five government trifectas, meaning they control both legislative chambers and the governor's office. Democrats have trifectas in six states, but control a larger portion of city halls. Several states where there has been single -party control over the last decade, including Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin, have seen increases in preemption. Loss of local control Proponents of preemption argue that it equalizes laws across the state, preventing individuals and firms from navigating a patchwork of regulation. Preemption creates a problem, though, because 3 it means a loss of local control for cities. This loss of local control means that cities cannot curtail laws to fit their needs, creating economic mplications, especially when fiscal authority is limited. Preemption can also have human rights mplications when social policy affects groups like the LGBTQ community or working mothers. Therefore, when cities and state leagues are up against a bill with preemptive language, they will almost always oppose it. Recent preemption has pitted rural- and suburban -dominated state legislatures against cities with large populations of low wage earners and ethnic minorities. In these cases, the argument for preemption has focused on the role of government and cities' place within it. Overview of Findings Our state -by -state analysis of preemption focused on the following seven policy areas: minimum wage 2, paid leave 3, anti -discrimination^, ride sharing=, home sharingb, municipal broadband? and tax and expenditure limitations.8 Policy # of States with Preemption Minimum Wage 25 Paid Leave 19 Anti -Discrimination 3 Ride Sharing 37 Home Sharing 3 Municipal Broadband 17 Tax and Expenditure Limitations 42 Where Does Preemption Limit Local Control? Preemption is the use of state law to nullify a municipal ordinance or authority. State preemption can span virtually all policy areas. ............................................................................................................................................. $ Minimum wage 4�, Anti -discrimination Ride sharing Q Tax and Expenditure r0 Paid leave A Home sharing Municipal broadband Limitations (TEEs) a �^ NC CT VT wy � T F r 0 �P s k Q � P a C) a Pq 3 n � o o 0 � o 3 Of 01 � W � 0 co $` $� 4N 3N V3 O ti v v Off° O OOO O City Rights in an Era of Preemption Dillon's Rule vs. Home Rule The U.S. Constitution does not mention local governments. Instead, the 10"' Amendment reserves authority -giving powers to the states. Therefore, there is a great deal of diversity in state -local relations between, as well as within, states. Generally speaking, however, states provide either narrow (Dillon's Rule) or broad (Home Rule) governing authority to cities, defined in the state constitution and/or by statute enacted by the legislature.9 Dillon's Rule, which is derived from an 1868 court ruling, states that if there is a reasonable doubt whether a power has been conferred to a local government, then the power has not been conferred.10 Dillon's Rule allows a state legislature to control local government structure, methods of financing its activities, its procedures, and the authority to make and implement policy. Due to the rigidity of this system, however, some states began to adopt "Home Rule" provisions in the early 1900s. Home Rule limits the degree of state interference in local affairs and delegates power from the state to local governments. That power is limited to specific fields, and subject to constant judicial interpretation. The distinction between Dillon's Rule and Home Rule is important but often overlooked in discussions of preemption. Cities in Dillon's Rule states are broadly preempted in many of the areas discussed in this report. However, there are many instances of larger cities in Dillon's Rule states that are granted Home Rule authorities, like New York and Baltimore. In other instances, regardless of Home Rule status, state law supersedes local governing authority, particularly when the state wants to establish a minimum threshold (i.e., minimum wage, anti- discrimination) to which locals must abide. 5 Preemption Goes by Many Names The following are terms often used in state legislation in order to preempt municipal authority: • `Any order or ordinance by any political subdivision shall be consistent with and not more restrictive than state law..." • "Local governments may not impose regulations that exceed..." • "The department has exclusive regulatory authority..." "It is the intent of the legislature to occupy the field..." • "This part preempts the laws of any local government..." • "Local laws and ordinances that are more restrictive shall not be enacted..." • "The state shall have sole authority to control and regulate..." • `Regulation is a matter of statewide concern..." ...and no more stringent than a state statute..." • "This act shall supersede any other statute or municipal ordinance..." • `For the purposes of equitable and uniform regulation and implementation..." Source: Public Health Law Center, "Preemption by Any Other Name," 2010 Minimum Wage 2016 was the year of the minimum wage increase. It was also the year of minimum wage preemption. With rising levels of scrutiny over whether the current minimum wage is a "living wage," activists successfully persuaded elected officials in some states and cities to reconsider wage laws. Movements to increase wages to $10.10 per hour, or even $15 in some places, spread throughout city councils and ballot boxes. However, not all cities were able to give their residents a pay raise due to state preemption. And, in a number of states, legislatures made sure even more cities could not regulate wages by passing new preemption laws. Local governments can be preempted from passing minimum wage ordinances in a number of ways, including their state constitutions, their Preemption By State States with minimum wage preemption particular charters, or specific statutes passed by the legislature. Those in favor of state preemption can also take cases to the courts. In 2015, for example, business interests attempted to overturn minimum wage ordinances on procedural grounds in Missouri and Kentucky." Local Impact Iowa is a state with an increasing patchwork of minimum wage laws. In five of its 99 counties, particularly the more urban ones, minimum wages have increased above the state IevelJs In Johnson County, for example, wages are now $10.10 per hour, except for those municipalities that vote to opt out. Four cities in the county have set a minimum wage at the state level of $7.25, but all have the authority to raise wages to any level above that. Because of the potential for variation Twenty-five states currently have some kind of preemption of minimum wage ordinances. Many of these states, such as New Hampshire and Colorado, have had long-standing preemption because authority to regulate wages was never granted to cities. Moreover, a growing number of state legislatures have considered explicit statutory preemption. Alabama, Ohio, and North Carolina are three states that took action in 2016. Alabama's bill bore a striking resemblance to the "The Living Wage Mandate Preemption Act," a piece of model legislation posted on the website of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALFC)12 6 Minimum Wage Efforts Under Fire in ICentucky In 2014, Louisville, Kentucky, passed an ordinance that would have gradually raised the minimum wage to $9 per hour by July 2017. However, in 2016, the Kentucky Supreme Court struck down Louisville's minimum wage ordinance, ruling that the city does not have the authority to set a minimum wage above the level set by the state .13 The ruling also invalidated an ordinance from the city of Lexington that would have raised its minimum wage to $10.10 by 2018. In a 6-1 decision, the majority opinion stated that, while cities like Louisville and Lexington have broad authority under home rule, the sovereignty of the state is supreme in the area of minimum wage, where state law already exists 14 The court wrote that the state's minimum wage statute contains no room for local legislation and is not simply a wage floor to be exceeded by cities. and confusion, especially for cities that straddle multiple counties, the governor is backing preemption legislation. It will likely pass, but it is unclear if the new law will raise wages across the state. In Missouri, minimum wage increases in St. Louis and Kansas City ran into legal trouble before they could be implementedJb Courts blocked an ordinance in St. Louis and a ballot initiative in Kansas City on the grounds that state minimum wage law preempts cities from enacting their own. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Kansas City vote must go forward before judges can decide if a wage increase is lawful. Given the cost of a referendum and the likelihood of the decision being overturned, local officials decided not to pursue the vote. 7 Paid Leave Paid leave, which includes sick, family and medical leave, is a growing area of action for a number of cities. Paid sick leave laws specifically refer to the federal, state or local government mandating that employers provide sick time for employees that is paid either directly by the employer or through a social welfare benefit administered by the government. Paid family and medical leave refers to the government providing monetary support to people caring for newborn children or aging parents, or addressing serious health issues. These types of laws typically provide anywhere from a percentage of full pay to 100 percent of a worker's salary for set periods of time ranging from a few weeks to a year or more. Preemption By State States with paid leave preemption r AN Local Impact When states preempt cities' authority to pass paid sick and family and medical leave laws, they are not only limiting local control, but also undermining the overall health and well- being of employees. In a 2008 study, public health researchers found that 68 percent of those without paid sick leave went to work with a contagious illnesi23 With more sick people at work, there is a greater likelihood of others becoming ill, thereby reducing overall productivity and wellbeing. In addition to health impacts, access to paid leave positively affects local fiscal and economic conditions. For example, Mayor Bill de Blasio attributes the strength of New York's local Nineteen state legislatures have passed laws that preempt the ability of cities to pass laws mandating employers within their jurisdictions provide paid leave. 8 A Brief History of Paid Leave In the United States, the federal government does not provide paid family and medical leave at the national level. In the global context, most countries provide paid family and medical leave, including all countries in the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD), making the United States an extreme outlier." While a 1993 law, the Family Medical Leave Act, provides new parents with a guaranteed 12 weeks off after the birth of a child, it provides no remuneration, and is therefore only an option for those that can afford unpaid time off. Additionally, only 12 percent of private sector employers provide paid family and medical leave to their employees, thereby leaving a great deal of families with few options upon the birth of children or to care for aging parents.'a The lack of national and state -level action to provide paid family and medical leave has spurred forward momentum in many cities to pass such laws.'s New York is one of five states that has acted, providing all employees in the state with paid family and medical leave. In some instances, statewide paid sick leave laws allow cities to provide levels of support for employees that exceed the state's minimum requirements. San Diego and San Francisco are among several California cities that have passed paid sick leave laws that go above and beyond state minimums.2O economy, in part, to the recent expansion of paid family and medical leave laws. Approximately 3.4 million public and private employees are now protected, 1.2 million of whom were previously subject to the loss of jobs and pay in the event of serious illnesa2^ 9 There has been a groundswell of local momentum for paid sick leave. In just the past couple of years, more than 20 municipalities have passed paid sick leave laws.' State attempts, however, to usurp local control over paid sick and family and medical leave policies persist. New methods of preemption are also beginning to crop up. For example, in the absence of a state law that explicitly prohibits local paid sick leave, Arizona has threatened to withhold revenues from the City of Tempe in order to deter the possible adoption of paid sick leave measures 22 Anti -Discrimination Given the vast political differences between some cities and their state governments, cities have moved to cement social progress and protect the rights of marginalized groups through anti- discrimination ordinances. Also called non- discrimination ordinances, these laws may deal with discrimination surrounding employment, use of public facilities and commercial activities. Anti- discrimination ordinances add characteristics such as marital status, sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of identifiers protected in existing ordinances, often going beyond existing state-wide protections. At least 225 local governments prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity.2s However, in 2011, Tennessee became the first state to prohibit local Preemption By State States with anti -d iscri mi nation preemption laws governments from extending protections exceeding those recognized by state law. This legislation, called the Equal Access to Intrastate Commerce Act, defined "sex" as the designation indicated on an individual's birth certificate. Following Tennessee, two states, Arkansas in 2015 and North Carolina in 2016, passed explicit statutory preemption in this area. Cities in other states may be preempted because they lack authority to regulate workplace or public accommodations discrimination due to Dillon's Rule laws. Local Impact While many preemption bills do not explicitly mention religion, they are often introduced alongside religious exemption laws. These Three states have passed explicit statutory preemption of local anti -discrimination ordinances. 10 North Carolina Bathroom Bill in National Spotlight In March of 2016, North Carolina's legislature passed N.C. House Bill 2 (HB2), which would go on to generate controversy. Also referred to as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act or the "Charlotte bathroom bill," the law stripped local authority on a number of issues including regulating access of public facilities.2s HB2 was passed in direct response to a non- discrimination ordinance passed by Charlotte City Council in February, which prohibited sex discrimination in public facilities. Passed during a one -day specially convened session, HB2 made the workplace and public accommodation discrimination ordinances of more than a dozen North Carolina cities illegal 26 HB2 also included language eliminating local authority to increase the minimum wage. This provision was an olive branch to business interests, which were poised to bear the brunt of economic backlash and boycotts against the state. While no North Carolina municipality had set different wages than the state, many businesses supported the preemption of such authority and, therefore, HB2. This support was necessary as business interests in other states have effectively stopped similar anti -discrimination laws from being passed or signed. "religious freedom" bills allow businesses and individuals to exempt themselves from general legal requirements based on religious grounds. These laws often preempt local governments from regulating in this area. In some places where religious freedom bills have been passed, city ordinances stand in opposition to these state -imposed limitations. As creatures of the state, there is little that cities can do to counteract state action. However, a 1996 Supreme Court ruling in Romer v. Evans could be a beacon for cities. In a 6-3 decision, the court struck down 11 North Carolina faced strong pushback immediately after enacting HB2. Plans for major events and new jobs in the state were cancelled, totaling near $400 million in lost investments .27 An attempt was made to repeal the law during a special legislative session in December. A deal had been struck between the state legislature and the city council, where the city would strike the ordinance and the state would repeal HB2. However, after the city council repealed the full ordinance, the state legislature kept HB2 intact. a state constitutional amendment that prohibited localities from designating "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation" as a protected class.2y The majority found that the amendment violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution because it was based on bias toward a group of individuals and not related to a legitimate government interest. If cities can argue the goal of the preemption is to harm people or treat groups differently, there may be a violation of equal protection or substantive due process, according to Romer. Sharing Economy The sharing economy, also commonly referred to as collaborative consumption, encompasses peer-to-peer transactions in which providers and consumers share resources and services from housing to vehicles and more. The two areas of the sharing economy examined here are ride hailing platforms (e.g. Uber and Lyft) and short-term rental or home sharing platforms (e.g. HomeAway and Airbnb). This examination considers whether any legislation, regardless of whether it limits or embraces the operation of these platform -based companies, was passed by the state legislature in each state. Ride Sharing Ride sharing, also referred to as ride hailing, is typically recognized as a one-time transaction in Preemption By State States with ride sharing preemption which someone who needs a ride is matched with a nearby driver and is shuttled to a destination. This service is distinguished from traditional for -hire transportation service by the fact that ride hailing vehicles are personal vehicles. The majority of drivers are generally non-professionals that provide rides on a part-time basis, although there are a portion of drivers that do in fact drive full time. When ride hailing companies began to proliferate throughout the country, they were initially found, for the most part, in large metropolitan areas. This is no longer the case. Companies like Uber and Lyft, often legally referred to as transportation network companies (TNCs), have entered metropolitan markets of all sizes around the world, and serve populations with different needs, cultural inclinations and political orientations. Thirty-seven state legislatures Il— have passed bills that preempt /.- the authority of cities to regulate transportation network companies in the way they see fit. Over the last couple of years, legislation was proposed on TNCs in almost every state legislature in the country. Most cities with a presence of TNCs experienced some sort of regulatory action and/or other intervention from state -level policymakers. 30 12 City Rights in an Era of Preemption State -level Action on Ride Sharing State actors have always played a prominent role in regulating transportation, and thus have continued to exercise their policy making authority to regulate TNCs. However, transportation policy—particularly regarding for -hire vehicles—has always been a local issue, as cities are the backbone of the transportation system, and related laws are enforced by local officials. State -level interventions on this issue range from legislation proposed or passed in state legislatures to regulatory rulings and state legal action. In some cases, state interventions reflect positive sentiment for sharing economy platforms. For instance, Colorado was the first state to pass legislation authorizing ride hailing statewide. While the taxi industry opposed the legislation, Governor John Hickenlooper celebrated it as an affirmative move toward innovation for the state. The bill requires TNCs to have insurance policies that cover the rider and driver, and to conduct background checks on all potential drivers. Even though the new law took power from cities to legislate on this issue, it was seen as a pro -innovation move for the state. In California, the state's Public Utility Commission (PUC) also approved a regulatory framework under which TNCs could operate legally throughout the state. The result is that taxi services continue to be regulated by cities and counties, while ride hailing services are regulated at the state level, similar to limousines and charter buses. This has created a rift between the TNC and taxi industry, the latter of which feels that they are forced to deal with more onerous regulation. In other cases, state intervention has prohibited sharing economy companies from operating legally.31 In Virginia, the state's Department of Motor Vehicles issued a cease-and-desist letter to both Uber and Lyft, causing them to halt 13 TNCs in Virginia When the Virginia state legislature passed a bill regulating the operation of TNCs in Virginia in 2015, cities were effectively prohibited from passing their own regulations. Prior to that, taxi -cab companies in the state of Virginia were regulated at the local level. TNCs changed the regulatory landscape by preempting the authority to regulate similar services from the local level and moving it to the state level. The introduction of TNC services in VA prompted some concern from local level administrators, specifically, local law enforcement agencies and airport authorities who wanted information about where these TNCs would be operating. The new law required TNCs and any TNC affiliated company to register with the state, pay an annual fee, as well as an additional renewal fee. As a result, the registration requirement shared TNC information with local officials. The current legislative session saw a new bill introduced that will eradicate the requirement that TNCs register with the state. The likely passage of this bill will result in less information being channeled to local authorities about these mobility platforms. operations in Commonwealth of Virginia. Since July of 2015, there has been state -level regulation in place that set forth a framework for how TNCs can operate in Virginia. Local I m pact Transportation and the way it is regulated is wedded to factors like geography, demographics and local economic activity. Furthermore, local government officials are closest to citizens, and thus most conscious of their priorities and values. Cities need the opportunity to assess their transportation needs and make policy decisions that best serve their residents. While "The state has always, through the Public Utilities Commission, regulated taxis, and TNCs have always been seen as an adjunct to taxis. Cities weren't necessarily trying to get involved or have a bigger stake in that initial policy discussion. It was seen as a sort of pro -innovation move that set up minimal requirements to protect the public safety. That was welcomed:' // MARK RADTKE, COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE City Rights in an Era of Preemption embracing innovative technologies and platforms such as TNCs can reflect positive, pro -innovation sentiment and offer more mobility options to individuals, state level policies tend to overlook local nuances. Most importantly, they limit cities' ability to regulate ride hailing in ways that make the most sense for a particular community. Home Sharing Home sharing, also commonly referred to as short-term rentals, is recognized as an organized agreement between two parties, in which one party rents out all or part of his or her home to another party on a temporary, one-time basis through a third party platform (e.g. Airbnb and HomeAway). While the insurgence of TNCs was much more sudden, and caught many cities off -guard, home sharing is something that has been taking place in many communities in slightly altered forms for decades. Companies such as Vacation Rental by Preemption By State _ es with home sharing preemption r_1 15 A Owner (VRBO) have existed for quite some time, and although the user interface has changed to a digital platform, the actual service is quite similar. For example, in the state of Colorado, seasonal and vacation properties have historically played a significant role in the economy. However, in recognizing the place -based nuance and contextual nature of this issue, the state leaves the regulation of short-term rentals to its cities. The city of Denver was among the first in the nation to roll out a short-term rental portal, making it much easier for city residents to comply with the local regulation 32 State -level Action on Home Sharing In October of 2016, the state of New York passed a law making it illegal to list short-term rentals on Airbnb and other platforms. The state already had an existing law in place that prohibits individuals from renting out units for a time period of less than 30 days. The new law took an extra measure Likely because of the hyper - local nature of neighborhood zoning laws, far fewer state A, legislatures have preempted city authority over home sharing. To date, only three state legislatures in Arizona, Florida, and New York have passed laws that restrict local authority on these issues. to prohibit any advertising of such illegal rentals, essentially blocking the platforms that individuals might use to do s0.33 While this action makes it difficult for individuals throughout the state of New York to use short-term rental platforms as a way to generate revenue, it was especially meactful in large metropolitan areas such as New York City, where the short-term rental market has become quite substantial. Airbnb struck back with a lawsuit hours after the bill was signed into law.34 Conversely, a law that went into effect on January 1, 2017 in Arizona severely limits local control in a very different way. The new law ends cities' ability to restrict or ban short-term rental platforms, essentially making them legal everywhere with some limited regulatory authority. It also requires the platforms to collect taxes, which are then turned over to the state 35 Local Impact Restricting the role of cities in regulating short- term rentals is ultimately detrimental to residents. Whether laws passed by the state are prohibitive like New York's or enabling like Arizona's, they fail to acknowledge the reality that city leaders know best what their residents' desire and what their neighborhoods can accommodate. Statewide home sharing laws also may potentially hamper local tax collection in some instances, essentially eliminating or circumventing any tax revenue that could potentially benefit the city. While Arizona's law positions the state to embrace the sharing economy, it also positions the state government to reap the benefits of commercial transactions that take place at the local level. While embracing innovation is laudable, city governments deserve to shape the zoning laws and regulation that impacts their neighborhoods and the people who live in them. 16 City Rights in an Era of Preemption Municipal Broadband Municipal broadband is high-speed internet service provided to consumers by either a public entity, such as a local government or public utility, ora public-private partnership, rather than a private telecommunications provider. These networks may be wired fiber networks or wireless services, and may exist in dense cities or rural towns. At least 492 municipal networks are currently operating across the United States 36 Communities may establish municipal broadband networks for a variety of reasons. Access to broadband can increase residential property values, increase commercial business activity and spur viable employment options in isolated communities. Broadband, whether publicly or privately provided, opens doors to education, healthcare, recreation and business growth 37 Preemption By State States with municipal broadband preemption The reason most commonly cited for establishing a municipal broadband service, particularly by smaller communities, is that the community in question is unserved or underserved by incumbent providers.38 Buildout of a fiber network is expensive, and may not make sense for an incumbent provider who can only acquire a limited number of subscribers in a sparsely - populated or geographically isolated area of new buildout. Other communities may find that, after having built a fiber ring to connect municipal or school buildings, or updating a utility's grid to allow for smart metering, the cost to extend last - mile service from that ring is relatively low and will allow the public provider to offer broadband at a competitive cost to their residents. A total of 17 states have preempted their municipalities from �. establishing a public broadband service. V 17 Municipal Broadband Challenges at the Federal Level In recent years, two public providers, the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Tenn., and the city of Wilson, N.C., established public broadband service to their electricity customer base. Chattanooga's utility began building out a "smart grid" in 2009, and began offering fiber to its customers in 2010. Tennessee law prohibits the Electric Power Board from offering communications services beyond its existing customer base, and so has been blocked from expanding its offerings to nearby communities. Wilson established a similar network, and ran into similar roadblocks when attempting to offer broadband services to neighboring cities. The two cities petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for relief from their state statutes, and on February 16, State -level Action State preemption of municipal broadband generally falls into two categories: either explicitly prohibiting a public entity from providing broadband, or having the effect of prohibiting public broadband by placing sufficient barriers before local governments attempt to pursue municipal broadband. Outright prohibitions in state statute may bar local governments from providing any communications services at all (e.g. Texas Utilities Code, § 54.201 et seq.), or may prohibit municipalities over a certain size from providing telecommunications services (i.e. Nevada Statutes § 268.086, § 710.147). More common are procedural barriers that may take the form of processes such as required ballot initiatives (i.e. Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, and North Carolina), feasibility studies (i.e. Virginia and Wisconsin), or proof that the local incumbent provider cannot or will not provide broadband to the community in question (i.e. California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Montana, Florida). Particularly in smaller communities, these 2015, the FCC preempted the provisions of North Carolina and Tennessee law that blocked expansion of municipal service beyond utility customer boundaries.39 However, both North Carolina and Tennessee sued, and in August 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the FCC's decision, finding that the agency lacked congressional authority to preempt state law.40 procedural barriers may be insurmountable, especially when they necessitate expensive studies or requirements to be self-supporting or immediately profitable. Local Impact The effective impact of state preemption of municipal broadband has varied from state to state. Preemption has resulted in a chilling effect on municipal broadband projects in most preempted states, with barrier -free states hosting a larger number and variety of public networks. In some states, preemption statutes have renewed local efforts to explore municipal broadband as an option for their residents. For example, in Colorado, a 2005 state bill prohibited municipal utilities from offering broadband, with an exemption for those local governments that have gained approval through a ballot referendum. By 2017, 65 municipalities and 28 counties in Colorado had held successful ballot referenda to allow publicly provided broadband. Six public entities in Colorado have launched broadband networks. is 111 2015, the FCC preempted the provisions of North Carolina and Tennessee law that blocked expansion of municipal service beyond utility customer boundaries.39 However, both North Carolina and Tennessee sued, and in August 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the FCC's decision, finding that the agency lacked congressional authority to preempt state law.40 procedural barriers may be insurmountable, especially when they necessitate expensive studies or requirements to be self-supporting or immediately profitable. Local Impact The effective impact of state preemption of municipal broadband has varied from state to state. Preemption has resulted in a chilling effect on municipal broadband projects in most preempted states, with barrier -free states hosting a larger number and variety of public networks. In some states, preemption statutes have renewed local efforts to explore municipal broadband as an option for their residents. For example, in Colorado, a 2005 state bill prohibited municipal utilities from offering broadband, with an exemption for those local governments that have gained approval through a ballot referendum. By 2017, 65 municipalities and 28 counties in Colorado had held successful ballot referenda to allow publicly provided broadband. Six public entities in Colorado have launched broadband networks. is City Rights in an Era of Preemption In North Carolina, effects have been more mixed, largely due to political battles fought at both the state and federal levels of government. North Carolina's preemption statute dates to 2011, and triggered a 2015 FCC proceeding that temporarily blocked the state preemption. When the 61" Circuit Court overturned that decision in 2016, North Carolina cities not only lost some municipal broadband capabilities, they also lost political capital within the state legislature. The conflict over municipal broadband helped to drive a wedge between North Carolina cities and their state legislators, and the court's decision to overturn the FCC's ruling strengthened the state legislature's position that cities had become too powerful in North Carolina and needed to be reined in - as evidenced by recent preemption legislation on other issues." 19 Tax and Expenditure Limitations Tax and Expenditure Limitations (TELs) are state or voter -imposed limitations on the ability of local governments to raise revenue, spend taxes or both. TELs began in the 1970s in response to voter dissatisfaction with rapidly increasing inflation, property taxes and cost of government. Washington, Ohio and North Dakota were early adopters of TELs in various forms. It was California's Proposition 13, capping property taxes to one percent of home purchase price, which set the stage for widespread scrutiny and limitations of local taxing structures 12 State -Level Action At the local level, the most common TELs affect property taxes by constraining one or more Fiscal Authority by State elements of the revenue structure, including: cap on the property tax rate, limit on the growth in local property assessment, and/or limit on the total levy (revenue) growth from property taxes from year to year. Adjusting one or more of these components has varying impacts on tax revenue. Less (or non-) binding TELs: There are some instances in which limits placed on local governments can be circumvented, these are called "less (or non-) binding" TELs 13 For example, a rate limit alone could be circumvented by raising assessments, or an assessment limit alone could be circumvented by raising the property tax rate. Cities in nine states face less (or non-) binding property tax TELs. No TELs Potentially binding property tax limit Less binding property tax limi_ Binding property tax limit & general limit total of 42 states have enacted some sort of tax and expenditure limitation. Nine states have a less binding property tax limit, 26 have a potentially binding property tax limit, and seven have a binding property tax limit & a general limit. 1 City Rights in an Era of Preemption Potentially binding TELS: Potentially binding TELS are those in which there is either a property tax levy limit or some combination of rate and assessment limits together that negate the ability of cities to circumvent the limits. Although constraining, these TELS are identified as "potentially" binding because they are often statutory limits set so high that it is unlikely a city would come close to being limited by them. Cities in 26 states face potentially binding property tax TELS. Binding TELS: Similar to potentially binding TELS, binding TELS involve a levy limit, or an assessment and rate limit together. However, unlike potentially binding TELS, binding TELS create a very narrow base and rate of growth for property taxes, like California's Proposition 13. Cities in seven states face binding property tax TELS. Cities in only eight states are not subject to TELS. Local Impact Although the types of TELS described here capture much of what cities experience in terms of property tax limitations, there are nuances in some states that create additional limitations, as well as opportunities to bypass limits. For example, although Tennessee does not have traditional restrictions on local property tax rates or assessments, taxation law requires that the property tax rate be reset after a reappraisal to raise the same amount of revenue as the prior year. A council majority vote can circumvent this limitation. In Louisiana, although property tax revenue cannot exceed the amount collected in a prior year, the cities of New Orleans and Shreveport have established special purpose taxing districts that generate revenues exempt from TELS to pay for city bond, infrastructure maintenance, additional police and fire services, and downtown develoements.11 Given TEL exemptions for special purposes or voter overrides, it is possible for 21 property tax revenue in a city to exceed the levy ceiling imposed by TELS. Despite these work-arounds, TELS still impact fiscal policy decisions and pose challenges, particularly for property tax dependent cities. For example, in South Carolina, Act 388 (2006) caps the amount of property taxes that can be raised from year to year. A city may exceed the cap under one or more of seven exceptions (i.e., if a city needed to exceed the cap to make up a prior year deficit). In cases where exceptions do not apply, the TEL has a large impact on city revenues because of cities' high reliance on the property tax. To help offset the cap, cities often adjust fiscal policy by increasing the amount or rate of the other fees and taxes available to them. A recent study of cities across the country found that the most common fiscal policy action taken when a city approaches the ceiling of property taxes set by state -imposed TELS is to increase sales taxes.45 Lessons from Colorado Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) is an amendment (Article X, Section 20) designed to limit the size of government that was added to the state constitution by voters in 1992. The most widely known provision is the requirement that any tax increase or debt question be approved by voters. The implications of TABOR for local governments, however, are much more wide-ranging. It imposes annual limits on both government revenue and spending. Each year, municipalities may only retain tax and fee revenues (federal funds are exempt) equal to the previous year's revenue plus the percentage of the consumer price index (CPI) combined with the percentage of net new construction of real property improvements. For example, if the CPI rose one percent and net new construction increased two percent, current year municipal revenues could increase three percent over the previous year. Any revenue collected over that amount must be refunded to taxpayers. If revenues decrease—as they did for some municipalities in the recent recession—the following year the formula is applied to that lower revenue figure, leading to lower revenues not only in the recession year, but for many years to come. This is known as the ratchet - down effect. There is an escape hatch, however, as voters may override the revenue limits on a temporary or permanent basis. Municipalities have been very successful when asking for over -rides, with an 86 percent approval rate. Fee-based enterprise funds, such as a water utility, that receive less than 10 percent of their budgets from tax money are exempt from TABOR requirements. Municipal budgets must include a 3 percent emergency reserve fund. Sales and property taxes are the primary revenue sources for Colorado municipalities, and they are prohibited from collecting an income tax or adopting a real estate transfer tax. The state is barred from collecting a property tax. Source: Colorado Municipal League, 2017 22 City Rights in an Era of Preemption Other Areas of Preemption Preemption provisions can be and have been added to a multitude of different state policies. The following are a sampling of popular ones enacted. Plastic bags As local governments are leading the effort to limit plastic waste, state legislatures are working to preempt local ordinances banning or taxing single -use plastic bags and containers. At least five states (Arizona, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin) have barred local governments from regulating plastic bags in the past two years.' Guns/firearm safety Cities are increasingly losing their power to regulate guns and firearm safety. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, only seven states give their local governments broad authority to regulate firearms and ammunition. 4' These states also rank among those with the lowest gun death rates. In the remaining 43 states, local firearm and ammunition regulation that is more stringent than existing state law is preempted in one way or another. Nutrition While states and localities are preempted from regulating menu labels by the federal government, states have extended preemption of nutrition -based laws even more. Eight states have laws that preempt localities from a wide range of nutrition -based regulations, from portion sizes to nutritional labeling to promotional games and toys.18 23 Inclusionary zoning & rent control Inclusionary zoning is the term given to local planning ordinances that require a given share of new construction to be affordable by people with low to moderate incomes. Hundreds of local governments have implemented such policies 19 Until 2016, Oregon and Texas were the two states that did not allow inclusionary zoning. Oregon has since lifted its preemption of inclusionary zoning and Kansas has now enacted its own. In two states (Colorado and Wisconsin), inclusionary zoning ordinances have been invalidated as conflicting with the state's prohibition on rent control.SO Rent control refers to the limits on the rent that landlords may charge. Cities set these price ceilings in an effort to maintain affordable housing. However, cities in 26 states are preempted from imposing rent controls, according to The National Multifamily Housing Councils Recommendations & Conclusion Our analysis finds extensive variation in the number of preemptions and the application of these laws across states. Only two states, Connecticut and Vermont, do not preempt their cities in any of the seven policy areas we examined. In addition to the caveats we detail throughout the report, the broader political environment also affects the opportunities and challenges cities and their advocates face when dealing with preemption. We asked several state leagues for recommendations for their peers, and they pointed to the need to choose their battles wisely and to help change the pro -preemption narrative within their state. Choose Preemption Battles Wisely Preemption can arise for political or policy reasons or a combination of the two. In most cases, cities and their advocates want to avoid legislation or proposals that limit city authority. Conversations with state municipal leagues suggest that there may be cases where preemption is either unavoidable or can have an overall positive affect, like streamlined regulations across the state to encourage business development. The key in these cases is active communication between state legislators and city officials to minimize any negative effects of the preemption and to steer the legislation in the best way possible. State municipal leagues also noted the need to carefully consider how and when they use their limited political capital with their state when confronting preemption and other challenges on multiple fronts. "Choosing your battles wisely" was a common refrain. Address the Preemption Narrative The rise of preemptive legislation suggests that state governments are concerned about increased local autonomy and the patchwork of regulations that may exist within the state. As a result, a pro -preemption narrative is emerging in an attempt to but cities in their place. State leagues can take an active role in combating this narrative. For example, the North Carolina League of Municipalities is reshaping the narrative away from "cities are out of control" to "cities help the state." The league takes the approach of avoiding politics in favor of an economic argument. They frame preemption as obstructing cities from being the best drivers of development that they can be. State preemption limits the ability of cities to address critical local issues and to uphold the values of those living in their communities. Our call for local control is intended to give cities the ability to adapt and to have the tools they need to build stronger economies, promote innovation and move their states - and ultimately the country - forward. 24 City Rights in an Era of Preemption Endnotes 1 Warren, Emily, "When States Interfere with City -Level Innovation: Preemption and Implications for Cities;' 21st Century Cities Initiative, Johns Hopkins University, December, 2016 2 Covert, Bryce, "The Conservative Backlash Against Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Victories Sweeping the Nation;' ThinkProgress, June 16, 2016, https://thinkprogress.org/the- co nservative-backlash-aga inst-m in im a m -wage -and -pa id - sick -leave -victories -sweeping -the -nation -61 f26429300a#. igy7umenw 3 "Preemption Map;' Grassroots Change, http:// grassrootschange.net/preemption-map/#/category/paid-sick- days 4 Platt, Elizabeth R., "States Attempting to Preempt LGBT- Friendly Municipalities;' Columbia Law School, http://blogs. law.columbia.edu/publicrightsprivateconscience/2016/02/1l/ states-attem pting-to-preem pt-Igbt-friend ly-m a nici pal ities/. 5 "Map of State -Level Ridesharing Laws;' R Street, June 1, 2016, http://www.rstreet.org/tnc-map/. 6 Bennett, Jared and Reity O'Brien, "A State -by -State Guide to Short-term Rental Legislation;' The Center for Public Integrity, July 15, 2015, https://www.publicintegrity. org/2015/07/15/17656/state-state-gu ide-short-term-renta I - legislation 7 Baller, James, "State Restrictions on Community Broadband Services or Other Public Communications Initiatives' The Baller Herbst Law Group, August 10, 2016, http://www.baller. com/wp-content/uploads/BallerHerbstStateBarriers8-10-16. pdf 8 Hoene, Christopher W. and Christiana K. McFarland, "Cities and State Fiscal Structure;" National League of Cities, 2015, http://www.nlc.org/resource/cities-and-state-fiscal- structure-2015 9 National League of Cities, "Local Government Authority;' http://www.nlc.org/local-government-authority 10 Clinton v. Cedar Rapids and the Missouri River Railroad, 24 Iowa 455 (1868) 11 Rivlin-Nadler, Max, "Preemption Bills: A New Conservative Tool to Block Minimum Wage Increases;' New Republic, February 29, 2016, https://newrepublic.com/article/130783/ preemption -bills -new -conservative -tool -block -minimum wage-increases. reemption-bilIs-new-conservative-tool-block-minimumwage-increases. 12 "Living Wage Mandate Preemption Act;' American Legislative Exchange Council, January 28, 2013, https//www. alec.org/model-policy/living-wage-mandate-preemption-act/. 13 Bultman, Matthew, "Ky. High Court Strikes Louisville Minimum Wage Ordinance;' Law360, October 21, 2016, https.// www.law360.com/articles/854013/ky-high-court-strikes- Iouisville-minimum-wage-ordinance. 14 Barton, Ryland, "Kentucky Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisville Minimum Wage Ordinance;' WEPT, October 20, 2016, http://wfpl.org/kentucky-supreme-court-strikes-down- Iouisville-minimum-wage-ordinance/. 15 Petroski, William, "Branstad to Explore Statewide Minimum Wage Hike;' Des Moines Register, October 24, 2016, http:// www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2016/10/24/ bra nstad-backs-statewide-m in im um -wage -h ike/92673274/. 16 "Missouri Supreme Court Orders Kansas City Vote on Wage Hike;' Associated Press, January 17, 2017, http://www.stltoday. co m/business/local/m isso uri-supreme-court-orders-ka nsas- city-vote-on-wage-hike/a rticle_5a7bael b-d39e-539e-acOe- la4lcclbcOOe.html. 17 Livingston, Gretchen, "Among 41 Nations, US is the Outlier 25 when it Comes to Paid Parental Leave;' Pew Research Center, September 26, 2016, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- ta nk/2016/09/26/u-s-lacks-ma ndated-paid-pa yenta I -leave/. 18 "DOL Factsheet Paid Family and Medical Leave;' U.S. Department of Labor, June, 2015, https://www.dol.gov/wb/ paid leave/PDF/Pa id Leave.pdf. 19 "State Paid Family Leave Insurance Laws;' National Partnership for Women and Families, April, 2016, http://www. national pa rtnershi p.org/research-li bra ry/work-family/paid- leave/state-pa id-fam i ly-leave-laws.pdf. 20 "Overview of San Diego's Paid Sick Time Campaign;' A Better Balance, http://archives.abetterbalance.org/ co m po nent/co ntent/a rticle/48-sick-leave/321-sa n -d iego- california. 21 Perretta, Seth, "Benefits Briefing: Paid Leave Laws & Challenges for Employers;' American Benefits Council, April 14, 2016, http://www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/pub/ d62851 fd-b3dO-dfle-fa5a-b7cceffO8771. 22 Bennett, Macaela J., "Arizona Sued Over Ban on Cities Mandating Paid Sick Leave;' Arizona Republic, July 28, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/ a rizona/2016/07/28/arizona-sued-over-ba n -cities -ma ndating- pa i d -s is k -I eave/87391478/. 23 Baker -White, Andy, "Calling in Sick: Analyzing the Legal, Political and Social Feasibility of Paid Sick Leave Ordinances;' The Network for Public Health Law, https//www. networkforphl.org/ asset/2mxh14/paid_ sick_leave.pdf. 24 "Two Years After Mayor de Blasio Expands Paid Sick Leave to One Million New Yorkers, City's Economy Stronger Than Ever;' City of New York, April 1, 2016, http://wwwl.nyc.gov/ offi ce-of-the-mayor/news/318-16/two-years-after-mayor-de- blasio-ex pa nds-pa id -sick -leave -one -mil lion-new-yorkers-city- s-economy. 25 Session Law 2016-3, House Bill 2 (N.C. 2016), http://www. ncleg.net/sessions/20]5e2/bills/house/pdf/h2v4.pdf. 26 Gordon, Michael, Mark S. Price and Katie Peralta, 'Understanding HB2: North Carolina's newest law solidifies state's role in defining discrimination;' Charlotte Observer, March 26, 2016, http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/ politics-government/article68401147.html. 27 Ellis, Emma G., "Guess How Much that Anti-LGBTO Law is Costing North Carolina;' Wired, September 18, 2016, https:// www.wi red.com/2016/09/g uess-m uch-a nti-Ig btq-law-costing- north-carolina/. 28 "Cities and Counties with Non -Discrimination Ordinances that Include Gender Identity;' Human Rights Campaign, January 28, 2016, http://www.hrc.org/resources/cities-and- counties-with-non-discrimination-ordinances-that-include- gender. 29 Casuga, Jay -Anne B. and Michael Rose, "Are State Workplace Preemption Laws on the Rise?" Bloomberg BNA, July 19, 2016, https://www.bna.com/state-workplace- preemption-n73014444995/. 30 Du Puis, Nicole and Brooks Rainwater, "Shifting Perceptions of Collaborative Consumption;' National League of Cities, 2015, http://nlc.org/resource/shifting-perceptions-of- co llaborative-co nsu m ption. 31 Forster, Dave, "Virginia DMV Orders Lyft, Uber to Stop Operating;' Virginian -Pilot, June 6, 2014, http://pilotonline. co m/news/Ioca I/tra nspo rtatio n/vi rg in is -d mv-orders-lyft- u ber-to-sto p -o perati ng/article_bdd38b84-0358-5916-aa87- 40ddee6le898.html. 32 "Denver Short Term Rental Portal;' City of Denver, https:// www.denvergov.org/STRapplication/. 33 Nunez, Michael, "New York Law Bans Airbnb Short Term Rentals." Gizmodo, October 21, 2016, http://gizmodo.com/new- yo rk-law-ba ns-ai rbn b-sho rt -term -yenta Is -1788086399. 34 Benner, Katie, "Airbnb Sues over New Law Regulating New York Rentals;' New York Times, October 21, 2016, https//www. nyti mes.com/2016/10/22/technology/new-york-passes-law- airbnb.html. 35 Bennett, Macaela, "Is Airbnb Good For Arizona7' The Arizona Republic, July 27, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/ story/news/politics/legislatu re/2016/07/27/a i rbn b -a rizona- benefits/86314492/. 36 "Community -Based Broadband Solutions: The Benefits of Competition and Choice for Community Development and Highspeed Internet Access;' Executive Office of the President, January 2015, https://muninetworks.org/sites/www. muninetworks.org/files/White-House-community-based- broad ba nd-repo rt-by-executive-office-of-the-president_1.pdf. 37 Koebler, Jason, "The City That Was Saved by the Internet;' Vice, October 27, 2016, http://motherboard.vice.com/read/ chattanooga-g iga bit -fiber -network. 38 Kruger, Lennard G. and Angele A. Gilroy, "Municipal Broadband: Background and Policy Debate;' Congressional Research Service, April 6, 2016, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/ R44080.pdf. 39 In the Matter of City of Wilson, NC, Petition for Preemption of North Carolina General Statute 160A-340 et seq. and The Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Tennessee Petition for Preemption of a Portion of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 7-52-601, 30 FCC Rcd. 2408 (FCC.), 2015 WL 1120113 40 State of Tennessee v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 15-3291/3555 (6th Cir.), http://goo.gl/JW9j Fj 41 Greenblatt, Alan, "Beyond North Carolina's LGBT Battle: States' War on Cities;' Governing, March 25, 2016, http://www. govern i ng.com/to pics/pol itics/gov-states-cities-preem ption- laws.html. 42 Hill, Edward W. et al., "A Review of Tax and Expenditure Limitations and Their Impact on State and Local Government in Ohio;' Urban Publications, 2006, http://engagedscholarship. csuohio.edu/urban facpub/530 43 This less (or non-) binding/potentially binding approach is well-documented within the academic and analytical literature on TELs. For instance, see Mullins and Wallin in Public Budgeting in Finance (2005). 44 Wang, Shu, "The effect of state -imposed tax and expenditure limits on municipal revenue structure: A legal approach" (Working paper), 2015. 45 Ibid 46 "State Plastic and Paper Bag Legislation;' National Conference of State Legislatures, November 11, 2016, http:// www.ncsi.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/ plastic -bag -leg islation.aspx. 47 "Local Authority to Regulate Firearms;' Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/ policy-areas/other-laws/loca I -authority/. 48 "Preemption Map;' Grassroots Change, http:// grassrootschange.net/preemption-map/#/category/nutrition. 49 "The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets: Lessons from the San Francisco, Washington DC and Suburban Boston Areas;' Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy, http://furmancenterorg/files/publications/ IZPolicyBrief.pdf. 50 "National Survey of Statutory and Case Law Authority for Inclusionary Zoning;' National Association of Home Builders, June, 2007, http://www.hbact.org/Resources/Documents/ Files%20H-K/inclusionary%20zoning%20manual-nahb%20 j une%202007-hol lister.pdf. 51 "Rent Control Laws by State;' National Multifamily Housing Council, http://www.nmhc.org/Research-Insight/Rent-Control- Laws-by-State/. 26 NLCNATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 1231-f7--- IP3 r tet_„--.®�o CITY OF IOWA CITY -`'°'�h MEMORANDUM Date: December 21, 2017 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager NN From: Jen Jordan, Resource Management Superintendent\ II� Re: Waste minimization efforts and curbside services update Introduction: The Resource Management Division is rolling out multiple waste minimization initiatives to reduce the amount of material landfilled, conserve resources and reduce waste. In total, the efforts are expected to reduce landfilled materials by 15,000 tons per year. History/Background: In June 2016, Resource Management staff took seven initiatives to City Council for direction. Staff was given to proceed with draft code changes and return to City Council for their formal consideration. A point-of-sale single use plastic bag ban was discussed in June; the action was pre-empted by an act of the State Legislature in the fall. In November 2016, staff returned to Council to consider the first round of the initiatives. Council passed these initiatives unanimously with the following implementation dates: • Multi-family/apartment recycling mandate in Iowa City (effective immediately, with a two- year enforcement roll-out tied to rental permits) • Television and computer monitor ban at the landfill (effective January 2, 2017) • Curbside collection of food waste for City of Iowa City curbside customers (effective immediately with roll-out in March 2017) • Secured load policy at the landfill (effective July 1, 2017) In June 2017, staff took the remaining two initiatives back to Council for their formal consideration. Both were passed unanimously with the following implementation dates: • Single stream recycling in for City of Iowa City curbside customers (fall 2017) • Corrugated cardboard ban at the landfill (January 2, 2018). The current FY18 budget includes funds to begin purchasing carts for yard/food waste collection and single stream recycling. This will be discussed in more detail below. Discussion of Solutions: Multi -family recvcling mandate in Iowa City: The mandate requires all homes in Iowa City.to have access to recycling. Single family homes up to four-plex apartments are covered by City of Iowa City curbside services; this is about 55% of Iowa City residents. The other 45% of Iowa City residents live in five-plex apartments, condominiums or other shared housing. Owners/manages have been required to provide recycling services for their tenants since the law passed in November 2016; the enforcement mechanism is the rental permit system and Neighbhorhood and Development Services is working through that in conjunction with a new dumpster screening requirement. Staff has reached out to property owners and managers directly and through the Greater Iowa City Apartment Owners Association, tenants and student groups. Resource Management staff will continue to work with NDS staff to ensure that all property owners and managers are aware of and complicit with the recycling services mandate. December 21, 2017 Page 2 It is anticipated that the landfill's cardboard ban going into effect in January 2018 will expediate the provision of recycling services. Television and computer monitor ban at the landfill: The ban was successfully implemented in January 2017. The ban effects all landfill users; the landfill service area is Johnson County and the cities of Kalona and Riverside. Recycling weights tonnages for electronics is up slightly (2- 3%) and the number of customers served at the landfill and the Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity ReStore (which accepts electronics for recycling on behalf of the landfill) has almost doubled as compared to the same period last year. Staff feels the ban implementation and compliance is going well and will continue to promote as needed. Curbside Food Waste Collection in Iowa City Resource Management staff promotes food waste reduction to save households money and conserve natural resources. Food waste collection at the curb in Iowa City began in March 2017. Food waste is picked up in the same trucks as yard waste and transported to the landfill's commercial compost facility, where it is processed into Iowa City Community Compost. In order to participate, residents had to provide their own containers (20- to 35 gallon upright cans) with annual yard waste stickers. This will change beginning January 2018: the pricing structure for yard waste services for Iowa City residents with curbside service will change as follows: • Residents will be charged $2 per month on utility bills (to parallel trash and recycling service fees). • Residents can continue to set out bundled yard waste as in the past. • Residents will no longer be required City of Iowa City to use yard waste bags; any equivalent paper yard waste bags can be used. • Residents will no longer be required to purchase yard waste stickers but may continue to use their own 20-35 gallon yard waste cans, limited to 50 pounds. Carts for yard waste and food waste: The Division is in the process of purchasing carts for residents who wish to use those. Two sizes will be offered: 25 gallons and 95 gallons. A limited quantity is in the process of being purchased now; the larger carts will be initially offered to households which set out a lot of yard/food waste. More carts may be ordered in the spring pending demand. The smaller 25 - gallon carts will be offered first-come, first serve in the early spring; more carts may be ordered pending demand. Residents may continue to use their own 20 to 35 gallon containers as long as they are under the 50 pound limit. Secured Load Policy at Landfill The secured load policy at the landfill went into effect on July 1, 2017. Based on license plate numbers, warnings are given for the first unsecured load and a $50 fee is charged for each unsecured load on that license plate. To date, the scalehouse operators have given hundreds of $0 warnings and issued $50 fees to 24 customers. The amount of litter on IWV and Hebl Avenue have been greatly reduced, as noted by staff and customers. Single stream recycling began for City of Iowa City curbside customers on Monday, December 4. Landfill staff is working with the Office of Communications to promote the new program. The exact same materials will be accepted in the program; however, customers no longer must sort their materials. Some customers have already been receiving single stream recycling service on a pilot basis; as of December 4, the new program is available to all curbside customers. Both the tonnages and participation rates have plateaued in recent years. Due to the increased ease of a single stream program and the increased promotion, staff expects to 'see an increase in both the number of customers participating in the curbside program as well as the overall tonnage recycled and diverted from the landfill. December 21, 2017 Page 3 Carts for yard waste and food waste: The Division is in the process of purchasing 65 -gallon carts with blue lids for the new single stream recycling system. A limited quantity is in the process of being purchased now; residents who consistently set out a lot of material on a regular basis will be offered a cart first to improve efficiencies. The intent is to eventually provide most customers with 65 -gallon carts with blue lids so the bins can all be picked up with recycling trucks with semi -automated or automated lift arms. This will improve the efficiency of the system, as is the intent with single stream; it will also reduce the amount of lifting and potiential injuries to curbside recycling staff. More carts will be ordered in the spring and into future fiscal years as budgets and/or grant funding allows. The Division will also asses the use of 35 -gallon carts for recycling, as has been requested by several members of the public. Corrugated cardboard ban The corrugated cardboard ban will go into effect at the landfill on January 2, 2017. Any load of trash arriving at the landfill with any discernable amount of corrugated cardboard will be charged twice the rate for the load. Staff has heavily promoted the ban with much assistance from the Office of Communications. Financial Impact: • Multi-family/apartment recycling mandate: o cost to City: staff time for promotion and inspections, minor printing costs o cost to apartment owners and managers: additional recycling services. The cost of recycling services from a 2012 City of Iowa City pilot program averaged $2.60 per month per unit. o cost to renters: it is likely that in most cases, apartment owners and managers will pass along the cost of recycling services to renters. • Television and computer monitor ban at the landfill o Cost to City: additional costs are covered by the recycling fee charged to customers at the landfill and at the Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity ReStore o Cost to customers: $12 or $17 per unit, depending on screen size • Curbside collection of food waste for City of Iowa City curbside customers o Cost to City: staff time for promotion, minor printing costs. Cost of carts and service will be covered by Solid Waste Surcharge funds and the new $2/month fee on utility bill beginning January 2, 2018. • Secured load policy at the landfill o Cost to City: staff time for promotion, printing costs. o Cost to non -complying customers after first warning: $50. Since July 1, 24 customers have been charged the $50 fee. • Single stream recycling in for City of Iowa City curbside customers o Cost to City: the City's contracted recycling services partner, Republic Services, charges $65 per ton for single stream material. Staff is working on an RFP to see if other companies can offer better rates. Staff time, printing promotional materials and 65 -gallon carts are budgeted within the current fiscal year and are projected in the next fiscal year. Grant funding will be sought for additional carts. o Cost to customers: customers saw a rate increase in July 2016 from $4.10 to $5.10 per month. An increase is not projected for FY19.. Corrugated cardboard ban at the landfill o Cost to City: staff time for promotion and load inspections at curb and landfill, printing and promotional costs. o Cost to customers: Iowa City curbside customers with corrugated cardboard in their trash carts will not see an increased cost; however, their trash will not be picked up if it contains corrugated cardboard. At the landfill, customers with corrugated cardboard in their trash loads will be charged twice the regular fee. Recommendation: December 21, 2017 Page 4 In total, the waste minimization efforts summarized above are expected to divert approximately 15,000 tons of materials from the landfill annually. Staff will continue to promote, roll out and evaluate these programs in the coming months. Cc: Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Rodney Walls, Assistant Solid Waste Superintendent Jane Wilch, Recycling Coordinator T2_- f7 -- r 1Pa CITY OF IOWA CITY -�;7� MEMORANDUM Date: December 20, 2017 To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk Re: 2018 Listening Post Tentative Schedule Tentative quarterly dates for 2018 Council Listening Posts: • February (week of February 121) Kirkwood Community College, Iowa City Campus • May (week of May 14th) • August (week of August 131) • November (week of November 12th) Future listening post suggested sites include: • Farmer's Market (Wednesday or Saturday) • Baculis Mobile Home Park Past sites include: 2016 o Pheasant Ridge Neighborhood Center -April 2016 o Old Capitol Center - April 2016 o Forest View Trailer Court - June 2016 o Farmer's Market (Chauncey Swan Facility) - September 2016 o Senior Center Lobby - November 2016 2017 o Broadway Neighborhood Center- April 2017 o Kiwanis Park (in conjunction with Party in the Park) - June 2017 o Uptown Bill's -September 2017 o Oaknoll Retirement Residence - November 2017 S:Tentalive schedule 2018.doc Iowa City Crime Trends and Responses Crimes Reported Annual Comparisons Iowa Comparisons ICPD Response t• SHOOTING'EVERY DAY' REQUIRES COMMUNITY RESPONSE 125 shootings so far, more than 2014's total 29 shooting arrests so far RESIDENTS REACT TO SHOOTINGSI Ve don't feel safe anymore' Cli sari r"it s Timac — Unrrh 10 7r11 F 2016 Shots fired calls down slightly from 2015 Quad City Times — Dec. 27, 2016 Davenport police have responded to 150 confirmed reports of shots fired since Jan. 1, down from 168 in 2015, according to data obtained by the Quad -City Times. SIOUX CITY POLICE CONFIRM THIRD DRIVE-BY SHOOTING Sioux City Journal - July 9, 2015 Three drive-by shootings reported Tuesday Des Moines Register— Dec. 2, 20-15 Des Moines police responded to three reports of gunshots that hit houses and cars on the city's east side- ... it's more evidence of an apparent uptick in gun violence since the city's suffered five deaths during three separate shootings in the past 10 days. 21 Des Moineshomicides most since 1990 -.�?s I..Ictines Regis — If 2015 seemed like a particularly violent and deadly year for Des Moines. it's because it was. Gun violence drops in Cedar Rapids Cedar Rapids Gazette — January 22, 2017 Despite the brutal start, Cedar Rapids in 2416 saw its first drop of shots -fired incidents in three years. Overall, there were 86 such incidents last year, a 14 percent decrease from 2015's total of 100. Importantly, homicides also were down in 2016: four compared with six in 2015 and eight in 2014. Trio of Cedar Rapids shootings remain under investigation City has seen 64 shots fired incidents so far this year Cedar Rapids Gazette — Oct. 23, 2017 Police said when the victim approached Rarey about his insult. Rarey pulled a knife and stabbed the man twice in the abdomen. The man was hospitalized for several days due to his injuries, police said. Rarey admitted to the stabbing. String of serious Iowa City crimes, homicides put police, prosecutors to the test Authorities working long hours on homicide, attempted murder investigations CRY Hapids Gazette- Oct. 20, 2017 There have been three homicide investigations this year. From 2010 to 2018, there were two homicides investigated by Iowa City police. The last time three homicide investigations took place in the same year was 2008. There also have been four attempted murder investigations this year, up from only one in 2016. 2014 WAS A DEADLY YEAR FOR WATERLOO VvaterloofCedar Falls Courier — March 22, 2015 Crime numbers released by the Waterloo Police Department show 2014 had the highest number of slayings in 20 years with six people the victim of homicide. UPDATE: One dead, one injured in Cedar Falls shooting WaterloofCedar Falls Courier — Nov. 11, 2417 Alex Michael Bullerman, 18, of Waterloo. died of a single gunshot wound after he was found behind an apartment building at 2303 Olive St., according to Cedar Fall police. A short time later, 18 -year-old Dylan James Gehrke, also of Waterloo, arrived at a hospital by private vehicle with a single gunshot wound to his lower right leg. • ICPD enters data on all criminal offenses into a records management system (RMS) • Annually report that data to the National Incident -Based Reporting System (NIBRS) • NIBRS collects serious crime data from local, state, and federal agencies • Group A crimes: serious crimes such as murder, robbery, sex offenses, burglary, theft, etc • NIBRS does not collect less serious crimes, but ICPD does • Group B: disorderly conduct, OWI, curfew, etc AggravarC " uN 124 128 133 115 104 All Other Larceny 440 317 257 408 458 Arson 3 7 5 3 1 Assisting or Promoting Prostitution 10 0 0 0 0 Bribery 0 0 0 0 1 BurglarylBreaking & Entering 420 357 282 398 299 CounterfeiVForgery 104 109 135 86 120 Credit Card1ATM Fraud 67 101 40 66 128 CurfewlLodering/Vagrancy Violations 0 0 0 4 3 DestructionfDamagelVandalism of Property 581 542 506 488 628 DrugJNarcotic Violations 423 543 422 354 424 Drug Equipment Violations 207 254 206 191 174 Embezzlement 24 15 25 20 17 ExtortionlBla.ckmail 1 3 5 1 6 False ProtonseslSwindle 202 221 258 171 187 Forcible Fondling 28 37 32 28 27 Forcible Rape 55 39 41 52 54 Forcible Sodomy 5 6 0 3 4 Impersonation 1 6 2 231' 94 Intimidation 74 47 88 61 50 Kidnapping/Abduction 7 6 6 5 7 Motor Veh i cle Theft 74 95 87 83 95 MurderlNon-Negligent Manslaughter 1 0 1 0 0 Negligent Manslaughter 1 0 0 0 0 Peeping Tom 0 0 0 2 3 Pick Pocketing 6 11 15 8 9 PomographylObscene Material 4 0 7 3 4 Prostitution 4 1 0 1 13 Purse Snatching 1 0 0 1 3 Robbery 41 62 58 34 46 Sex Assault With Object 0 3 0 2 1 Sex Offenses -Non -forcible Incest 0 0 0 1 0 Shoplifting 415 403 389 359 229 Simple Assault 497 543 564 553 646 Statutory Rape 1 1 1 1 2 Stolen Property Offenses 91 15 17 7 11 TheftfMotorVehicle Parts 42 60 61 34 30 Theft from Build'i'ng 406 483 518 348 288 Theft from Coin Operated Machine 4 7 3 4 4 Theft from Motor Vehicle 172 229 237 357 200 Weapons Law Violation 25 26 31 20 24 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 1 1 Wire Fraud .-) C., 1,�� 2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year YTD City Wid Select Offenses- Persons 140 1.33 m 124 120 ■ , 1 115 104 100 62 58 60 33 46 41 $; aq34 31 2� 26 24 20 20 1 0 1 0 0 . 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20171 Lf Lr ■ Weapons ■AggAmault ■ Robbery ■Murder * 2016 - Full calendar year unless noted * * 2017 - Year to date 12-10-17 unless noted Statistics compiled by Dubuque PD Confirmed Shots Fired Murders 2016* 2017** 2016* 2017** Davenport 152 146 6 12 Cedar Rapids 77 67 4 4 Waterloo 99 84 3 5 Dubuque 26 19 1 1 lovva city 20 20 0 4 Ames 3 3 1 1 * 2016 - Full calendar year unless noted * * 2017 - Year to date 12-10-17 unless noted Statistics compiled by Dubuque PD Crime Comparisons in Iowa sorted by violent crime (2016 FBI) IOWA Offenses Known to Law Enforcement by City, 2016 Per Nfurder and Rape, Per -NIDtor 'Violent Capita I nonnegligent (revised Aggravated Property I Capita Larceny- vehicle: City Population crime rate manslaughter definition)' Robbery assault crime rate Burglar{ theft theft Arson Des Moines 211.501 1.497 7.07 13 140 318 1.026 8.881 41.99 1.944 5.920 1.017 44 Davenport 103,118 750 7.27 7 88 155 500 5,001 48.49 1,155 3,436 410 8 Waterloo 68.470 507 7.40 3 56 61 387 2.120 30.92 614 1.368 138 24 Cedar Rapids 131,181 387 295 4 67 100 216 5,019 38.26 995 3.670 354 19 Sioux Citt� 82.819 365 4.40 1 40 59 265 3.247 39.20 592 2.363 292 13 Iowa Cite 75.5271 2.60 0 39 43 115 20.53 294 1.169 88 1 1971 1.551 Council Bhiff's 62.642 2.39 4 27 55 64 61.65 387 3.043 432 16 150 3.862 NVest Des Moines 65.631 149 2.27 1 24 19 105 1.513 23.05 147 1.296 70 7 Ames- 66.333 107 1.61 1 39 15 52 1.077 16.23 164 867 46 1 Per capita = per 1000 inhabitants 700 5-00 500 400 100 c;n City Wide Select Offenses Property 628 581 2012 357 542 506 282 2297 ■ 237 348 357 488 2013 2014 2015 ■ Burglary ■ Theft Frame MV ■ Vandalism 299 2(M 2B1f� 494 1111111 Residential Business Vehicle Crime Mapping at www.icgov.org I-10fiday Rd Mall Waterworks Prairie Park �-- ®. 346th fil NE .; que Rd Qatar R(j M D C Hickory a Park, Rd Hlii Park Herbert Hop:vgr OL, pyo I } � +u .. The University - m rnikbine Golf Course Q of Iowa I '•:t[7%rS� t _ -ity Kinnick Stadium Weer©se Ave Ursit�� n 9 W C- a yrt 5t<G7 - 9i rn E Cou9 � g hts KirkM4o�lneAYe Rd 9mY T �Gr C) � t717 q�E �!Q! i - �a,,on Trek Blvd Terry Trueblood + 420th st sr N - Recreation Area Downtown Neighborhood 929 -�4 .ial[ sxp 851 848 967 I.+R 9V'E tiT MAN IU AllDITCMlI'UM E N — � CNe�Exc X -I ST f AXMCIM'ILb�EY i C Y ��.cs• ce. �� I ,fin su _. _ c kEALI � M�ucy Ffo9ENld Rv�u'gECta MEl.40RIAt E. ht AI2MLt S:i , EwCE u NION. I-�.SO0 .EST 8 e..... ✓A AIIF e i?a �y(E 131 P:I�(�Uli�/ERSiTT - k 256 FICC 255 �}�} 236 i46 11L.P .i�.. � E E3.uRLIMGTON sT RECR AM 11 AND NE WL5—Mr RF E 9 5 76 78 59 •bt Ril ti.�'IM 'n pQ��tit WE1iV 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016C0MPu5 ,. ■ Burglary ■Threft ■ 0isturbanceCPS MI— e-f�C9U-ILYN OV c,oiiege careen imeignoornooa 79 77 41 26 ■ 11 ■ 11 2014 2015 Ly, F Ali?N AV f- ARN ATWPPD C:Ai,.U-0FiNIAAVL .� x j -i z z I +�w.caeL'�E LIH d z 4 Z 4 ��ncra Tra r,l "� •. .. . WHf titin I z c7 0 0 =-- 0 0 0 a 0 a 5a '� 31 2012 Grantwood Neighborhood 31 19 ■■ L 22 34 ■■ 0 2014 2015 W R—Lnne ■ThaFF mnict,rhmn—r`E: Southeast Neighborhood 138 145 2412 2013 2014 2015 ■Burglary ■Theft ■disxurbanceGFS 131 2416 139 135 120 100 80 6.0 32 23 15 17 138 145 2412 2013 2014 2015 ■Burglary ■Theft ■disxurbanceGFS 131 2416 TRACY LN CROse, OSKY 14", F 1 4, 400 350 300 250 212 200 150 100 50 Wetherby Neighborhood 289 366 291 2013 2014 2015 2.015 mBurglary mTheft oDisturbanceM 226 2017(12-12) • Educate the public on preventing crime • Focused Deterrence • Increase our interaction and communication with high rate offenders, gang members and drug sellers • Social Networking Analysis • Hard work but fragile work • Getting entire department involved • ICPD Strategic Plan to include crime reduction • Developing a robust and digestible criminal intelligence system • Utilizing directed patrols • Assigned additional staffing to investigations section • Made recent arrests for murder, weapons, burglary, robbery • Recovered stolen property • Many times such crimes are committed by the same individuals • Community involvement to help solve crimes • Requesting two additional police positions in FY2019 budget • We are NOT • Using a "stop everything that moves" technique • Using pre -text stops as a primary investigation tool • Such techniques deteriorate trust and legitimacy in policing i 011 ll Y OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OFLJ7 ,TURF � 2=2fTT IP6 Downtown City Gardens - Johnson County Master Gardener — 2017 Report There is no greater satisfaction than being a part of something bigger than oneself. Volunteering in Downtown City Gardens is a rewarding experience for me personally, and if the comments made by visitors, workers and students in the area are any indication, the efforts are also appreciated by others. I am grateful to city staff, past and present, for the opportunity to serve my community in this meaningful and fulfilling way. Summary of Activities and Partners: In 2017, DCG enjoyed assistance from Master Gardener volunteers every weekend throughout the growing/fall season and also received planting assistance from the University of Iowa REACH program students in both the spring and fall. I also enjoyed numerous opportunities to work on several ongoing and new JCMG projects this year. Noteworthy: Renewed Garden added to Old Capitol Parking Garage This spring, UI REACH students helped plant all the canvas and other perennials on three sides of the city's busiest parking facility. In the fall after trimming unruly Russian lavender and grasses on the west side of the Old Capitol Parking Garage, a new peony and rudbeckia garden was added to greet motorists as they parked. This new area, planted with help from four, third -year UI REACH students, their coordinator and mentors, will bloom in 2018, the 50th anniversary year of Project GREEN, the organization responsible for helping create green spaces in the downtown. The students also added 1,100 daffodil and allium bulbs in Project GREEN Gardens at the Ned Ashton House, 820 Park Road, and 12 dozen daylilies at the Johnson County Fairgrounds. These efforts were coordinated with assistance from Carol Sweeting, volunteer coordinator for the City of Iowa City. Working with the students is another satisfying aspect of JCMG volunteering. (See Press -Citizen Guest Opinion attached page 3-4.) Downtown Pet Relief Stations: In March 2017, Iowa City staff installed three Pet Relief Station locations in Downtown Iowa City near apartments and condos, and away from al fresco dining areas to provide responsible pet owners a space to visit to relieve their pets. The space is intended to protect plants from trampling and ammonia in pet urine, which kills plants and damages trees in Downtown gardens. To celebrate the new service, Iowa City Downtown District held a ribbon cutting that was attended by pet owners, pets and animal supporters. The next logical step is to communicate the need to incorporate pet stations within apartment buildings to developers and contractors. Plant debris is recycled: More than 90 bags of debris was collected from Burlington Street locations and along Clinton Street and taken to the landfill for recycling this year. (The number doesn't reflect the annual fall 2017 — Downtown City Gardens ANNUAL REPORT to JCMG.docx Iowa City Press -Citizen Guest Opinion submitted in October — appeared online and in PC Dec. 13, 2017 MG participate in Seed Share Part of 2017 Growing Together Mini Grant — dated April 2017 cutting of canna stalks, sweet potato ivy and purple hyacinth bean debris and debris from numerous gardens that were thankfully hauled away by city staff.) Volunteer Hours: In 2017, I worked on multiple Master Gardening core projects including Downtown City Gardens, Demo Garden, Fairgrounds, Thymes and Growing Together Grant, Thymes newsletter, Hortline and planning providing 300 hours of volunteer service; along with nearly 20 training hours. JCMGs' 103 volunteers rank No. 4 in the state with 5,172 hours of service in 2016. After a visit Iowa Medical Classification Center gardens with Rep. Mary Mascher, a message from Warden Jim McKinney requesting a restoration of MG classes was delivered to the JCMG Steering Committee. Those classes started in September 2017. Growing Together ISU grant: Early this year, JCMGs applied for and received a $3,000 grant from Iowa State University Extension Growing Together to address food security in Johnson County. The grant proposed collaborating with existing partners, Grow Johnson County, area food pantries, Table to Table and meal program providers for Master Gardeners to supply additional produce from core project gardens and our own personal gardens. Fifty-five JCMGs were involved in the project; 1,600 pounds of produce were donated; and more than 500 volunteer hours were recorded. (See news release pages 7-8.) Seed Share: In April, I helped JCMGs coordinate an inaugural Seed Share program. The effort, supported by proprietary seed companies and individual gardeners who save seeds, provided nearly 700 packets of proprietary seeds and countless other saved seeds. Sharing events were held at the Iowa City Public Library and Springmier Community Library in Tiffin, and at the JCMG annual Plant Sale & Flea Market. Remaining seeds were donated to a JCMG volunteer who has a "Read & Seed" Little Library by his Coralville home. (See Grant Report Summary attached page 5). Planning has begun for Seed Share 2.0 in 2018. Invitations to local businesses have been distributed and national seed companies. Successes: UI REACH students helped with 2017 spring planting and maintenance in Old Capitol Parking Garage gardens. They planted larkspur beds and all of the cannas along the east and south side of the garage. Coordinating five planting days this fall in three busy locations was definitely a success —1,276 plants and bulbs were added to area gardens. Demo Garden: Moving the JCMGs demonstration garden at the JC Fairgrounds as planned by JC Fairground officials provided adjoining locations for JCMG Butterfly House and Demo Garden. Steering Committee co- chair Sharon Jeter took on the challenge with support from numerous other JCMG volunteers. Fair officials indicated a desire to formalize the garden area, and volunteers responded by securing a wire corncrib and pouring a concrete base. The new area will be used from spring to fall tol provide a setting for educational activities. Additional grant funds are being investigated to help anchor the area with raised garden beds. History: Downtown City Gardens (DCG) became a JCMG core project in 2016, after undergoing a three-year wait review/period for Master Gardner Steering Committee approval. The project working with Iowa City officials/staff debuted in 2008 prior to eastern Iowa flooding. Planting started in the Pedestrian Mall and evolved to Washington Street, Burlington Street and Clinton Street as well as pockets of gardening treasures elsewhere throughout the city. As Iowa City improves utilities in the downtown area garden areas are revived and renewed. This report is in appreciation of the Iowa City staff and Master Gardener volunteers and interns for their continued interest and all who make Downtown City Gardens inviting and beautiful for all! Linda Schreiber, JCMG 2013 2017 —Downtown City Gardens ANNUAL REPORT to JCMG.docc Iowa City Press -Citizen Guest Opinion submitted in October—appeared online and in PC Dec. 13, 2017 MG participate in Seed Share Part of 2017 Growing Together Mini Grant —dated April 2017 Iowa City Press -Citizen Guest Opinion (Dec. 13, 2017) If this fall's efforts are part of spring's gardening rewards, area residents will surely be pleased with the efforts of four, third -year University of Iowa REACH (Realizing Educational and Career Hopes) students, their coordinator and mentors. All helped plant three highly visible and often visited area gardens. Each of the past five years, Downtown City Gardens has benefited from UI REACH collaborations and student help. They help plant new gardens and care for and enhance countless other spaces in the downtown. Iowa City volunteer coordinator Carol Sweeting paired me with UI REACH students via Iowa City's horticulturists - Sheri Thomas (now retired) and Tyler Baird. Together, we plan opportunities for students to learn about gardening during their optional third year of study. This fall, the students planted 1,100 daffodils and allium bulbs in Project GREEN Gardens at the Ned Ashton House, 820 Park Road. This past summer, the property received a landscaping makeover with funding from a $154,000 REAP (Resource Enhancement and Protection) grant. UI REACH and Project GREEN heightened site renovations with the bulb planting exercise. The busy Johnson County Fairgrounds received a gift of nearly 12 dozen daylilies to enhance one of its many growing gardens areas. Numerous activities are held in the buildings and on the grounds that attract thousands of visitors to the location throughout the year. The west entrance of the very busy Old Capitol Parking Garage also received a gardening transformation, replacing too tall grasses with nearly three dozen perennials— peonies and rudbeckia. Annuals will be added to greet visitors to the garage in Iowa City's downtown in the spring. The University was the first B1G Ten school to have a program of this kind. According to Michael Petkewec, UI REACH Service Learning Instructor and Program Specialist, the specialized program attracts students from Iowa and across the country. www.Bestcollegeonline.com/blog/20-incredible-colleges- for-special-needs-students/ ranks the UI No. 1 for its program. Developing a resume of work experiences is a daunting task for most young people. Imagine adding developmental challenges to the equation and the task can quickly become overwhelming. UI REACH, a program for students with intellectual, cognitive, and learning disabilities, offers options and opportunities that reward students and benefits our community. Housed in the College of Education, UI REACH is a transition certificate program that focuses on preparing students for employment and independent living through classes such as cooking, computers, money management and social skills, according to its website. 2017 —Downtown City Gardens ANNUAL REPORT to 1CMG.docx : Iowa City Press -Citizen Guest Opinion submitted in October — appeared online and in PC Dec. 13, 2017 MG participate in Seed Share Part of 2017 Growing Together Mini Grant—dated April 2017 During their second year, all students participate in an internship on campus or in the local community to hone their skills. Volunteer opportunities and career exploration expand for students who choose an optional third year. Sweeting says working with the students is a unique volunteer experience. "Students grow an appreciation for caring for the natural environment. They are conscientious, thorough workers who are concerned about the tasks they are performing." I would add they are hardworking, considerate of one another and know how to have fun. UI REACH students have a high rate of employment after school. The national rate of employment for people with disabilities is often less than 20 percent. Since the University program began, more than 80 percent of their students find employment. UI REACH is mutually beneficial for students, the University and the entire Johnson County community. Having the students active in our community enriches everyone's lives. They become ambassadors -just being around the UI REACH students will brighten your day. Playwright John Heywood once said, "Many hands make light work." It's a pleasure to work with the UI REACH students, coordinators and mentors, as well as, Iowa City staff. All are responsible for the UI REACH's community outreach success and all benefit our community exponentially. Linda Schreiber community volunteer and JCMG 2017— Downtown City Gardens ANNUAL REPORT to JCMG.docz Iowa City Press -Citizen Guest Opinion submitted in October—appeared online and in PC Dec. 13, 2017 MG participate in Seed Share Part of 2017 Growing Together Mini Grant— dated April 2017 Master Gardeners participate in Seed Share Part of 2017 Growing Together Mini Grant In April 2107, a new activity emerged just in time for gardeners. Dubbed "Seed Share," the no -risk gardening opportunity encouraged gardening enthusiasts to drop-off and pick-up seeds for spring planting. Just before the doors opened, gardeners lined -up eager to attend Seed Share, a new partnership between Johnson County Master Gardeners and the Iowa City Public Library. The project, a component of a Growing Together, a mini -grant from Iowa State University, hopes to reduce food insecurity among individuals and families in Johnson County communities. Gardeners who participated in Seed Share were also encouraged to "Plant a Row" and donate excess produce to Johnson County food pantries and organizations that feed the hungry and those in need. Three popular, national seed companies, Baker Heirloom Seeds, Burpee and Seed Savers in Decorah, participated in the inaugural collaboration, donating more than 700 seed packets of nearly 30 varieties of vegetables, herbs and flowers. Many Master Gardeners and gardening enthusiasts also contributed their own saved seeds to share with others. JCMGs provided packaging, labeling and instructional materials allowing contributors to identify and package the seeds and provide planting instructions for others. Approximately 25 percent of those attending Seed Share brought seeds to share with others. Planting guides and recipe cards were also provided to those participating. Library staff and 1CMG chose the early April date for the Seed Share to allow gardeners time to start seedlings indoors before temperatures warm sufficiently to transplant outside in mid-May. More than 10 Master Gardeners helped set up Seed Share; all promoted the benefits of gardening and the training they've received through the Master Gardeners programs. Beth Fisher, ICPL Librarian and JCMG, was pleased with attendance at the maiden Seed Share and estimated nearly 100 people participated, calling the effort, "Awesome!" 2017 —Downtown City Gardens ANNUAL REPORT to JC MG. docx Iowa City Press -Citizen Guest Opinion submitted in October—appeared online and in PC Dec. 13, 2017 MG participate in Seed Share Part of 2017 Growing Together Mini Grant — dated April 2017 Master Gardeners hold additional Seed Share opportunities JCMG Linda Schreiber arranged for a second Seed Share at the Springmier Community Library in Tiffin on April 25. A much smaller crowd (14 adults and 2 children) took nearly 30 seed packets. The third and final Seed Share was held in conjunction with the JCMG 10th annual Plant Sale & Flea Market on May 13, a day before Mothers Day. JCMG offered the remaining 159 proprietary seed packets and Master Gardeners contributed several more proprietary seed packets and numerous saved seeds. More than 350 eager gardeners attended the sale that started at 8 a.m. and by noon, the sale's end only 23 seed packets were left. The remaining 23 packets were donated to MG intern Jeoff Koepp for a Seed and Read Little Free Library at Urban Garden Center located on Seventh Avenue in Coralville. Johnson County Master Gardeners participated in two Speaker Bureau opportunities at area public libraries. The first, at the Iowa City Public Library, was a June workshop about Bees and how to attract bees and butterflies as pollinators. The program included a reading, crafts and an opportunity to discuss saving milkweed seeds and making seed balls to share. Approximately 30 children and adults participated. The second opportunity, at North Liberty Community Library, presented a program identifying how to save garden vegetable and flower seeds. The July program was perfectly timed to provide growers with information to save and preserve seeds. Linda Schreiber JCMG volunteer 2017—Downtown City Gardens ANNUAL REPORT to JCMG.dooc Iowa City Press -Citizen Guest Opinion submitted in October — appeared online and in PC Dec. 13, 2017 MG participate in Seed Share Part of 2017 Growing Together Mini Grant — dated April 2017 Johnson County Master Gardeners ISU Johnson County Extension and Outreach: News Release November 17, 2017 Johnson County Master Gardeners successfully collaborate to help with food security in the community IOWA CITY—Johnson County Master Gardeners (JCMG) had a successful year working with local partners for their 2017 Growing Together Grant project. I1Am As an Iowa State University Extension and Outreach 2017 Growing Together grant recipient, JCMG strengthened and increased garden produce production to provide more fresh garden fruits and vegetables to area organizations serving low income individuals and families in need. A grant of more than $3,000 supported a variety of projects and supplies to aid efforts and build awareness to address food security in Johnson County. JCMG worked closely with Grow Johnson County, providing gardening and harvesting assistance, as well as, supplies for production, collections and distribution of produce. In addition, JCMGs assisted the United Way of Johnson & Washington Counties assemble food packages, provided the North Liberty Community Pantry and Garden a new scale to weigh donations, and develop a Seed Share program with the Iowa City Public Library that attracted more than 70 people. JCMGs collected, donated and distributed more than 1,600 pounds of produce to the Crisis Center of Johnson County Food Pantry, Table to Table, Shelter House and North Liberty Food Pantry including more than 200 pounds of apples collected and cleaned by JCMGs and contributed by Wilson's Orchard. Lavon Yeggy, co -leader of JCMG Steering Committee, said during the timeline of the grant, 55 JCMGs contributed more than 500 volunteer hours to aid food security projects. "We're pleased our partner agency collaborations continue to grow and become stronger as our volunteers utilized their personal garden spaces to increase produce production for donations. "In addition, Master Gardeners successfully moved and expanded our Demonstration Garden on the Johnson County Fairgrounds." The garden space include vegetable plantings that were harvested and donated, along with the development of an educational space that will continue to be used to expand awareness of gardening and food security efforts. Johnson County Master Gardeners organized in 1982. The educational volunteer program, sponsored by Iowa State University Johnson County Extension and Outreach, is celebrating 35 year of service to Johnson County in 2017. In 2016, Johnson County Master Gardeners completed nearly 5,900 hours of service and more than 1,550 training hours. JCMGs provide current, research -based, home horticulture information and education to the citizens of Iowa through programs and projects. They receive horticulture training, and volunteer to promote a mission of education and service. The program is open to anyone 18 or older with an interest in 2017 — Downtown City Gardens ANNUAL REPORT to 1CMG.docz Iowa City Press -Citizen Guest Opinion submitted in October —appeared online and in PC Dec. 13, 2017 MG participate in Seed Share Part of 2017 Growing Together Mini Grant— dated April 2017 gardening and a willingness to use their knowledge, experience and enthusiasm to make a positive impact on their local community. Volunteers receive more than 40 hours of ISU-certified training by ISU research specialists and local experts. Upon successful completion of curriculum training, trainees are required to provide 40 community service hours to become a certified ISU Master Gardener. Each year, Master Gardeners must complete volunteer service and educational training to maintain certification. Photo: Lavon Yeggy and Bonnie Penno, JCMGs CONTACTS: Shannon Bielicke at bielicke@iastate.edu, 319-337-2145 Lavon Yeggy, lavon-veggv@uiowa.edu or SOURCE: Linda Schreiber, Inschreiber(t@email.com or 319-936-8600 2017 —Downtown City Gardens ANNUAL REPORT to JCMG.dooc Iowa City Press -Citizen Guest Opinion submitted in October—appeared online and in PC Dec. 13, 2017 MG participate in Seed Share Part of 2017 Growing Together Mini Grant — dated April 2017 Iowa City Police Department and University of Iowa Bar Check Report - November, 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 siness Name Visits Citations Ratio Business Name Visits Citations Ratio e Tavern, [The] 13 12 0.9230769 Cactus 2 Mexican Grill (314 E Bur 10 14 1.4000000 ion Bar nmit. [The] Idhouse m Lounge ms Column rdot Iowa [The] 105 83 0. 72 52 0. 80 40 56 27 65 29 48 21 52 8- 41 4 13 1 Cactus Mexican Gril_I (24.5 s. Gilb 13 Airliner 41 Summit. [The_] 72 Fieldhouse 80 Inion Bar 0.4375000 1 Sports Column 0.1538462 Martini's 0.0975610 Vine Tavern, [The] 105 17 1.3076923 30 0.7317073 50 0.6944444 43 54 65 28 0.4307692 ^ 48 16 0.3333333 13 3 0.2307692 12 2 0.1666667 Only those establishments with at least 10 bar checks are listed in the chart above. Current Month Top 10 Under 21 Citations PAULA Citations 5 4 2 1 2 1 Union Bar Fieldhouse 5 3 0. 5 3 0. -exception to 21 ordinance Page 1 of 5 Iowa City Police Department and University of Iowa DPS Bar Check Report - November, 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 Monthlv 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 2 0 0 0 0 Airliner 0 0 0 41 4 30 0.097561 0.731707 American Legion 0 0 0 Bardot Iowa 0 0 0 13 1 1 0.076923 0.076923 Baroncini- 0 0 0 Basta 0 0 0 Big Grove Brewery 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 Blackstone- 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Blue Moose- 3 0 0 21 0 I 1 0 0.047619 Bluebird Diner 0 0 0 Bo -James 0 0 0 12 0 2 0 0.166667 Bread Garden Market & Bakery 0 0 0 Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 3 0 0 98 3 4 0.030612 0.040816 Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar- 0 0 0 Cactus 2 Mexican Grill (314 E Burlington) 0 0 0 10 0 14 0 1.4 Cactus Mexican Grill (245 s. Gilbert) 0 0 0 13 0 17 0 1.307692 Caliente Night Club 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Carlos O'Kelly's- 0 0 0 Chipotle Mexican Grill 0 0 0 Clarion Highlander Hotel 0 0 0 Clinton St Social Club 0 0 0 Club Car, [The] 0 0 0 1 0 0 111. 0 0 Coach's Corner 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Colonial Lanes- 0 0 0 - exception to 21 ordinance Page 2 of 5 Business Name Monthlv Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks I Under 21 PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Dave's Foxhead Tavern 0 0 0 DC's 2 1 0 52 8 6 0.153846 0.115385 Deadwood, [The] 0 0 0 I Donnelly's Pub 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Dublin Underground, [The] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Eagle's, [Fraternal Order of] 0 0 0 Eden Lounge 1 0 0 56 27 6 0.482143 0.107143 EI Banditos 0 0 0 EI Cactus Mexican Cuisine 0 0 0 EI Dorado Mexican Restaurant 0 0 0 EI Patron 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 EI Ranchero Mexican Restaurant 0 0 0 Elks #590, [BPO] 0 0 0 Englert Theatre— 0 0 0 ' I Fieldhouse 5 4 3 80 40 43 0.5 0.5375 FilmScene 0 0 0 First Avenue Club— 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Formosa Asian Cuisine— 0 0 0 Gabes— 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 George's Buffet 0 0 0 Givanni's" 0 0 0 Graze" 0 0 0 Grizzly's South Side Pub 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Hilltop Lounge, [The] 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Howling Dogs Bistro 0 0 0 India Cafe 0 0 0 Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack 0 0 0 Jobsite 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Joe's Place 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 Joseph's Steak House- 0 0 0 Los Portales 0 0 0 Martini's 3 0 0 48 21 16 0.4375 0.333333 exception to 21 ordinance Page 3 of 5 Business Name Monthly Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prey 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l Checks j PAULA Under 21 PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prey 12 Mo) (Prey 12 Mo) Masala 0 0 0 Mekong Restaurant- 0 0 0 Micky's" 0 0 0 Mill Restaurant, [The]` 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Moose, [Loyal Order of] 0 0 0 Mosleys 0 0 0 Motley Cow Cafe- 0 I 0 0 Noodles & Company- 0 0 0 I Old Capitol Brew Works 0 j 0 0 One -Twenty -Six 0 0 0 Orchard Green Restaurant- 0 0 0 Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant 0 0 0 Pagliai's Pizza- j 0 0 0 Panchero's (Clinton St)- 0 0 0 Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr)- 0 0 0 Pints 1 0 0 19 1 1 0.052632 0.052632 Pit Smokehouse 0 j 0 0 Pizza Arcade 0 0 0 Pizza Hut` 0 0 0 Quinton's Bar & Deli 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ridge Pub 0 0 0 Riverside Theatre- 0 0 0 Saloon- 0 0 0 Sam's Pizza 0 0 0 1 0 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 1 0 0 0 0 Short's Burger Eastside 0 0 0 SonnysTap 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Sports Column 3 0 0 65 29 28 D.446154 0.430769 Studio 13 0 0 0 2 0 0 I 0 0 -exception to 21 ordinance Page 4 of 5 Business Name Monthly Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2lPAULA Checks Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Summit. [The] 2 1 0 72 52 50 0.722222 0.694444 Sushi Popo 0 0 0 Off Premise 0 0 5 Szechuan House 0 0 0 0 Takanami Restaurant- 0 0 0 TCB 0 0 0 16 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 '..I Union Bar 5 0 3 105 83 54 0.790476 0.514286 VFW Post #3949 0 0 0 Vine Tavern, [The] 1 0 0 13 12 3 0.923077 0.230769 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 Monthiv Totals Prev 12 Month Totals Under 21 PAULA Bar Under2l PAULA Bar Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio Checks Checks (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Totals 30 66 789 281 276 0.356147 0.34981 Off Premise 0 0 5 0 0 81 1 0 0 Grand Totals I 1 11 1 1 357 "exception to 21 ordinance Page 5 of 5 -7F-T1T'T IP8 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2017 - 7:00 PM - FORMAL MEETING E M M A 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, Bob Miklo, Sara Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Luke Newton, Sarah Huston, Duane Van Hemert RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ17-000016, a Sensitive Areas Development Plan subject to the following conditions: Substantial compliance with the development plan submitted. Establish easements forthestormwater management area. Establish any easements not currently existing for storm sewer and sanitary sewer. Certification by a licensed structural engineer will be required at the time of building permit application to ensure the stability of the building. To ensure there is a diversity of trees used and reviewed by the City Forrester. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEM (REZ17-00016): Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa City Community School District for a Sensitive Areas Development Plan (rezoning) to allow modification of a protected slope for the construction of a proposed addition on the east side of the school building located at 300 Teeters Court. Walz presented the Staff Report noting that this site is the Lincoln Elementary School property and showed maps and photos of the area. The property is accessed along Rider Street, Teeters Court and River Street. There is also some frontage along Otto and Lee Streets but the property is not accessible from those streets. Along Rider Street and Teeters Court the property has a higher elevation. Walz explained that the Lincoln Elementary School site is a small school site by Iowa City standards—it is less than four acres. Most of pickup/drop off and bus access is on Rider Street. When the School District was looking at using this site and improving the neighborhood schools (which was part of what they were called upon to do with Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2017 –Formal Meeting Page 2 of 6 Community School District's facilities plan) one of the goals was to extend the life of neighborhood schools. This goal is echoed in Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan and in the City Council's Strategic Plan. Walz explained that this particular school site presents some unique challenges with street access and topography. Currently the lower level of the property (off River Street) is the teacher's parking lot, which is not an ADA accessible part of the school site. To access the school from that parking lot requires one to climb 55 steps to get to the rear entrance of the school. For this reason, the portion of the property on River Street has been useable. One of the goals of the new addition is to make the entire property, which is very small, more useful and accessible. The original school building, constructed in 1926, has been added onto five times. The lower parking area with 28 spaces was constructed off Rider Street in the late 1980s. The proposal is a complete renovation of the existing school building and the construction of a major new addition that will provide space for a new gym and cafeteria, modern kitchen, media center extension, restrooms, a dedicated office and storage area for the before- and after-school program, and an ADA accessible (at -grade) entrance from River Street. The proposed plan also provides an expanded parking area and will improve the bus circulation. Walz mentioned the sensitive areas on the site noting that many of the criteria that are required under the OPD Plan (mass, scale and density of the building) do not really apply since this is not a residential use—as a school it will obviously be of a different mass and scale than surrounding residential development. Walz explained that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is applies in areas where there are steep and critical protected slopes. The development activity will disturb a significant portion of the steep, critical, and protected slopes: 28% of the steep slopes; 63% of the critical slopes; and 32% of the protected slopes. Walz stated the applicant has demonstrated through engineer reports that the slope was altered over time with both various additions to the school and when the parking lot was constructed. The applicants have also conducted some soil studies, taken some samples, which are inconclusive but do show some fill on portions of the site. Walz stated that with this addition, a portion of the slope will actually be excavated, and the new school building will be used as a retaining wall for the remaining slope. Additionally this development will cause the removal of some mature oak trees, the applicant's intent is to replace those trees with 10 new native trees -white, red, and bur oaks. They will also add screening around the parking lot. Walz explained that there are still some outstanding issues with the site that to be resolved. The applicant needs to provide stormwater calculations and easements will be needed for the stormwater management area. The applicant is showing underground storage for stormwater but to the underground storage cannot be placed over the sanitary sewer line. The applicants is working to resolve these issues. Staff recommends approval of REZ17-000016, a Sensitive Areas Development Plan subject to the following conditions: Substantial compliancewith the development plan submitted. Establish easements forthe stormwater management area. Establish any easements not currently existing for storm sewer and sanitary sewer. Certification by a licensed structural engineer will be required at the time of building permit application to ensure the stability of the building. Theobald questioned the use of native trees versus oak trees and noted there are Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 6 problems with two of the oak tree species in the State of Iowa right now and asks that the tree replacements be more diversified. Walz stated the City Forester could be asked to make a recommendation if the Commission wished to make that a condition. Theobald would like to add that condition. Hensch asked if the geotechnical soils report did not definitively indicate that the slope had been disturbed. Walz confirmed that is correct. The applicant was relying on other evidence related to development activity, especially the construction of the parking area along River Street. Hensch asked if the rule was only 35% of critical and protected slopes could be disrupted without going through rezoning. Walz said that is correct and this item is before the Commission because the applicant is exceeding the 35%. Dyer questioned if there have been other projects that have disturbed areas this much. Miklo stated it is rare to have humanly altered slopes, he can think of one instance on South Dubuque Street where they could show the street was created by landfill over 100 years ago. Hensch asked when looking at the elevations if the stormwater underground storage tanks will be able to handle the area or if there would be runoff that would go to the neighbors. Waiz said the runoff flows to the north but the applicant can explain how they intend to manage the additional stormwater. Hensch opened the public hearing. Luke Newton (MMS Engineering) and Sarah Huston (Design Alliance Architecture) represented the Iowa City Community School district on this project and showed the Commission the presentation that they had also shared with the community at the Good Neighbor Meeting. Hensch asked if any comments were collected at the Good Neighbor Meeting. Walz noted she attended the meeting and that all the comments were generally positive. Newton provided a copy of the comments. Huston stated that the architecture firm began by reviewing how the existing building was constructed and added onto over the various renovations and noted how that always poses interesting issues when dealing with different construction types. There is a main building as well as two temporary classrooms, one to the south and one to the east. Most of the main site area is level and the initial addition recommendation was to expand into the southern level area with a new gymnasium, new commons, accessible classrooms, and bathrooms. Another more interesting concept was to build off to the east and that was the concept the school committee unanimously voted on because they wanted to preserve the flat area which is the playground area. Huston showed renderings of what the addition will look like, it will be nestled into the hill, the lower level being the gymnasium and above that is the new media center. From the view of Teeters Court the school will remain the same scale and the addition will be viewable from the east but not overly obtrusive because it is nestled into the slope. The main entrance to the school will still be off Teeters Court and will be at the center of the building. Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 6 Huston also discussed the structural engineering of the addition and how it will be built into the slope. They will use soldier piles, steel and concrete, to provide a retaining wall that then becomes the back wall of the new structure. Additionally the new gymnasium that is dug into the slope is set 20 feet off the existing structure so it will not disturb any of the foundations or walls of the existing building. Huston noted that is important because it is safer to preserve what is already there. Newton next addressed the system areas showed a rendering of the area with the different percentages of slope and the area that is the altered protected slope. He showed the storm lines that run from the building to the storm sewers that are underneath the parking lot. Hensch asked if Newton could address how the underground storage of the stormwater will handle the runoff. Newton stated that with the increased impervious areas it will create more overland runoff and as required by City Code they will need to retain that runoff and the underground basin works similar to an above ground stormwater basin. Underground there is a system of large pipes all connected together to create the storage and detain the water up to the 100 year flood event and release it slowly at the normal runoff rate. It will be released into the existing stormwater sewer line that is already under the parking lot and then into the ditch along River Street. Newton added the goal of the detention system, and the way the requirements are set up, is to prevent any additional water onto neighboring properties. Theobald asked about the maintenance for the underground storage and Newton explained that there is maintenance but the frequency of issues depends on the amount of trash (leaves or litter) that is caught in the system and how often it needs to be cleaned out. It can be cleaned out by a large vacuum. Duane Van Hemert (Iowa City Community School District Facilities Director) stated that this underground storage would have happened whether the addition was on the north side or east side so they could protect the playground area and not use it as a water detention area. Hensch asked if all the soil that will be excavated will be retained onsite or removed. Newton replied that the soil will not be able to be retained onsite and will have to leave the site. Hensch closed the public hearing. Theobald moved to recommend approval of REZ17-000016, a Sensitive Areas Development Plan subject to the following conditions: Substantial compliancewith the development plan submitted. Establish easements forthe stormwater management area. Establish any easements not currently existing for storm sewer and sanitary sewer. Certification by a licensed structural engineer will be required at the time of building permit application to ensure the stability of the building. To ensure there is a diversity of trees used and reviewed by the City Forrester. Parsons seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2017— Formal Meeting Page 5 of 6 Parsons noted this has been a history lesson tonight learning there has already been five additions on Lincoln Elementary and commented that the proposal is a unique design and having this school means a lot to the Manville Heights area and is happy to see the School District investing in this school. Signs noted that he is familiar with the site and always thought it was a disturbed slope due to all the activity around the area. Martin noted that this area is special and to be able to add onto the school and maintain the flat surface areas for children to play is essential. Dyer agreed this is a good project and happy to see Lincoln Elementary preserved. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 2, 2017 Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of November 2, 2017 with edits. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Martin noted she would not be present at the December 21 or January 4 meetings Theobald asked if the Commission can have a discussion about street lights at some point, there have been several complaints and in the news recently it has been stated that the LED lights are actually not obtaining the savings of energy that was projected and do cause a lot of light pollution. Hektoen stated that if Commission members wished they could send some correspondence to Council regarding the issue however it is not really in the prevue of Planning & Zoning agenda items. Miklo acknowledged a flyer in the Commissioner's packets where there are encouraged to attend a training session. ADJOURNMENT: Parsons moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2017 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member (W.S.) 4/20 4/20 5/4 5/18 6/1 (W -S) 6/7 6/15 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 9/7 9/21 10/5 10/19 11/2 12/7 DYER, CAROLYN X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X FREERKS, ANN X X X X X X X X X X O/E 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 MARTIN, PHOEBE O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member