HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-12 Info Packet1 - 1
AN:III��,
'� CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
W L...__
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org June 12, 2014
IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
JUNE 16 WORK SESSION MEETING
IP2 Work Session Agenda
IP3 Memo from Police Chief: St. Ambrose Study on ICPD Traffic Stops
JUNE 77 WORK SESSION MEETING
IP4 Work Session Agenda
IP5 Local Option Sales Tax Exploratory Committee Report on Findings and
Recommendations
IP6 Pending Work Session Topics
IP7 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show
MISCELLANEOUS
IP8 Memo from Mayor: PILOT Report and Meeting with Regents
IP9 DavisBrown Law Firm: 2014 Lobbying Report 85th General Assembly, 2014 Session
IP10 Article from City Manager: Two -Way Streets Can Fix Declining Downtown Neighborhoods
Letter to Board of Regents from Mayor and area leaders: Letter of support for U. of I.
programs and funding allocations [Distributed as late handout on 6/17/14]
DRAFT MINUTES
IP11 Board of Adjustment: May 14
IP12 Historic Preservation Commission: May 8
IP13 Human Rights Commission: May 20
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org June 12, 2014
IP1 Council Tentati a Meeting Schedule
JUNE 16 WORK SESSI N MEETING
IP2 Work Session Agen a
IP3 Memo from Police Chie . St. Ambrose Stud/on ICPD Traffic Stops
JUN 17 WORKS SSION MEETING
IP4 Work Session Agenda
IP5 Local Option Sales Tax x
Recommendations
IP6 Pending Work Session Topics
IP7 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio
Committee Report on Findings and
MiSCELLANEOUS
IP8 Memo from Mayor: PILOT Rep and Meeting ith Regents
IP9 DavisBrown Law Firm: 2014 L bbying Report 85t General Assembly, 2014 Session
IP10 Article from City Manager: T o -Way Streets Can Fix ix Downtown Neighborhoods
DRAFT MINUTES
I1311 Board of Adjustment: ay 14
IP12 Historic Preservatio Commission: May 8
IP13 Human Rights Co mission: May 20
1 � i
�: 112P `t
1
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Date
Monday, June 30, 2014
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Monday, July 28, 2014
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Subject to change June 19, 2014
Time Meeting
Noon Special Formal /Evaluations
CANCELLED Work Session Meeting
CANCELLED Formal Meeting
Location
Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
4:00 PM Joint Meetine /Work Session Tiffin TBA
CANCELLED Work Session Meeting
CANCELLED Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 19, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
:
Tuesday, September 2, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
.
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
a`
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
m
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
PP
Tuesday, December 16 2014
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
IN
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Subject to change June 12, 2014
Time
5:00 PM
5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Tuesday, June 2014 Noon
Tuesday, July 1, 20
Tuesday, July 15, 2014 5:00 PM
:00 PM
Monday, July 28, 2014 4
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Meeting
Work Session Meeting
�r
Work Session Meeting
Work Session Mee�ng
Formal Meeting /
Joint Meeting/Work Session
CANCELLV Work Session Meeting
WCELLk(D Formal Meeting
Work Rssion Meeting
For al eting
r orrk Session eeting
mal Meeting
Work Session Meetin
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting
Formal Meeting
Location
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tiffin TBA
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Erkna J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
5:00
7:00 M
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
5 0 PM
:00 PM
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Tuesday, November 18, 2~ 14
5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Tuesday, December 2 2014
5:00 PM
7:00 PM
Meeting
Work Session Meeting
�r
Work Session Meeting
Work Session Mee�ng
Formal Meeting /
Joint Meeting/Work Session
CANCELLV Work Session Meeting
WCELLk(D Formal Meeting
Work Rssion Meeting
For al eting
r orrk Session eeting
mal Meeting
Work Session Meetin
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting
Formal Meeting
Work Session Meeting
Formal Meeting
Location
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tiffin TBA
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Erkna J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 16 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
-12-14 IP2
moll
CITY Of IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City. Iowa 52240 -1826
(319) 3S6 -S000
(319) 3S6 -5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
City Council Work Session Agenda
June 16, 2014
Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
5:00 PM
■ Presentation of Police Department traffic stop demographic analysis [IP # 3 of 6/12 Info
Packet]
CITY OF IOWA CITY
N IP3
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 11, 2014
To: Mr. Thomas Markus
From: Chief Sam Hargadine
Re: St. Ambrose Study on ICPD Traffic Stops
Background
In response to some community concerns of racial profiling the ICPD started to collect
demographic data on traffic stops in July of 1999. The results of the traffic stop data collection
were analyzed in a January 2004 report titled "Traffic Stop Practices of the Iowa City Police
Department: January 1 — December 31, 2002." The research team was from the University of
Louisville and this report was frequently referred to as the Louisville study.
On or about 2006 the Command Staff was approached by Dr. Christopher Barnum, Associate
Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice and Director of Graduate Studies Masters in
Criminal Justice at St. Ambrose University. Dr. Barnum was familiar with the Louisville study
and became interested in analyzing ICPD traffic stop data utilizing a differing approach. Dr.
Barnum initially indicated a desire to study the data for a six month period of time.
After an initial review of the six months period of time, both Dr. Barnum and I determined that a
more in -depth analysis was needed in order to better understand operational trends in the
department. I maintained the working relationship with Dr. Barnum and provided him data for
the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Unfortunately, a transition to a new data
management system resulted in conversion problems that prevent us from analyzing 2008 and
2009 data. Throughout this partnership with Dr. Barnum, our officers were not advised of the
study due to the potential of changing behavior patterns.
In June of 2013 the City Council passed Resolution 12 -320 establishing an Ad Hoc Diversity
Committee to study City transit and law enforcement operations as they relate to minority
populations. Over the course of six months the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee held 22 Committee
meetings. Several community discussion forums were held with community members from
diverse backgrounds to discuss and receive feedback about transit and law enforcement
operations. During this time a renewed conversation on disproportionate contact with minority
populations was sparked. The ICPD took the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee process very
seriously and is working hard to implement each of the recommendations of the committee.
Based on the community conversation generated by the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, I worked
with Dr. Barnum to incorporate more traffic stop data and finalize his analysis. While this study
was initially intended for internal and academic purposes, I now believe it is appropriate to have
a public discussion on the topic. By participating in the study, I hope it sends a clear message
that the ICPD has taken the issue of disproportional minority contact very seriously in the past
and will continue to do so in the future.
The Study
Attached is a study of ICPD traffic stop data from the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011 and
2012. It is an in depth analysis supervised by Dr. Chris Barnum of St. Ambrose University. He
was assisted by graduate students Robert Perfetti and Matt Lint.
June 11, 2014
Page 2
It is important to note that the interpretation of the data is very complex and best explained by
Dr. Barnum. The methodology used included observational baseline studies. Over 20 trained
observers were stationed at various locations within Iowa City to determine the racial makeup of
Iowa City's drivers. These surveys occurred at different times of the day and over multiple
years.
Dr. Barnum discusses at length the difference in disproportionality from the data in 2005 — 2007
and 2010 — 2012. Dr. Barnum's report indicates a notable increase in the disproportionate
contacts in particular on the South East side between the two time periods. The numbers jump
considerably both among a few officers that were assigned to that area and by the department
as a whole. As this was occurring the department was responding to a dramatic increase in
violent calls that included two riots, multiple shots fired calls and one homicide. To combat the
problem ICPD created a new concentrated zone within the existing beat and patrolled that area
extensively.
In 2009 reported crime was a significant concern for residents in the Pepperwood, Wetherby,
and Grant Wood neighborhoods. A juvenile gang calling themselves the Broadway Goons was
believed to be responsible for a significant amount of the reported crime. This area is also well
known for its high volume of drug trafficking and weapons offenses.
Incidents, many of which gained a lot of media attention, began in the early spring and lasted
until late summer. Information gained from arrestees was that the gang was actively recruiting
and trying to grow in size. Increased assertive foot patrol efforts were started and directed to
the area in an attempt to thwart problems. In October 2009 landlord John Versypt was
murdered while working in the hallway of his rental property located in the 1900 block of
Broadway. Numerous neighborhood meetings were held to address the issue which included
several members of the City Council at that time. These issues were a major factor that led to
the passing of the Juvenile Curfew Ordinance and the establishment of the South East
Substation.
There is no doubt that we intensified directed patrols in the south east portion of town during the
later time period. We also asked neighboring jurisdictions to drive through that area if they were
driving by anyway. The Iowa State Patrol and Johnson County Sheriff's Office assisted us with
creating a sense of continuous law enforcement presence. The officers with the highest
likelihood of disproportionate contact in Dr. Barnum's study were there because they were
assigned there by supervisory staff to solve a significant crime problem. It is important to note
that crime in this area of town has dropped dramatically as a result of our intensified patrols over
the last several years.
Presently the Pheasant Ridge /Bartelt Road area saw three very violent shots fired incidents one
of which has led to significant injury to an innocent person who was hit as a bullet went through
the exterior wall inside to where party goers were assembled. The violence seen this spring on
the West side and the concern of residents and neighborhood associations is very much like the
concerns expressed by the residents of the South East side of town a couple of years ago. The
police department remains committed to see that it does not rise to the level that it did a couple
of years ago. Our commitment has included similar resource devotion, including extra patrols
and overtime details. While we hope to bring stability to this area, we are certainly more
cognizant of the tendency for disproportionate minority contact to occur when engaging in hot
spot policing. Ideally, we can bring stability without seeing similar jumps in disproportionate
contacts.
There are several additional items to keep in mind that are not included in the study but are
significant at looking at the entire picture. These include:
• Complete CALEA® assessments in 2007, 2010 and 2013. The 2013 assessment team
was provided with Dr. Barnum's report. CALEA® is the Commission on Accreditation for
Law Enforcement Agencies. The accreditation process requires compliance with
June 11, 2014
Page 3
rigorous standards that meet the best practices for police agencies in the U.S. and
Internationally. Proof of compliance is also required and continually monitored over three
year periods.
All traffic stops are videotaped and routine and continued random audits by supervisors
have not shown any pattern of biased based policing or unprofessional behavior.
Complaints that have come in claiming racial bias have been taken seriously and are
fully investigated by supervisory staff. Any inappropriate behavior has resulted in
personnel action.
Recommendations Goina Forward
Going forward the department has reviewed Dr. Barnum's report with the officers and reiterated
that biased based policing is illegal, immoral and if discovered can lead to discipline to include
termination. Officers receive legal training once per year specifically on race based traffic stops
which outlines the legal and civil penalties they could be exposed to if they engage in racial
profiling. Officers have also been through diversity training provided by Chad Simmons of
Diversity Focus. It is recommended that this relationship with Diversity Focus be ongoing.
Supervisory staff members will continue to randomly review the videos of officers throughout the
year for indications of unprofessional, biased based or even unsafe habits. Any violations of
policy require documentation and at a minimum corrective counseling. All complaints will
continue to be fully investigated.
It is recommended that Dr. Barnum be hired to analyze 2013 traffic stop data and compare the
data with previous years. Future studies should be conducted to ensure that measures put in
place are effective and the disproportionate statistics lowers. I would recommend that at least
for the next few years we publish this data as part of the City's Annual Equity Report. This will
help demonstrate to the community our commitment to this issue and hopefully will show
meaningful progress in the years to come.
It is imperative that all officers from the newest recruit to the Chief realize that perceptions are
viewed differently based on life's experiences. Police have to remain vigilant to find
unprofessional behavior and take seriously all complaints that are brought to light.
Lastly, I want to express my full confidence in the officers and staff in the ICPD. I am personally
very proud of their dedication, professionalism and high level of performance. The numbers in
Dr. Barnum's study do raise concerns, which I am taking with the utmost seriousness. However,
I do not for a minute think the numbers indicate ill motivations. I believe the release of the data
is an opportunity for the department to grow and outwardly express our commitment to build
relationships and protect all persons in the community with the same high standards of
professionalism. I look forward to starting this process with the City Council on June 16th and
will make myself available to community groups who may wish to further discuss this issue with
me in the coming weeks and months.
Iowa City Police Department Traffic Study
2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011 & 2012
Chris Barnum
Robert Perfetti
Matt Lint
St. Ambrose University
Final Revision 5 -31 -14
Please do not cite or reference this article in any publication or media without the first author's
permission
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the members of the Iowa City Police Department for their cooperation
and invaluable assistance with the transfer of data and the other information they
provided. We especially thank Chief of Police Sam Hargadine, Administrative Services
Captain Rick Wyss, Field Operations Captain Jim Steffen and Jim Baker from Information
and technology. This report would not be possible without their tremendous
cooperation and support. We also thank the many St. Ambrose University students who
participated in various aspects of data collection and analyses.
Contents
Executive Summary 7
Chapter One: Levels of Disproportionality 9
Introduction 9
Background 9
The Baseline Problem 10
Methodology
11
Data Sources
11
Observational Baseline Information
11
ICPD Demographic Analyses 2005 & 2007
12
ICPD Demographic Analyses 2010
18
ICPD Demographic Analyses 2011
19
ICPD Demographic Analyses 2012
20
Discussion of 2010 — 2012 ICPD Traffic Stop Demographic Data
21
Two Important Generalizations from 2010 — 2012
21
Beat -Two
21
Beat -Two Baseline Recalibration
21
Observation Recalibration
24
Iowa City Public School Data
27
Summary so for
27
Crime rates and Patrol Procedures
29
Suppositions
31
Summary for this Section
31
Chapter 2: Individual Officer Data 32
The Odds Ratio 32
Disparity Index Ratios for Stops 34
2010 -2012 Stop Data 38
Limitations of the Data 39
Summary of 2005 — 2012 Analyses so far: 42
El
Summary of 2010 — 2012 49
Chapter 3: Outcomes Data Analyses 50
2005 Outcomes
51
Citations
51
Arrests
51
Searches
52
Summary Table of Outcomes 53
Stop Outcome Summary 54
Final Summary 55
References 57
Appendix A: Logistic Regression Analyses of Stop Outcomes 59
2005 Logistic Regression
Analyses
59
Citations
59
Arrests
59
Consent Requests
59
2006 Logistic Regression
Analyses
61
Citations
61
Arrests
61
Consent Requests
61
2007 Logistic Regression
Analyses
62
Citations
62
Arrests
62
Consent Requests
62
2010 Logistic Regression
Analyses
64
Citations
64
Arrests
64
Consent Requests
64
2011 Logistic Regression
Analyses
65
Citations
65
Arrests
65
Consent Requests
65
2012 Logistic Regression
Analyses
66
Citations
66
Ge
Arrests 66
Consent Requests 66
Appendix B: Logistic Regression Analyses: Comparing Racial Differences in Traffic Stops 2005 -2007
to 2010 -2012 67
Appendix C: Detailed Information for Odds Ratio Analyses 68
2005 Odds Ratios
68
Citations
68
Arrests
68
Searches
69
2006 Odds Ratios
70
Citations
70
Arrests
70
Searches
71
2007 Odds Ratios
72
Citations
72
Arrests
72
Searches
72
2010 Odds Ratios
74
Citations
74
Arrests
74
Searches
75
2011 Odds Ratios
76
Citations
76
Arrests
76
Searches
77
2012 Odds Ratios
78
Citations
78
Arrests
78
Searches
79
Appendix D: HMLM 80
Appendix E: Adapted Time Line of Some Important Events Affecting ICPD during Study Period
82
2
Executive Summary
In response to concerns about the potential for racial bias in the Iowa City Police Department's traffic
stop activity, the PD began systematically collecting data on traffic stops in approximately 2001.
Recently the City retained our research team to analyze their data. The focus of our investigation was an
assessment of racial disproportionality in the ICPD's traffic stop activity for stops made in 2005, 2006,
2007, 2010, 2011 and 2012 —more than 60,000 stops. The investigation evaluated two broad categories
of police data: (i) the demographic information of drivers stopped by the ICPD and (ii) the outcome or
disposition of a stop.
The methodology used to analyze ICPD's traffic stop demographics employed a driver - population
baseline fashioned from roadside observations, census data and school enrollment information. A
baseline should be thought of as the proportion of minority drivers on the roads in a given location. The
analysis process is straight forward. It centers on identifying differences between the percentages of
various groups stopped by the ICPD and the baseline information. Any difference between baseline
values and police data signifies disproportionality.
The results of baseline analyses suggested that roughly 10% of the drivers on Iowa City roads were
minority members during the study period. Results also show that between 2005 and 2007 levels of
disproportionality in ICPD stop activity were comparatively low. During this time - period, roughly 14% of
the Iowa City Police Department's traffic stops involved minority drivers.
However, disproportionality increased in 2010 and then remained stable through 2012. Analyses show
that in 2010 the percentage of minority drivers stopped by ICPD officers increased to roughly 19% and
remained near this level in 2011 and 2012. The analyses also show that the minority- driver baseline
remained essentially constant during this time - frame.
A close examination of ICPD patrol practices suggests that in part, the increase in disproportionality
stemmed from an escalation of patrols in a portion of southeast Iowa City. After a review of various
sources it seems likely that the Iowa City Police Department modified patrol procedures following an
increase in violent crime in the city in 2008 and 2009. These modifications included the establishment of
a new patrol beat located in southeast Iowa City in an area with a comparatively high minority resident
concentration. This new patrol area called "beat -2 -A" is rather small. It consists of an area no larger
than few blocks and is geographically much smaller than other ICPD beats. However, the minority
baseline in beat 2 -A is significantly higher than in other Iowa City beats.
Individual officer analyses indicate that the officers exhibiting the most disproportionality in traffic stops
were frequently assigned to patrol areas located on the southeast side of Iowa City, or were "float"
officers who were tasked with patrolling high crime areas. Both groups of officers tended to stop higher
proportions of minority drivers than did most of their colleagues. Officers assigned to patrol the small 2-
A beat also tended to stop higher proportions of minority drivers than did officers in other areas of
town. However, this result is expected because the proportion of minority members on the roads in this
area is much higher than in other areas of town and much higher than the 10% minority baseline used
for analysis. Consequently, higher proportions of minority stops for beat 2 -A officers do not necessarily
indicate disparity or bias.
The examination of stop outcomes assessed disproportionality in citations, arrests, consent searches and
hit -rates or seizures from consent searches. Univariate odds ratio analyses showed consistent
7
patterns —Iowa City officers disproportionately arrested and (consent) searched minority drivers. On
average across all years of the study the odds were about three times greater that minority drivers
would be arrested on a traffic stop in comparison to others. Likewise, the average odds for consent
searches were about three and a half times greater that ICPD officers would request a search from
minority drivers compared to others, this despite hit rates that were actually lower on average for
minority drivers. In other words, in comparison to others, ICPD officers were more likely to make a
seizure from a nonminority driver as the result of a consent search even though officers were more
likely to request a such a search from a minority driver. Findings also suggest that minority drivers and
nonminority drivers were ticketed at equivalent rates. Multivariate logistic regression analyses show
parallel results. The regression odds ratios were similar in size to those from univariate analyses even
after controlling for officer's race, officer's gender, officer's years of service, officer's duty assignment,
the time of day, type of traffic violation and the driver's gender. It should be noted that our analyses
show that many officers were inconsistent in entering information about voluntary consent search
requests with about 50% of officers incorrectly inputting data. This level of inconsistency likely
negatively affects the validity of the findings in this area.
Care should be used when evaluating findings for arrest outcomes. Several important control variables
were not available for inclusion in logistic regression models. Consequently, it's not possible to evaluate
whether disproportionality in arrest rates was a product of other factors like differences in offense types
or offending rates between demographic categories. Likewise, it is important to emphasize that the
number of cases used for analyses of consent search requests and seizures was much smaller than the
number of cases used in analyses of other stop- outcome variables. This small "n" can affect the validity
of the findings and should be taken into consideration when evaluating results.
Recommendations in Brief
(1) ICPD should continue collecting traffic stop data and repeat this study in one year's time to
assess trends in disproportionality once officers know their behavior is being monitored.
This analysis should include department level measures of disproportionality as well as an
assessment of individual officers' traffic stop activity across time and location.
(2) The ICPD should closely monitor officer compliance of data collection to reduce the number
of unknown and missing cases.
(3) ICPD should increase officer training in regards to the proper collection and inputting of data
especially for voluntary search requests
(4) ICPD should modify data collection software so that it becomes practical to collect and
analyze the geographical location of individual stops.
(5) ICPD should also modify data collection software so that it becomes practical to track the
reason for an arrest on traffic stops.
0
Chapter One: Levels of Disproportional ity
Introduction
In recent years, US citizens have expressed increasing apprehension about racially biased
policing (sometimes called profiling) in traffic stop activity. Although, many definitions of racially biased
policing exist, most researchers agree that the event occurs when the police use race or ethnicity as a
proxy for suspiciousness when deciding whether to stop or sanction potential targets. Of late, some
Iowa City constituents have communicated concerns that the Iowa City Police Department may be
profiling when interacting with minority members. These concerns generally stem from personal
accounts and anecdotal evidence but persist despite a 2001 University of Louisville study that found no
systematic bias in ICPD officers' conduct (Edwards, Grassi, Vito & West, 2001). To address this issue the
City of Iowa City asked our research team to develop and implement an analysis of Iowa City Police
traffic stop conduct.
In what follows, we use a two -prong approach to assess ICPD traffic stop activity by focusing on
traffic stop demographics and on the outcome of the stop. The ICPD has been collecting data on officers'
traffic stop behavior for over a decade and has accumulated a substantial amount of raw data.
Interpretation of raw data however can be tricky because the nature of police work is characterized by a
complex array of factors that may legitimately account for disproportionality in police - minority contacts.
In fact, these factors can present issues that cloud interpretation of analyses. Our approach in dealing
with this complexity is straightforward. First, to analyze disproportionality in traffic stops we compare
police stop demographic data to a valid and representative baseline. A baseline is best thought of as the
proportion of minority drivers present on the roads. Second, to assess disproportionality in the outcome
of a stop, we use two statistical techniques, a disparity index predicated on odds - ratios and logistic
regression analyses. The outcome of a stop includes things like whether a citation was issued, an arrest
was made or a search conducted etc. We also look closely at individual officer's conduct by analyzing
how an officer's traffic stop information may be affected by work schedules, duty assignments and
neighborhood characteristics.
Background'
Racial disparity within the criminal justice system is an enduring feature of the American
experience. For most of this country's history, minority members, especially African- Americans have
been overrepresented at nearly all stages of the criminal justice process (Drummond, 1999; Kennedy,
1997; for a contrasting opinion, see DiLulio, 1996; Wilbank, 1987). However, studies conducted over the
past 20 years suggest change. These studies show that the overt use of race in police decision - making
behavior is steadily decreasing (Engel et al., 2002; Sherman, 1980). This trend is likely due in part to
community outrage and legislative action but also it's partly the result of efforts by police supervisors.
Today most research indicates that police discretionary decision making is predicated more on legal and
situational factors than solely on race (Engel et al., 2002; Mastrofski, Warden, & Snipes, 1995; Riksheim
& Chermak, 1993). Nevertheless, race remains one of the most reliable predictors of attitudes toward
1 Much of this section is adapted from Barnum and Perfetti 2010.
0
the police in America today (Weitzer & Tuch, 2005). African Americans are consistently more likely to
hold negative opinions of the police than are other groups (Hurst, Frank, & Browning, 2000).
Why then, at a time when overt racism by the police seems to be decreasing, do minority
members cling to negative perceptions of the police? In part, the answer may lie in a perception of
double disproportionality —an opinion by minority members that the police tend to energetically enforce
the law against them but fail to adequately enforce the law for them. Certain police and law
enforcement practices may have served to heighten this suspicion. The notable forms of drug courier
profiling that began in the last quarter of the 20th century provide an example.
Profiling in various forms has existed for decades in the United States. However, the practice
became particularly salient in the 1980s when some of the first federally subsidized drug courier
profiling methods were developed and used to train local law enforcement officials. An example of this
activity includes tactics developed in a Drug Enforcement Administration sponsored profiling strategy
called Operation Pipeline. This program was originally designed to stem the flow of drugs that were
being transported from Florida to the metropolitan areas of the Northeast along interstate highways.
Officers participating in this training were taught guidelines for identifying the typical characteristics of
drug couriers. One of these guidelines included race. Using race as an identifier lead to unfortunate
consequences including increased levels of fear and resentment among minority members toward
police, and ultimately to lawsuits and litigation.
The source of the recent interest in racially biased policing in traffic stops is generally traced to
two court cases in the 1990s. Defendants in a New Jersey criminal case, the State of New Jersey vs. Soto
(1996), and plaintiffs in a Maryland civil case, Wilkins vs. Maryland State Police (1993), argued that they
were stopped because of their race rather than their driving. This litigation sparked scholarly interest in
this subject and a spate of other court cases across the country. As a result of this legal action, many
police departments began collecting data on police—citizen contacts. Unfortunately, much of this data
remains untouched.
The Baseline Problem
A key reason for this neglect in data analysis is difficulty in identifying and developing the
essential characteristics of the data. The question of how to develop an effective baseline is one of these
problems. A baseline is a standard for determining the percentage of minority drivers in a given police
jurisdiction who are on the roads at a given time. Investigators compare this benchmark to police traffic
stop data to determine whether the driver's race was a factor in the officer's decision to make a traffic
stop. Some methods of benchmarking include using census or DOT information to establish baselines.
These techniques are often ineffective for various reasons, including differences between races in the
amount of time spent driving (driving quantity), racial differences in offending rates and thus police
attention (driving quality), and the racial composition of neighboring communities whose citizens may
travel through the population of interest (driver mobility). More recent innovations, however, use mixed
methodological approaches that combine direct observation with census and other data. These
10
methods have generally established more valid baselines than earlier attempts (e.g., Alpert et al., 2007;
Alpert, Smith, & Dunham, 2004; Lamberth, 2006).
Methodology
In what follows we use a combination of methodologies to evaluate officers' traffic stop
behavior. First, to establish a baseline we use an applied technique that includes traffic observations and
census data. As noted, the baseline should be thought of as the percentage of minority drivers on the
road in a given area of town. In plain terms, the baseline is a standard that can be used to judge the
percentage of minority drivers that should be stopped by the police when no bias is occurring. Second,
we evaluate post stop outcomes using statistical techniques including logistic regression, hierarchical
linear modeling and a disparity index that is predicated on odds ratio analyses. Finally, we assess
individual officers' conduct using in -depth analyses of stop outcomes specific to a given officer.
Data Sources
This study examines several years of data that has been collected by the ICPD. The data were
selected from years falling within a period ranging from 2005 through 2012. The ICPD experienced
difficulties with their data collection system in 2008 & 2009. Less than a hundred cases are available for
analyses during these years and we consider this information unreliable so they are not included in the
examination. Our strategy is as follows: we will first analyze older data from 2005 - 2007 and use this
information as a comparison standard when evaluating the more recent data from 2010 -2012.
Iowa City street officers record information relevant to self- initiated traffic activity as part of
their regular duties. As noted, the Iowa City Police Department has been collecting traffic stop data for
over a decade. Officers are very familiar with the data - collection routine. When stopping a vehicle,
officers contact the dispatch center who then logs the stop. The officers use their in -car computers to
enter pertinent information at the completion of the stop. The data are then transmitted to the station
where they are centrally stored. For each stop, officers enter data regarding the driver of the vehicle,
the reason for the stop, and demographic information. Officers were unaware that their discretionary
traffic stop behavior was being examined by outside researchers. Consequently, it seems unlikely then
that officers modified their level of discretionary traffic stop behavior during the analysis period over
concerns of increased scrutiny.
Observational Baseline Information.
During the study period, over 20 trained observers monitored traffic in Iowa City. These
individuals were stationed at various locations within each of Iowa City's four police beats. Several
intersections were designated for observations within each beat. These intersections were chosen at
random prior to the beginning of the study, after being screened for traffic volume and visibility (the
selected intersections were chosen from a pool of relatively busy intersections). The choice of
intersections proved to be less complex than initially thought because the city is comparatively uniform
in terms of the racial composition of neighborhoods. In plain terms, there are no large predominately
minority sections or neighborhoods in town.
11
In fact, an initial examination of data from the 2000 U.S. census (and a reanalysis using 2010
census data) for the percentage of African Americans by block group reveals the following. Iowa City is
made up of roughly 40 block groups. Three of these block groups are populated with the highest
concentrations of African Americans. Two of these areas are located on the southeast side of Iowa City
and one is located on the southwest side. However, in Iowa City the police beats are much larger
geographical areas than are census block groups. Consequently, even in these highest minority
concentration areas, the percentage of African Americans residing in areas located on the rest of the
beat does not exceed 12 %. In all other areas of the community, the percentage of African Americans
populating any block group was less than 15.0 %. A simultaneous examination of all block groups
strongly suggests that with the exception of the three previously mentioned neighborhoods, on the
whole, African American homes are more or less evenly distributed throughout the community.
We utilized three waves of observations. The initial cohort monitored traffic in 2007. followed
by two more groups that surveyed traffic in 2011 and 2013. For each selected intersection, every traffic
observer made between 200 and 400 traffic observations. Depending on traffic volume, this took
approximately 45 minutes. For the initial rounds of observations, the observers generally examined
traffic in at least one intersection on all four beats in a given session. Consequently, each observation
session lasted roughly 3 or 4 hours. The observers surveyed vehicles to discern the race and gender of
the drivers and conducted their inspections periodically all hours of the day— mornings, afternoons,
evenings, and late nights.
The initial round of observations included data from 14 trained observers. All observers used a
systematic sampling strategy that was dependent on traffic volume. For example, when traffic volume
was light, the observers would attempt to assess race and gender for each vehicle passing through the
intersection. However. when volume was heavier. an assessment was made for a set number of cars
(e.g., every third car) passing through the intersection. Generally, traffic volume was much lighter late at
night than during daytime or evening hours. Therefore, the length of observation periods tended to be
longer at night than during daylight hours. Because the observers worked independently of one another,
the correlation coefficient r was used to assess inter - observer reliability. The assessments from each
observer were compared across all beats. Accordingly, each observer's observations were compared to
all others. For example, the correspondence of assessments of race across all observation points from
Observer A were compared to those same observation points for Observer B. Observer B's data were
next compared to observer C's and so on. This was done for all possible contrasts, for a total of 91
comparisons. The average correlation of assessments between observers was extremely high (r =.9).
This strongly suggests that the roadside observers were independently seeing very similar percentages
of minority and nonminority drivers pass through each observation site.
12
Table 1* Census and observer information
Observations
Total
Percentage
2010 Census
White
19,391
88.14
82.5
Black
843
3.83
5.8
Asian
854
3.88
6.9
Other
912
4.15
4.8
Grand total
22,000
100.00
100.00
*X2 = 148.68. p =.999, r =.989
In the analyses that follow whites and Asians are grouped together and are compared to all other groups
called, "minorities." We group whites and Asians because previous research strongly suggests that
Asians tend to be disproportionately underrepresented in traffic stops (Novak, 2004; Sheldon, 2001;
Barnum and Perfetti 2010). In other words, the police tend to stop too few Asians in comparison to their
baseline values in the population. And as we shall see shortly, this was indeed the case for Iowa City as
well. Grouping Asians with other minority members then would tend to suppress or hide potential
disproportionality in minority traffic stops.
In the initial round, the observers made an assessment of race for 22,000 drivers between June
and December 2007. Table 1 depicts the findings as well as the parallel 2010 census figures. The
correspondence between the percentages witnessed by the roadside observers and the 2010 census
population percentages is striking; 92. 02% of observers' assessments were of White or Asian drivers,
whereas 7.98% were minority group members. This closely resembles the 2010 census figures, which
report that 89.4% of Iowa City residents were white or Asian, and 10.6% were members of other racial
groups. In addition, observers found that on each of Iowa City's four police beats, the average
percentage of whites and Asians was at least 90 %, and there was no significant difference in
percentages between daytime and nighttime hours. Based on these findings and the high inter - observer
reliability, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least for initial analyses a valid baseline for Iowa City
driver demographics is 90% white and Asian, and 10% minority. We will have much more to say about
the baseline in the southeast side of town (called beat -two) in subsequent sections of this paper. We will
also soon describe how the baseline is used in a disparity index to examine traffic stop data.
Summary
• White & Asian = 90% of the driving population on Iowa City roads
• Minority members =10% of the driving population on Iowa City roads
ICPD Traffic Stop Demographic Analyses 2005 & 2007
We begin the analyses by looking at demographic information of data resulting ICPD self- initiated traffic
stops in 2005 - 2007. Table 2 gives this information for 2005.
13
Table 2 Demographic Traffic Stop Information from 2005
Race
Total Stops
Percentage
White
8394
84%
Black
892
9%
Hispanic
320
3%
Asian
242
2%
Other
127
1%
Unknown
19
.1%
Native
7
.1%
Grand Total
10001
100%
In 2005, the ICPD initiated 10001 traffic stops.z Of these, roughly 14% involved minority drivers. This
value is moderately higher than the 10 %observational /census baseline, meaning that in 2005 the ICPD
stopped about 4% "too many' minority drivers in comparison to baseline values. Keep in mind that
baseline values are estimates of the percentages of drivers on the roads, so 4% over the baseline is not
necessarily a meaningful amount. In order to assess this level of disproportionality further, we use a
series of steps. First, we analyze stops across police beats. Map 1 gives the locations of the four Iowa
City police beats.
2 Only stops where all information was known about driver and stop location were included in the analyses
14
Map 1 Iowa City Police Beats
RD
;;.
4 j...._r
r
Y �
\..MELROSE AVE w COURTS ,
— � r
Z
yy ^ {.
). � ' MUSCATINE ..
i
?1B i BENTON ST. •� AVE L
`�� _ sr j�I..
QUNRE � � � m � I���•�` � � 1
N N
Three of the four Iowa City police beats are similar size. Only beat number one which is located in the
downtown area of town is smaller than the others. Table 3 below gives the number and percentage of
traffic stops broken out by the race of the driver and the beat where the stop occurred. In the table we
have included an additional beat —five which is used to represent officers who are not assigned to a
specific beat but instead were allowed to "float" city -wide. This designation includes special
enforcement street crime action team (SCAT) officers as well as k -9 patrols and regular patrol officers
who are not assigned to specific beats or areas of responsibility.
15
Table 3 Driver Demographic Traffic Stop Percentages by Beat in 2005*
Race
1
2
Beat Number
3
4
5
Totals
Stops Percentage
White
1064
2888
2410
1117
693
8394
84%
Black
117
357
142
165
95
892
9%
Hispanic
42
130
56
54
32
320
3%
Asian
45
73
51
40
26
242
2%
Other
20
50
27
18
10
127
1%
Unknown
4
5
3
1
6
19
0%
Native
1
3
2
1
7
0%
Grand Total
1293
3506
2691
1395
863
10001
100%
Min. Percentage
14%
16%
9%
17%
17%
14%
*Does not include 254 traffic stops made by command staff personnel or data where race is unidentified
The bottom row of the table gives the percentages of minority drivers stopped on each beat. The total
percentage for all stops irrespective of beat is highlighted in red. In 2005, disproportionality in traffic
stops was greatest among beat -five officers who floated city wide and those who worked on beats four
and two (and to a lesser degree on beat one). No disproportionality was found for officers working on
beat three. In general levels of disproportionality are relatively modest and more or less evenly
dispersed across the beats. We now evaluate traffic stop information from 2006 and 2007 in a similar
fashion.
Table 4 Demographic Traffic Stop Information from 2006
Race
Total Stops
Percent
White
9941
82%
Black
1148
9%
Hispanic
463
4%
Asian
289
2%
Native
5
.1%
Other
230
2%
Unknown
27
.1%
Grand Total
12,103
100%
16
Table 5 Minority Stop Percentages by Beat in 2006*
Race
1
2
Beat Number
3
4
5
Totals
Stops Percentage
White
2177
3745
1960
1008
906
9796
82%
Black
249
499
129
112
148
1137
10%
Hispanic
100
198
53
42
59
452
4%
Asian
54
87
52
53
38
284
2%
Other
56
71
38
37
24
226
1%
Unknown
7
8
8
4
27
<1%
Native
1
1
3
5
<1%
Grand Total
2643
4609
2241
1252
1182
11927
100%
Min. Percentage
15%
17%
30%
15%
20%
15%
*Does not include 176 traffic stops made by command staff personnel or data where race is unidentified
The information from 2006 is similar to 2005. Disproportionality in stops is generally evenly distributed
across beats, although officers on beat -five have higher levels than others.
Table 6 Demographic Traffic Stop Information from 2007
Race
Total Stops
Percent
White
7105
83%
Black
734
9%
Hispanic
341
4%
Asian
227
3%
Native
3
.1%
Other
105
1%
Unknown
11
.1%
Grand Total
8526
100%
17
Table 7 Minority Stop Percentages by Beat in 2007*
Race
1
2
Beat Number
3
4
5
Totals
Stops Percentage
White
930
2776
1213
1089
745
8394
83%
Black
121
251
131
89
104
892
9%
Hispanic
38
148
43
34
61
320
4%
Asian
425
66
47
50
25
242
3%
Other
13
31
14
23
21
127
1%
Unknown
2
1
5
1
2
19
<1%
Native
1
2
7
<1%
Grand Total
1129
3273
1454
1286
960
8102
100%
Min. Percentage
15%
13%
13%
11%
19%
14%
*Does not include 424 traffic stops made by command staff personnel or data where race is unidentified
The overall patterns of the 2005 —2007 data are similar. In each year the levels of disproportionality are
relatively low and disproportionality is greatest among beat -five officers who floated city wide. 3
Two Generalizations from 2005 - 2007
• Overall Levels of disproportionality are low
• Beat -five officers exhibit highest levels of disproportionality
We use these generalizations to evaluate 2010, 2011 & 2012 ICPD traffic stop data.
ICPD Traffic Stop Demographic Analyses 2010
Table 8 Demographic Traffic Stop Information from 2010
Race
Total Stops
Percent
White
9311
77%
Black
1527
13%
Hispanic
593
5%
Asian
372
3%
Native
6
.1%
Other
173
1%
Unknown
66
.1%
Grand Total
12048
100%
3 For 2007 data were only available from January 1st— November 12`h 2007.
Im
Table 9 Minority Stop Percentages by Beat in 2010
Race
1
2
Beat Number
3
4
5
Totals
Stops Percentage
White
1677
1729
1758
1869
1588
8621
77%
Black
183
451
323
190
285
1432
13%
Hispanic
72
181
118
73
121
565
5%
Asian
60
73
85
62
59
339
3%
Other
26
19
29
42
54
170
2%
Unknown
6
33
1
2
7
49
<1%
Native
1
2
2
5
<1%
Grand Total
2025
2488
2314
2238
2116
11181
100%
Beat Percentage
14%
26%
20%
14%
22%
19%
*Does not include 867 traffic stops made by command staff personnel or data where race is unidentified
The information in the 2010 traffic stop data departs from results seen in earlier years in two important
ways. First, overall levels of disparity have increased from roughly 14% to 19 %. Second,
disproportionality on beat -two has noticeably increased by roughly ten percentage points. These trends
continue in the 2011 and 2012 data.
ICPD Demographic Analyses 2011
Table 10 Demographic Traffic Stop Information from 2011
Race
Total Stops
Percent
White
10124
76%
Black
1489
11%
Hispanic
627
5%
Asian
419
3%
Native
25
.1%
Other
165
1%
Unknown
485
4%
Grand Total
13334
100%
19
Table 11 Minority Stop Percentages by Beat in 2011*
Race
1
2
Beat Number
3
4
5
Totals
Stops Percentage
White
2262
2663
1599
1993
254
8771
76%
Black
232
682
222
159
65
1360
12%
Hispanic
122
242
100
62
21
547
5%
Asian
94
121
74
68
14
371
3%
Other
34
46
29
18
5
132
1%
Unknown
40
77
86
98
4
305
3%
Native
3
5
1
11
1
21
<1%
Grand Total
2787
3836
2111
2409
364
11507
100%
Min. Percentage
14%
25%
17%
30%
25%
18%
*Does not include 1827 traffic stops made by command staff personnel or data where race is unidentified
ICPD Demographic Analyses 2012
Table 12 Demographic Traffic Stop Information from 2012
Race
Total Stops
Percent
White
9122
74%
Black
1385
11%
Hispanic
579
5%
Asian
528
4%
Native
52
.1%
Other
194
2%
Unknown
507
4%
Grand Total
12367
100%
Table 13 Minority Stop Percentages by Beat in 2012
Race
1
2
Beat Number
3
4
5
Totals
Stops Percentage
White
2273
1863
2422
1843
181
8771
75%
Black
251
427
272
284
60
1360
11%
Hispanic
88
172
144
126
19
547
5%
Asian
143
89
125
118
15
371
4%
Other
44
50
58
27
4
132
2%
Unknown
141
40
78
47
2
305
2%
Native
13
8
10
17
2
21
<1%
Grand Total
2953
2469
3109
2462
283
11412
100%
Min. Percentage
13%
25%
15%
18%
29%
18%
*Does not include 955 traffic stops made by command staff personnel or data where race is unidentified
go
Discussion of 2010 – 2012 ICPD Traffic Stop Demographic Data
The information from the tables for 2010 – 2012 diverges from the demographic data from 2005 - 2007
in at least two important ways. First, the overall percentages of minority drivers stopped by the police
were higher in 2010 -2012 than the earlier years. For the more recent data, minority stops comprised
roughly 18% or 19% of all stops made by the ICPD. In 2005 - 2007 this percentage equaled roughly 14 %.
Given a 10% minority baseline, this suggests that in 2010 –2012, overall levels of disproportionality
increased from roughly 4 %to about 8 %. Logistic regression shows this difference is statistically
significant. For this analysis, logistic regression is a statistical technique that evaluates whether specific
"independent variables" are associated with a driver's race, given that a stop has occurred. Results show
that irrespective of the area of town where a stop occurred, the reason for the stop or the age and
gender of the driver, the year of the stop was associated with an increase in the odds that the driver was
a minority member (given a stop was made). Specifically, results show that a stop made during the 2010
– 2012 timeframe was associated with a roughly 35% increase in the odds that the driver was a minority
member in comparison to 2005 -2007 (z = -12.57 p <.001). See appendix B for tables of results.
Second, the percentage of minority drivers stopped dramatically increased in beat -two and to a lesser
extent among beat -five and beat -three officers in 2010 -2012 when compared to the earlier years. In
2005 - 2007 the average percentage of minority drivers stopped on beat -two equaled roughly 15 %. It
increased by about 10 percentage points during 2010 -2012. The levels of disproportionality on Beat -five
and beat -three increased by about 6% during the same period. Logistic regression shows these changes
were significant (see appendix B for details). Results also show that minority driver stops on the other
beats did not increase in a similar fashion.
Two Important Generalizations from 2010 -2012
• The percentage of minority drivers stopped significantly increased from 2005 – 2007 levels
• The increase in the percentage of minority drivers stopped was chiefly driven by significant
increases in minority driver stops on beat -two, beat -three and among officers not assigned to a
beat (designated as beat -five officers).
Beat -Two
As noted, the largest increase in the percentage of minority drivers stopped occurred on beat -two. This
increase may stem from changes in the baseline population —that is, the percentage of minority
members living and driving in the area, or the increase may stem from changes in police conduct. In
what follows we evaluate the likelihood of each of these potential explanations.
Beat -two Baseline Recalibration
In order to assess minority population change we recalibrated the baseline for beat -two. We began with
an examination of the 2010 U. S. Census data for beat -two. Map 2 below gives the percentage of
African - Americans living in each of the five census tracks located within beat -two. It's clear from map 2
21
that not all the census tracks match -up with beat -two boundaries. The tracts do however give a good
rough estimate of the percentage of African - Americans living on the beat. Map 2 shows that the
majority of African - Americans who reside in beat -two live on the south end of the beat. Approximately
15.79% of the residents living south of US Highway 6 on beat -two are African - American. On the north
side of this demarcation line roughly 6.10% of residents are African - American. The total percentage of
African - Americans living on beat -two equals approximately 10.62%
Given that most of the African - American residents on beat -two live south of Highway 6 we used US
Census block -group data to examine this area more closely. A block -group is a much smaller area than a
census track. Specifically, a block -group consists of clusters of blocks (usually 20 -30) within a given
census track. Map 3 below gives the census block - groups for the area of beat -2 south of Highway 6.
22
Map 2 The percentage of African - Americans living in beat -two 2010 census tracks
OP 9P
\ K Rnb
7.17%
�..MELR°SE AVE h. uz'. C011 57
_ u�I hG,W 1.77%
A ATIW
azmmm ST AVE
5.44%
.0
wv n
North = 6.10%
South = 15.79%
Total = 10.62%
23
Map 3 The percentage of African - Americans living in selected 2010 beat -two block - groups
a
Dg6RIKC 600
4 L S
. MELROSC AVE �w _ a WAT St •+
ANISCAT*&
�\�B i3EwlOn 5' AVE ~ •L.
i
9.45%
,
19.81
_J _ i
11.10%
27.08%
Map 3 shows that the location of the majority of African - American who reside in beat -two generally live
in an area that is centered around two block - groups located just south and adjacent to US Highway 6.
These two block groups are intersected by Sycamore street. Note the block -group located in the
extreme southeast corner of the map is partially located outside city limits."
Observation Recalibration: As mentioned earlier, using census data to establish a baseline can be
problematic because the characteristics of the driving population in a given location may not match the
demographics of the residents who live in the area. Research suggests that observational techniques
° Note: The percentages in maps 2 and 3 are for African - Americans, not all minority members. The percentages for
all minority members would be higher. We chose to use African - Americans rather than all minority members
because US census data do not completely conform with our definition of a minority. For example, a person who
is classified as "two or more races' under the US census and who Asian an white would not be a minority member
using our classification.
24
generally provide superior baselines to census data (Alpert et al., 2007; Alpert, Smith, & Dunham, 2004;
Lamberth, 2006). Consequently, we developed a supplemental baseline for beat -two. Subsequent the
original 2007 observation study we conducted two additional rounds of roadside observations in beat -
two. The first of these occurred in April and May 2011 and focused mainly on the north side of the beat
(1100 observations) and the second, was conducted in June and July 2013 on the south end of the beat
and included oversampling in an area near the Broadway apartments (3200 total observations across
the beat). The second study consisted of a total of five observation sites. Maps 4 and 5 give results of
these analyses.
waD 4 vercentaHes of
''WrB
drivers ioennneo Dv roaosioe onservers in tuii to tui3
r. -
3
4
MELMDU AVE
-j0k ST
L
. i
North = 8.83%
South = 11.55%
Total = 10.19%
25
The circled areas in map 4 indicate the observation zones. This map shows that about 10% of all
roadside observations were minority drivers. This value is consistent with the earlier 2007 observation
study. Analyses also show that observers saw more minority drivers on the south side of the beat
(11.55 %) than on the north side (8.86%). An additional observation area was conducted within the
block -group exhibiting the highest minority resident percentage (see map 3). This zone is located near
the Broadway area of beat -two. Observations here found roughly 40% of all drivers were minority
members, see map 5 below.
Map 5 Percentages of minority drivers identified by roadside observers in 2011 & 2013 including
oversampling in Broadway area
am
Ice
H
W
?ARK An
3
j`
4
i_
vt <_LROSE •VE
.
I ww
a
y COURT ST
�Sr
z s...Fu:T nr. T.
rr
-\�B
-
SENION 5T
�
AVE
ti
>
r;
L
O�
T
•n
40.00%
am
Iowa City Public School Data
The information from the supplemental observation studies and census analyses is very consistent with
the original baseline and census findings from 2007. The 2011 -13 observation information suggests that
for beat -two as a whole, about 10 or 11% of the drivers are minority members on average across the
entire beat. The census analyses also suggest that the population demographics in beat -two did not
change in a significant way between the years 2007 -2012.
To further investigate whether minority resident percentages changed on beat -two during the study
period we analyzed Iowa City Public School Enrollment. Table 14 gives the percentages of African -
American students enrolled at Iowa City public schools for beat -two students.5 The table shows that
with the exception of Grant Wood Elementary, African - American enrollment in beat -two generally
remained steady or decreased between the school years of 2005/06 and 2010/11. These findings are
consistent with information from census and observational analyses. Together, the findings suggest that
it's unlikely that population demographics on beat -two changed in a dramatic way during the study
period.
Table 14 Percentage of African - America students in Beat -Two schools
Year
SE
NW
NC
Wood
Twain
Lucas
Dist. Total
2005 -2006
16.13
14.04
16.02
28.61
45.71
17.81
13.38%
2006 -2007
14.39
17.26
10.06
31.89
44.21
19.25
14.42%
2007 -2008
19.97
17.54
10.89
36.26
50.38
15.42
16.55%
2008 -2009
18.72
18.97
9.75
31.96
45.02
14.86
15.96%
2009 -2010
19.17
18.97
11.84
38.23
41.77
15.35
16.16%
2010 -2011
17.48
17.58
12.00
39.35
38.68
16.55
16.22%
Map 6 below gives the location of Grant Wood School and summarizes the information from the census,
observation and school analyses. Based on the totality of this information it seems reasonable to
conclude that for most areas of beat -two the minority population and percentage of drivers on the road
equaled roughly 10% during the study period. However, an area located in a southern portion of the
beat (and as indicated in map 5) had a much higher percentage of minority residents and drivers. It
seems likely that in this area 20% or more of the driers on the roads were minority members.
Summary so far
• It's unlikely that the baseline percentage of minority drivers on the road increased in a
significant way during the study period in beat -two.
• Consequently, increases in disproportionality for ICPD traffic stops on beat -two likely stem from
changes in patrol procedures.
5 The results from NW Junior High should not be given as much weight as other listed schools because the
boundaries for NW Junior High include only a few blocks of beat -two.
27
As will be outlined below, modifications in patrol procedures likely accounts for changes in the
percentage of minority drivers stopped on beat -two during the study period. These changes include
increased use of focused patrols in the higher minority concentration areas of beat -two. A key question
at this point is, why were ICPD patrol procedures modified? We turn to this question in the next section.
Map 6 Summary of census, observation and school
s
Vi
W
?ARK RD O
MELROSE AVE w pukGTQ,
Ir,
BENTON ST
io
s \
i � o
i
NI
M
3W .
4
.N
c a COURT St
AfUSAVE
AVE
•J.
8
Grant Wood
Jl Elementary
+ 20 % in this area. 10% or
less elsewhere in beat -two
Crime rates and Patrol Procedures
As noted, the analyses thus far suggest that it's unlikely that the observed increase in disproportionality
of minority drivers stopped by the ICPD that occurred during the study period resulted from a significant
rise in the percentage of minority drivers on the roads. Instead other factors seem more likely to be
responsible for the change.
We believe that a modification of ICPD patrol procedures and tactics — especially on beat -two-
generated increased levels of disproportionality. This change in policing occurred between 2007 and
2010 and was concurrent with a spike in violent crime that occurred in 2008 and 2009.
Chart 1 below gives the rates of violent crime per 100,000 residents in Iowa City between 1999 and
2011. It's clear that the overall trend in the crime rate during this period is downward. However, in 2008
and 2009 the crime rate sharply increased for a brief period and then resumed its downward trend
through the rest of the decade .6
Chart 1 The estimated violent crime rates per 100,000 residents in Iowa City*
Estimated Violent Crime Rates
700
600
500
400
300 — Estimated Violent
Crime Rates
200
100
0
O1 O ti N M't N t0 n W O) O ti N
� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti ti ti
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
*Source City - Data.com, estimates calculated using decennial census population values estimates
Although the increase in crime in 2008 -09 was not large or long lasting, research suggests the spike was
accompanied by a disproportional amount of media coverage (Barnum and Perfetti, 2012; 2013; Perfetti
2013).' Much of this media coverage framed the "crime problem" in Iowa City as predominately a
6 The following crimes were included as violent crimes in the analyses for chart 1: aggravated assault, murder,
rape, robbery.
' Here are links that provide a sampling of media stories about increases in Iowa City crime on beat -two during
2008 -09. See appendix A for a graph of newspaper coverage of crime that occurred duringthis time.
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/44973862.htmi
29
product of illegal activity occurring on the southeast side of town. Additionally, a substantial amount of
anecdotal evidence suggests that the increase in crime and accompanying media coverage affected law
enforcement behavior. For instance, the ICPD instituted a new patrol beat during this time period. This
new beat (called "beat 2 -A "') is formed from a subsection of the original beat -two and is located on the
south side of the beat. The area designated as +20% concentration of minority residents on map 6
roughly corresponds to beat "2 -A." Secondly, the ICPD opened a police substation in 2010 on beat -two
near this same area. The sub stationed opened in part to address crime problems in the area. Further,
the City of Iowa City instituted a curfew ordinance in December 2009 which according to many media
accounts was enacted in part to deal with the violent crime trend in town especially on the southeast
side.8 Consistent with this, violent crime data for neighborhoods located in beat -two do show higher
rates of violent crime for neighborhoods located on the south side of beat -two than the north side (see
tables 15 and 16 below).9
Table 15* Violent crime rate for neighborhoods located in the south side of beat -two
South Neighborhoods Violent Crime
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Wetherby
35
16
16
8
18
27
25
10
15
13
South Pointe
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
Pepperwood
7
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Hilltop
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
Grant Wood
23
11
9
13
25
20
26
19
19
22
South 2Totals
65
28
25
22
43
47
53
29
36
39
Crime rate for year
746.27
321.47
287.03
252.58
493.69
539.61
601150
332.95
413.32
447.76
* South -side beat -two estimates are based on a population estimate that equals 8,710
Table 16* Violent crime rate for neighborhoods located in the north side of beat -two
North Neighborhoods Violent Crime
2003
2007
2005
2006
2007
2908
2009
2010
2011
2012
Village Green
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
Lucas farms
15
6
5
10
8
9
8
6
4
6
South East
21
11
5
7
9
7
7
7
12
7
Longfellow
5
3
0
3
1
2
3
2
0
2
Creek Side
5
6
3
5
7
0
7
6
3
4
Friendship
12
4
7
4
8
5
3
6
1
8
Morningside
5
3
0
2
0
1
2
1
2
1
North 2totals
64
34
21
35
34
25
32
30
23
29
Crime rate for year
529.23
281.15
173.65
289A2
281.15
206.73
264.62
248.08
190.19
239.8%
* North -side beat -two estimates are based on a population that equals 12,093
http: / /www. press - citizen.com /article /20090512/N E W S01/ 90512001 /Man- arrested - rioting -assau It -d u ring- large-
fkk
http: / /coralvillecou rier.typepad.com /commun itV /2009/05/ five - more - charged- for - mothers -day- brawl --- violence-
spills- over -to- city -h igh.html
8 http: / /www.kwwl.com /story/ 11602573 /iowa - city - council -to- make - decision -on- curfew - ordinance
http://www.kcrg.com/news/loca1/59413962.htmI
http: / /www. rad ioiowa.com /2009 /09/16 /first -read ing -of -cu rfew -ord finance- passed -in- iowa -city/
9 Source IC Press Citizen. The following crimes were included as violent crimes in the analyses for tables 15 & 16:
aggravated assault, arson, forcible rape, kidnapping, murder and robbery.
30
Tables 15 and 16 show that the violent crime rate was notably higher for neighborhoods located on the
south side of beat -two than those located on the north side during the study period.
Suppositions
Based on the analyses so far, our supposition is that the ICPD changed its patrol procedures in response
to perceived increased levels of violent crime on beat -two. The analyses show that the south side of the
beat, especially the Wetherby neighborhood had higher violent crime rates than most other areas of the
city, and that the rates of violent crime in this area were higher in 2008 and 2009 than in the other years
included in the analysis. Moreover, it was during this time frame when the changes in police tactics
occurred. These changes took the form of focused patrols —with more officers patrolling in higher
minority concentration areas (beat 2 -A) than had been the case prior to 2008. It seems likely that these
police tactics account for some of the increased minority disproportionality found ICPD traffic stops. It
also seems likely that float officers, including SCAT and k -9 officers concentrated their patrols in these
higher minority population neighborhoods. We will investigate these claims more deeply in the next
section.
Summary for this Section
• Observation and census analyses show that the baseline of the percentage of minority drivers
on the roads of Iowa city equaled roughly 10% during the study period
• In 2005 - 2007 levels of disproportionality in ICPD stops were comparatively low
• Levels of disproportionality significantly increased in 2010 and remained stable though 2012
• The increase was not likely due to changes in the proportions of minority drivers on the roads of
Iowa City
• Disproportionality increased more on beat -two than other beats during the study period.
• ICPD modified patrol procedures in 2008 -09 in response to perceived increased violent crime in
Iowa City. These modifications include the formation of a new sub -beat located within beat -two.
This sub -beat is located in an area characterized by a higher percentage of minority residents
than other areas of beat -two (or Iowa City).
31
Chapter 2: Individual Officer Data
In this section we breakout individual officer traffic stop information by beat assignment. A disparity
index, odds ratios and graphs are used to identify officers with higher levels of disproportionality than
their coworkers. Comparisons are made across time, across the entire department and across beat
assignment.
The Odds Ratio
In much of what follows we measure disproportionality using one of two estimators that are predicated
on an odds ratio. Given this, it's valuable to spend some time becoming acquainted with this estimator.
The odds ratio is a measure of effect size and association. It is useful when comparing two distinct
groups. We use a measure called a disparity index when analyzing traffic stops. This measure compares
stops to baseline values. When assessing the outcome of a stop we use a standard odds ratio measure
which compares the odds of something happening in one group to the odds of it happening in another
group.
Before proceeding let's define a few terms. Abaseline is a standard used to judge disproportionality. It
should be thought of as the percentage of minority drivers who are on the road in a given area, and
consequently as the percentage of minority drivers that should be stopped by the police when no bias is
occurring. If the percentage of minority drivers stopped is either higher or lower than the baseline
percentage then disproportionality is said to occur. The term disproportionality does not necessarily
imply bias or discrimination. In what follows we analyze two essential types of police data: (i) traffic stop
data and (ii) outcome data. As the name implies, stop data deals with comparing the number of stops
made by the police to baseline values. Outcome data gives information about the consequence of a
stop. For example, did the driver receive a ticket? Was s /he arrested? How about searched?
The disparity index used to analyze traffic stops measures the difference in ratios between two groups
and their respective baselines. To illustrate let's focus on a made -up example. Let's say the baseline for
a given area of town equals 10 %, meaning that we can expect that about 10% of the drivers in this area
are minority members. This value represents the proportion of minority drivers who should be stopped
by the police. It follows then, that the baseline value for white drivers in this area equals 90 %. To make
this more concrete, let's say a given officer makes 100 traffic stops in this area. Further, let's say that
forty -five of the drivers stopped were minority members while fifty -five were not. Given these values,
the disparity index for this officer equals
(.45/.10) - (.55/.90) = 7.36
This number suggests that for our fictional officer, the odds were more than seven (7.36) times greater
that she would stop a minority driver as a non - minority driver given the baseline values. Please note
that higher odds ratio values signal more minority disproportionality and that a score equal to one
suggests no disproportionality.
32
Now let's look at the outcome of the stop. Here we'll use the standard odds ratio to evaluate
disproportionality. Toil I ustrate let's say that our fictional officer wrote a single ticket to 80 of the 100
drivers she stopped. Let's also say that forty of these tickets went to minority drivers while forty were
issued nonminority drivers. Given this information, computing the odds ratio for stop outcomes is
straightforward.
Citation
Yes
Total
Minority
5
40
45
W & A
15
40
55
Total
20
80
100
The odds ratios for citations equals (40/5) - (40/15) = 3, meaning that the odds were three times greater
that this officer issued a citation to a minority driver as a white driver. This value is meaningfully greater
than one and so suggests significant disproportionality.
In the charts that follow each officer is represented as a circle. Disparity index values are located on the
horizontal axis. As values move from left to right along this axis levels of disproportionality increase. An
effective strategy to use in examining the charts is to identify officers who: (i) are located on the right
side of the horizontal axis, (ii) who stand out from other officers (iii) who have higher disparity index
values than others and (iv) who consistently have comparatively high values across time and on different
beats.
An important warning: Please keep in mind is that the disparity index is based on an observational
baseline and that the baseline is simply an estimate of the proportion of minority drivers on the roads of
Iowa City. The actual percentages of drivers may be significantly different than the baseline.
Consequently, when evaluating an individual officer's data, it's important to evaluate the officer over
time and in comparison to colleagues. This practice is much better than simply focusing on the specific
value of a single disparity index score. In other words, in isolation of context —in particular other
officers' scores, as well as the target officer's scores across time and place —a single disparity index
score is not a good indicator of bias. Also, please note that the index values become more valid and
reliable as the number of stops made by the officer increases.
Disparity Index Ratios for Stops
33
Chart 2, disparity index ratios for officers working in 2005
.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
odds ratio
The chart above shows the value of the disparity index score for each ICPD officer making at least
fourteen traffic stops in 2005. This table is useful for identifying officers who stopped disproportionate
percentages of minority drivers (given observational zone baseline values). The estimator is calculated
as described above. Each circle represents an individual officer. The values for the index are given on the
horizontal axis. Higher values suggest more disproportionality and a score equaling one suggests no
disproportionality, meaning that the odds of stopping minority and white /Asian drivers are equal. As a
general rule of thumb a score equal to or greater than three should draw your interest and be examined
more closely. Likewise, scores that appear to be dissimilar from others should also be given special
scrutiny. Also it is very important to remember that disparity values that are based on a large number
of stops are more valid and reliable than those based on fewer stops. On the next page we present a
table that gives the values for officers with a disparity index value greater than three. Interpretation is
direct, for example, the odds are the first officer listed in the table is roughly five times (disparity index =
4.91) more likely to stop a minority driver than a W & A driver given the observational baselines. These
same claims apply for all charts that follow.
2005 Descriptives
Mean 1.71
a 1.03
Skew 1.45
34
Table 17, officers, disparity index values and beats for 2005
Odds Ratio
Beat
Stops
4.91
5
51
4.37
2
263
3.70
2
508
3.50
2
50
2.86
4
83
2.55
2
181
2.51
2
261
The data for 2005 show relatively modest amounts of disproportionality. In chart 2 the majority of
officers' disparity index values cluster around 1.00 (mean = 1.7). Recall that a value equaling one
suggests no disproportionality. Additionally, only four officers have disparity odds ratio values larger
than three.
Chart 3, disparity index ratios for officers working in 2006
00 2.00 4.00 6.00
odds-2006
2006 Descriptives
Mean 2.00
0 1.44
Skew 1.56
35
Table 18, officers, disparity index values and beats for 2006
Odds Ratio
Beat
Stops
6.0
5
25
5.5
2
776
4.95
5
31
4.91
1
51
4.6
2
77
3.5
2
223
3.0
4
40
2.8
1
445
2.7
4
144
2.6
2
417
The disparity index values for 2006 are moderately higher than those for 2005 (mean = 2.0). Several
officers disparity index scores are above three. However of the officers with high values, only one is
based on a large number of stops (n > greater than 100) so caution should be used when interpreting
results.
The disparity index information for 2007 is given on the following page.
36
Chart 4, disparity index for officers working in 2007
.00 1.00 2.00 100 4.00 5.00 6.00
odds ratioW
2007 Descriptives
Mean 1.75
a 1.07
Skew 1.31
Table 19, officers, disparity index scores and beats for 2007
Odds Ratio
Beat
Stops
5.17
2
359
3.98
1
186
3.78
3
216
3.77
2
159
3.29
4
56
2.94
1
65
2.83
5
380
The data for 2007 are very similar to those for 2005. The 2007 information shows only modest levels of
disproportionality with most officers' values clustered around 1.0 (mean = 1.75). Only five officers'
disparity odds ratios were larger than three. Incidentally, no officers in 2007 with odds ratio scores
above three had similarly high scores (disparity index values over three) in 2005 or visa-versa.
37
2010 -2012 Stop Data
Chart 5, disparity index for officers working in 2010
.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
odds-2010
2010 Descriptives
Mean 2.56
a 1.81
Skew 1.52
Table 20, officers, disparity index values and beats for 2010*
Odds Ratio
Beat
Stops
9.00
5
70
7.41
2
186
6.14
2
60
6.03
5.75
3
231
5.31
4
264
4.91
4.53
5
233
4.42
2
367
4.22
2
47
3.78
3
493
3.60
2
35
* Officers highlighted in red were assigned to beat 2A; officers
highlighted in green worked the beat occasionally
03
The data from 2010 show a marked increase in disproportionality compared to data from 2005 — 2007.
Examination of chart 5 shows twelve officers have disparity index values greater than three. The
arithmetic mean of the entire distribution of disparity index values equals 2.56 and is clearly higher than
those from 2005 —2007. Table 20 above lists the officers whose disparity index values are greater than
three. Nine of these twelve officers were assigned to beat -two or as beat -five float officers.
These data make apparent that much of the increase in disproportionality in 2010 disparity index is
driven by those assigned to beat -two. It is important to note that the officers whose information is
highlighted in red were assigned to beat 2 -A fulltime. Information highlighted in green is from officers
who worked beat -2A at least some of the time. Recall that beat 2 -A is a special beat that was developed
in 2010 to deal with perceived increases in crime on the southeast side of Iowa City. Six officers listed in
table 17 were assigned to this beat at least some of the time in 2010.
As noted, the census and observational baseline analyses show that the percentage of minority
residents and drivers in the area demarcated by beat 2 -A were significantly higher than in other areas of
beat -two. In fact, observational analyses suggest that minority baseline values for beat 2 -A were as high
as 40 %. Consequently. the 30% minority driver baseline used for other areas of beat -two is not valid
or appropriate for officers making stops solely in beat 2 -A. Simply put, using the 10% baseline for an
officer working only in this area would dramatically increase the officer's odds ratio value and give a
false impression of levels of disproportionality
Limitations of the Data
There are two important limitations with the ICPD traffic stop data: first, is it is not possible to
determine the location of individual traffic stops and second, although we know the beat assignments of
officers, it is not possible to know where on the beat an officer spent most of his /her time.
Consequently, we cannot know the proportion of stops an officer made in a specific location or area of a
beat or know how much time the officer spent in an area looking for a stop. This means that for beat -
two officers it is not possible to know the percentage of time a given officer spent patrolling beat 2 -A or
the number of stops the officer made in this area.
The individual officer data for 2011 and 2012 follow. Summary and interpretation will follow the
presentation of results for both years.
39
Chart 6, disparity index for officers working in 2011
.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
odds ratioll
Descriptives 2011
Mean 2.31
a 1.74
Skew 2.03
Table 21, officers, disparity index values and beats for 2011
Odds Ratio
Beat
Stops
9.00
5
22
7.43
2
418
6.88
2
337
6.08
3
129
5.73
5
18
5.27
2
203
5.20
3
112
4.45
2
248
4.15
5
171
3.38
1
22
3.13
2
190
* Officers highlighted in red were sometimes assigned to beat 2A
,M
Chart 7, disparity index for officers working in 2012
00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
odds ratioU
Descriptives 2012
Mean 2.32
a 1.54
Skew 1.99
Table 22, officers, disparity index values and beats for 2012
Odds Ratio
Beat
Stops
9.33
2
55
5.59
2 -A
261
4.76
5
52
4.37
2
266
4.29
3
96
4.22
1
144
4.16
2
313
3.90
5
139
3.82
2
218
3.76
t
112
3.61
2
199
3.50
#
26
3.38
4
461
3.38
2
282
* Officers highlighted in red were sometimes assigned to beat 2A
t investigator, * deidentified
41
The disparity index data for 2010 — 2012 show a clear pattern. The mean disparity index values for each
year are appreciably higher than those from 2005 — 2007 (see Appendix D HMLM section for a statistical
analysis of differences). An examination of individual officers with the highest disparity index values
(greater than three) shows that the majority of these officers were assigned to beat -two or beat -five.
Summary of 2005 — 2012 Analyses so far:
• Levels of disproportionality among ICPD officers were comparatively low in 2005 —2007
• Levels of disproportionality significantly increased in 2010 and remained stable in 2011 and
2012 (see appendix D).
• In general, officers assigned to beat -two or beat -five demonstrated the highest levels of
disproportionality in 2010 -2012 traffic stops.
Next, we look more closely at beat -two and beat -five officers' disparity index values for 2010 —2012.
42
Chart 8, disparity index for beat 2 officers working in 2010
2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
odds10
Descriptives 2010 beat 2
Mean 3.89
a 1.83
Skew .48
Table 23, officers, disparity index values for beat 2 in 2010*
Odds Ratio
Beat
Stops
7.41
2 -A
186
6.15
2 -A
69
6.03
2 -A
137
4.91
2 -A
266
4.42
2 -A
367
4.22
2
47
3.60
2
35
2.76
2
196
2.66
2 -A
269
2.33
2
102
2.12
2
291
1.75
2
159
1.29
2
183
* Officers highlighted in red were sometimes assigned to beat 2A
43
Chart 9, disparity index for beat 5 officers working in 2010
.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
beat2_odds_10
Descriptives 2010 beat 5
Mean 3.69
a 2.50
Skew 1.55
Table 24, officers, disparity index values for beat 5 in 2010
Odds Ratio
Beat Stops
9.00
70
4.53
233
3.06
323
2.79
283
2.66
35
2.2
56
2.12
189
1.68
918
Analyses show that in 2010 the disparity index values for officers assigned to work beat 2 -A were higher
than other beat -two officers who were not designated to work solely in this area.
44
Chart 10, disparity index for beat 2 officers working in 2011
1 1 1 1 : 1111
odd11
Descriptives 2011 beat 2
Mean 3.26
a 1.96
Skew 1.15
Table 25, officers, disparity index values for beat 2 in 2011*
Odds Ratio
Beat
Stops
7.427948
2 -A
418
6.879581
2 -A
337
5.273438
2
203
4.445783
2
248
3.12766
2
190
2.616279
2
333
2.595092
2
210
2.273684
2
238
2.076923
2
128
2.076923
2
80
1.979253
2
294
1.774038
2
249
1.738636
2
210
1.431818
2
204
* Officers highlighted in red were sometimes assigned to beat 2A
45
Chart 11, disparity index for beat 5 officers working in 2011
.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
odd11
Descriptives 2011 beat 5
Mean 5.04
G 3.21
Skew .107
Table 26, officers, disparity index values for beat 5 in 2011
Odds ratio
Beat Stops
9.0
22
5.73
18
1.30
142
4.15
171
Again the 2011 data make clear that the disparity index values for beat 2 -A officers were higher than the
ratios for beat -two officers not designated to work beat 2 -A and the values for some beat -five were also
higher than other beat -two officers.
46
Chart 12, disparity index for beat 2 officers working in 2012
.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
odds12
Descriptives 2012 beat 2
Mean 3.55
a 2.29
Skew 1.25
Table 27, officers, disparity index values for beat 2 in 2012
Odds Ratio
Beat
Stops
9.33
2
55
5.59
2 -A
263
4.37
2
270
4.16
2
315
3.82
2
219
3.61
2
202
3.38
2
284
2.56
2
293
1.94
2
126
1.69
2
171
1.10
2
302
1.02
2
149
* Officers highlighted in red were sometimes assigned to beat 2A
47
Chart 13, disparity index for beat 5 officers working in 2012
1.00 2.00 i 4.00 5.00
odds12
Descriptives 2012 beat 5
Mean 3.24
a 1.32
Skew .089
Table 28, officers, disparity index values for beat 5 in 2012
Odds Ratio
Beat Stops
4.76
52
3.90
139
2.48
74
1.84
59
m
Summary of 2010 — 2012
ICPD traffic stop disproportionality for 2010 -2012 data increased in comparison with 2005 —2007 levels.
The analyses suggest that much of this increase stemmed from an intensification of focused patrols in an
area of southeast Iowa City characterized by higher minority- resident concentrations than other areas of
town. This location is known as beat 2 -A and was implemented as a patrol area in 2010. Since then, a
small number of officers have been assigned to patrol only this beat. Additionally, evidence suggests
that beat -five officers (especially street crime action team or SCAT officers) have frequently focused
their patrols in this area. SCAT officers are tasked with patrolling high crime areas.
Data for individual officers shows that in general, the disparity index values for officers assigned to beat
2 -A and many beat -five SCAT officers are higher than the values for officers not designated to work
solely in this area of town. As noted previously, the percent of minority drivers and residents in beat 2 -A
is considerably higher than in other areas of town. Consequently, the 10% baseline value used to
calculate individual officer disparity index values is not valid for officers whose patrol areas are
limited to this beat. In fact, using the 10% baseline for officers whose patrol areas are circumscribed by
beat 2 -A would significantly inflate their disparity index values.
However, it's also important to emphasize that several officers not assigned to beat 2 -A or SCAT
demonstrated high levels of disproportionality in comparison to their colleagues. Although many of
these officers were assigned to beat -two, some were assigned to beats located in other areas of the city.
It's also important to mention that not all beat -two or beat -five officers demonstrated high levels of
disproportionality in traffic stops in comparison to colleagues. In fact, the disparity index values for
roughly one half of all beat -two and beat -five officers were lower than 3.0.
Knowing that some beat -two officers exhibited disparity index values while others did not begs an
important question. Why the difference? Two possibilities seem reasonable. First, perhaps beat -two
officers with low values tended to avoid the locations on their beat with high minority concentrations
(like beat 2 -A) and simply focused their attention elsewhere. If so, these officers would be making traffic
stops solely in locations where baseline values for minority drivers were lower. Or second, perhaps
although not specifically assigned to beat 2 -A, the beat -two officers with higher disparity index values
may have focused their attention on the small area known as beat -2A which is located within their beat
(perhaps because they believed crime was more likely to occur in 2 -A). More analysis is needed to
adjudicate between these two possibilities. However, in order to effectively evaluate the likelihood of
each possibility it is necessary to know the precise location of each traffic stop made by officers working
in beat -two. This information is needed to determine if officers with higher disparity index values were
stopping cars more frequently in beat 2 -A than other officers. As noted above, this type of analyses is
not possible with these data because exact locations of stops were not provided.
49
Chapter 3 Outcome Data Analyses
In this chapter we examine traffic stops outcomes by looking for disproportionality in citations,
searches, arrests and seizures. The analyses include both univariate odds ratios and multivariate
regression techniques (see appendix A for detailed logistic regression. See Appendix C for detailed
univariate odds ratio analyses).
Outcome analysis provides information about the consequence of a stop. In basic terms, it tells us what
happened to drivers once they were stopped. Our focus is on whether minority drivers were more likely
to receive some sort of sanction (like a ticket) than white /Asian drivers. Assessments include analyses
for citations, arrests, search requests and hit rates —or the rate that a seizure of contraband or evidence
occurred during a consent search.
Unlike the analyses for traffic stops, an investigation of stop outcomes is not dependent on population
baseline characteristics. Outcome assessment simply compares two or more groups using the
proportion of traffic stops as the comparison benchmark. So as an example, let's say a given officer
stopped ten drivers all for the same offense— running a red light. Here the benchmark is the ten stops.
Let's also say that five of these drivers were white /Asian and five were minority members. The analysis
simply compares the officer's outcomes to the stop baseline. Since in this example five drivers from each
demographic violated the law, we'd expect the officer to issue an equal number of tickets to each group.
However, if the officer issued only one ticket to white /Asian drivers but five to minority drivers, this
disparity may suggest bias.
In nearly all instances however, the situation is not as simple as the example above. Officers do not
generally stop drivers for just one type of offense. Instead, officers usually stop drivers for a variety of
reasons, including moving violations, equipment violations, reasonable suspicion and so forth. This adds
a degree of complexity to the analyses. Multivariate statistical techniques like logistic regression and
HMLM are useful in these contexts. These techniques enable researchers to statistically control (or set
aside) potential explanatory variables that are not of interest.
The tables below present summary data for the odds ratio analyses, appendix A provides tables from
logistic regression analyses for outcomes.
Our presentation strategy is as follows. Immediately below we present an example of a complete odds
ratio analyses of data from 2005 to illustrate the process. Following this we present a summary table of
the final results for all years followed by a discussion of the findings. A detailed analysis of odds ratios
for all years can be found in appendix C.
50
2005 Outcomes
Citations
Citations
No
Yes
Total
Percent of Stops
Minority
831
530
1361
14%
W & A
4592
4044
8636
86%
Total
5423
4574
9997
100%
* 5 cases missing data
2005 Odds Ratio for citations = .724 (1.38)
Received Citations
No
Yes
Minority Percent Cited
61%
39%
W & A Percent Cited
53%
47%
Interpretation: in 2005 given that a citation was issued, the odds were 1.35 times higher that a
white /Asian driver would receive a ticket than would a minority driver.
Arrests
Arrests
No
Yes
Total
Minority
1230
131
1361
W & A
8288
348
8636
Grand Total
9518
479
9997
* 5 cases missing data
2005 Odds Ratio for arrests = 2.54
Arrests
No
Yes
Minority Percent Arrested
90%
10%
W & A Percent Arrested
96%
4%
Interpretation: given that an arrest was made, the odds were 2.5 times greater that a minority driver
would be arrested during a traffic stop than would a W & A driver in 2005.
51
Searches
Consent Request
No
Yes
Total
Minority
1299
61
1360
W & A
8479
157
8636
Grand Total
9778
218
9996
* 6 cases missing data
2005 Odds Ratio for consent search requests = 2.54
Consent Search Requests
No
Yes
Minority Percent Requested
96%
4%
W & A Percent Requested
98%
2%
Interpretation: given that a search request was made, the odds were 2.5 times greater that an officer
would request to search a car driven by a minority member than a car driven by a W & A driver in 2005.
2005 Odds Ratio for hit rates = .624 (1.60)
Search Hits
No
Yes
Total
Minority Hits
54
7
61
W & A
130
27
157
Grand Total
184
34
218
Minority Hits
89%
11%
W & A Hits
83%
17%
Interpretation: given that an item was seized, compared to W & A drivers, the odds were 2.5 times
greater that an officer would request a search from a minority driver during a traffic stop in 2005;
however in the same year the odds were 1.60 times greater that an officer would seize evidence or
contraband as a result of the search requested of W & A drivers as opposed to minority drivers. In plain
terms minority drivers were subjected to more search requests but when voluntary searches were
conducted, the hit rates were higher when requested from W & A drivers.
A summary table for each year of the study follows. See appendix C for individual tables for the data
analyzed during 2005 -2012.
52
Summary Table of Outcomes
Odds ratios for outcomes by year
Citations
Minority Odds
2005
0.72
2006
0.67
2007
0.86
2010
1.18
2011
1.38
2012
1.44
Arrests
- - --
2005
2.54
2006
2.82
2007
2.61
2010
3.08
2011
3.18
2012
2.55
Search Requests
- - --
2005
2.54
2006
3.42
2007
5.62
2010
2.75
2011
3.89
2012
2.44
Hit Rates
- - --
2005
0.62
2006
1.20
2007
0.34
2010
0.44
2011
0.78
2012
0.87
53
Stop Outcome Summary
The purpose of the analyses of stop outcomes was to evaluate disproportionality in citations, arrests,
consent searches and seizures from consent searches. The univariate odds ratio analyses showed
consistent patterns —Iowa City officers disproportionately arrested and asked for consent to search
minority drivers across all years of the study. On average the odds were about 2.80 times greater that
minority drivers would be arrested on a traffic stop in comparison to others. Likewise, the odds were
roughly 3.45 times greater that ICPD officers would request a search from minority drivers compared to
others, this despite "hit rates" that were actually higher for non - minority drivers. Results also suggest
that white /Asian and minority drivers were ticketed at similar rates. Multivariate logistic regression
show similar results. The regression odds ratios are similar in size to those from univariate analyses even
after controlling for officer's race, officer's gender, officer's years of service, officer's duty assignment,
the time of day, moving violation, equipment violation and the driver's gender.
It's important to emphasize that across most years of the study the hit rates that resulted from consent
searches were actually lower for minority drivers than for a white /Asian driver. So although officers
were more likely to ask minority drivers for permission to search, they were more successful in seizing
contraband and evidence from white /Asian drivers.
A final word about searches: We recently surveyed officers to check compliance and accuracy of the
inputting of search request data. The results suggest that ICPD officers were inconsistent in entering
information about search requests. Specifically, roughly 50% of officers correctly input each search
request made. These officers input data each time they made a search request. However, about 50% of
the officers incorrectly entered this information. Instead of entering a request each time an attempt was
made, these officers input a search request only after being granted consent for the search by the
driver. Moreover, it is not possible to know which type of search requests are present for a given search
in this data set. This information should be considered when interpreting search request information.
A final word about arrests: the findings show that across the study period the odds were greater that a
minority driver would be arrested on traffic stop than a white /Asian driver. However, caution should be
used when interpreting this result because important control variables could not be included in logistic
regression models. Most importantly, information was not available for the reason for arrest during a
traffic stop. Consequently, it is unknown whether minority drivers were more likely to be arrested for
low discretion offenses such as bench warrants, driving while under suspension and operating while
intoxicated. Officers have very little discretion when deciding whether to affect an arrest for these types
of offenses. It was not possible to test for differences in offending rates between racial groups for these
types of offenses —which could theoretically account for some of the observed disproportionality -
because the data set does not include this information.
54
Final Summary
This study looked for disproportionality in traffic stops made by the Iowa City Police Department during
2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011 and 2012 —more than 60,000 stops. The investigation analyzed two broad
categories of discretionary police conduct: (i) a made traffic stop and (ii) the outcome or disposition of a
stop. The methodology used to analyze ICPD traffic stops employed a driver - population baseline
fashioned from roadside observations, census data and school enrollment information. The
observational portion of the baseline centered on observations from people who surveyed traffic in
Iowa City to determine the race and gender of drivers on the roads. These observers monitored traffic at
various times between 2007 and 2013 and made roughly 25,000 total observations. The methodology
used in assessing ICPD officers' traffic stop data is straight forward. It centered on identifying
differences between the PD's traffic stop information and the baseline. Any difference between baseline
values and police data signified disproportionality.
The results of baseline analyses suggested that roughly 10% of the drivers on Iowa City roads were
minority members during the study period. Results also show that between 2005 and 2007 levels of
disproportionality in ICPD stop data were comparatively low. During this time - period, roughly 15% of
the Iowa City Police Department's traffic stops involved minority drivers.
However, disproportionality significantly increased in 2010 and then remained stable through 2012.
Analyses show that in 2010 the percentage of minority drivers stopped by ICPD officers increased to
roughly 19% and remained near this level in 2011 and 2012. The analyses also show that the minority -
driver baseline remained constant during this time - frame.
A close examination of ICPD patrol practices suggests that the increase in disproportionality stemmed
from an intensification of directed patrols in a portion of southeast Iowa City. After a review of various
sources it seems likely that the Iowa City Police Department modified patrol procedures following an
increase in violent crime in the city in 2008 and 2009. These modifications included the establishment of
a new patrol beat located in southeast Iowa City in an area with a higher minority resident
concentration than other areas of town. This beat — called "2 -A" is rather small. It consists of an area no
larger than few blocks and is geographically much smaller than other ICPD beats. However, the minority
baseline in beat 2 -A is significantly higher than in other Iowa City beats.
Individual officer analyses indicate that the officers exhibiting the most disproportionality in traffic stops
were frequently assigned to patrol areas located on the southeast side of Iowa City, or were "float"
officers who were tasked with patrolling high crime areas. Both groups of officers tended to stop higher
proportions of minority drivers than did most of their colleagues. Officers assigned to patrol the small 2-
A beat also stopped higher proportions of minority drivers than did other officers. However, for these
officers this result should be discounted because of the higher minority baselines in this area.
Consequently, higher proportions of minority stops for beat 2 -A officers do not necessarily indicate
disproportionality or bias.
The examination of stop outcomes assessed disproportionality in citations, arrests, consent searches and
hit -rates or seizures from consent searches. Univariate odds ratio analyses showed consistent
patterns —Iowa City officers disproportionately arrested and (consent) searched minority drivers. On
average across all years of the study the odds were about 2.80 times greater that minority drivers would
be arrested on a traffic stop in comparison to others. Likewise, the odds were roughly 3.45 times greater
that ICPD officers would request a search from minority drivers compared to others, this despite hit
55
rates that were actually on average higher for non - minority drivers. Findings also suggest that minority
drivers and others were ticketed at equivalent rates. Multivariate logistic regression analyses show
parallel results. The regression odds ratios were similar in size to those from univariate analyses even
after controlling for officer's race, officer's gender, officer's years of service, officer's duty assignment,
the time of day, moving violation, equipment violation and the driver's gender.
Care should be used when evaluating findings for arrest outcomes. Several important control variables
were not available for inclusion in logistic regression models. Consequently, it's not possible to evaluate
whether disproportionality in arrest rates was a product of differential offending rates between
demographic categories. Likewise, it is important to emphasize that the number of cases used for
analyses of consent search requests and seizures was much smaller than the number of cases used in
analyses of other stop- outcome variables. This small "n" should be taken into consideration when
evaluating results.
56
REFERENCES
Alpert, Geoffrey P. and Michael R. Smith. 2007. Investigating Racial Profiling By The Miami -
Dade Police Department: A Multimethod Approach. Criminology & Public Policy 6: 25
—56.
Barnum, Christopher C and Robert Perfetti (under review): "Public Perceptions of Crime and
Racially Biased Policing." Criminology
Barnum, Christopher C and Robert Perfetti 2010: "Race Sensitive Choices by Police Officers in
Traffic Encounters: Three Conceptual Models." Police Quarterly 13: 180 — 208.
Barnum, Christopher C and Robert Perfetti. (2013, August) "Racial Migration: Moral Panic in
America's Heartland." To be presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the
Study of Social Problems, New York, NY.
DiLulio, John J. Jr. 1996, Spring "My Black Crime Problem, and Ours." City Journal. Retrieved
July 18, 2008, from http://www.city-joumal.org/html/6 2 my_black.html
Drummond, Tammerlin. 1999, Monday, Jun. 14 It's Not Just In New Jersey. Time magazine.
Retrieved from Http: / /www.time.com/time/ magazine /article /0,9171,991207,OO.html
Edwards, T. D., Grossi, E. L., Vito, G. F., & West, A. D. (2002). Traffic stop practices of the
Louisville Police Department: January 15- December 31, 2001. Louisville, KY:
Department of Justice Administration, University of Louisville
Engel, Robin Shepard., Calnon, Jennifer.M. and Bemard, Thomas.J., 2002. Theory and racial
profiling: Shortcomings and fixture directions in research. Justice Quarterly 19, pp. 249-
273
Hurst Yolander G, James Frank, and Sandra L. Browning. 2000. The attitudes of juveniles
toward the police: A comparison of black and white youth. Policing an International
Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 23(1), 37 -53. Retrieved from
www.esa.com
Kennedy, Randall. 1997. Race, Crime, and the Law (1st ed). New York: Pantheon Books.
Lamberth, John. 2006, Data Collection and Benchmarking of The Bias Policing Project.
Lamberth Consulting. December.
Mastrofski, Stephen D., Robert E. Worden and Jeffrey B. Snipes. 1995. Law Enforcement in a
Time of Community Policing. Criminology, 33(4), 539 -563. Retrieved from
www.esa.com
Novak, Kenneth J. 2004, March. Disparity and Racial Profiling in Traffic Enforcement. Police
Quarterly, 7(1), 65 -96. Retrieved June 26, 2008, doi:10.1177/1098611102250359
57
Riksheim Eric.C, and Steven M. Chermak. 1993. Causes of police behavior revisited. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 21(4),353-382. Retrieved from www.esa.com
Ruiz, J 2009, `State v. Soto', in HT Greene, & SL Gabbidon (eds), Encyclopedia of race and
crime, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 769 -71, viewed 14 July 2013,
do is 10.413 5/9781412971928.n314.
Shelden, Randall G. 2001. Controlling the Dangerous Classes: A Critical Introduction to the
History of Criminal Justice. Allyn & Bacon
Sherman, Lawrence W. 1980. The Effects of Police Reform on Political Culture: Three Case
Studies," pp. 37 -57 in David M. Peterson, Ed., The Police: Strategies and Outcomes in
Law Enforcement. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Weitzer, Ronald., and Tuch, Steven A. 2005, September. Determinants of Public Satisfaction
with the Police. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 279 -297. Retrieved July 18, 2008,
do i:10.1177/1098611104271106
Wilbanks, William. 1987. The myth of a racist criminal justice system. Monterey, CA:
Brooks /Cole. Retrieved from www.esa.com
Wilkins v. Maryland State Police, Civil Action No. CCB- 93 -483, Maryland Federal District
Court 1993. "Driving While Black: A Statistician Proves That Prejudice Still Rules the
Road," Washington Post, August 16, 1999, at C1.
03
Appendix A
Logistic Regression Analyses of Stop Outcomes
2005 Logistic Regression Analyses (minority coded as 0)
Citations
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Officer's race*
-0.638
0.172
0.529
Officer's gender*
0.505
0.115
1.657
Years of service*
0.03
0.003
1.031
Assignment*
0.01
0.003
1.011
Daytime stop*
1.605
0.048
4.976
Moving violation
0.025
0.074
1.025
Equip violation*
-0.714
0.077
0.49
Male driver
0.071
0.047
1.073
W & A driver
-0.028
0.067
0.972
Constant
-1.11
0.22
20.076
* p <.01
Arrests
B
S.E.
Wald
Exp(B)
Officer's race **
-0.62
0.246
6.359
0.538
Officer's gender*
0.554
0.281
3.893
1.741
Years of service **
-0.02
0.007
7.455
0.98
assignment
0.007
0.006
1.22
1.007
Daytime stop
-1.687
0.132
163.483
0.185
Moving violation
-0.184
0.155
1.405
0.832
Equip violation **
-0.484
0.162
8.969
0.616
Male driver **
0.49
0.109
20.076
1.632
W & A driver **
-0.747
0.111
44.956
0.474
Constant
-1.644
0.406
16.436
* *p <.01, *P <.05
Consent Request
B
S.E.
Wald
Exp(B)
Officer's race
17.241
3.23E +03
0
3.08E +07
Officer's gender **
-0.991
0.211
22.026
0.371
Years of service **
-0.117
0.015
62.443
0.889
Assignment
0.012
0.008
2.02
1.012
Daytime stop **
-0.792
0.159
24.939
0.453
Moving violation*
-0.494
0.221
4.993
0.61
Equip violation
0.138
0.22
0.395
1.148
Male driver **
0.531
0.16
10.943
1.7
W & A driver **
-0.582
0.158
13.582
0.559
Constant
- 18.613
3.23E +03
* *p <.01, *P <.05
59
Interpretation: the results of logistic regression are consistent with odds ratio analyses. Even after
controlling for several important alternative explanations, results show that in comparison to W & A
drivers, the odds were essentially equal that minority drivers would receive a ticket. However, the odds
were greater minority drivers would I be arrested (2.11) and have an officer ask to search the vehicle
(1.78).
M
2006 Logistic Regression Analyses (minority coded as 0)
Citations
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Assignment * **
-.1299
.0165
.878
Daytime stop * **
1.348
.0149
3.851
Moving violation*
.128
.063
1.137
Equip violation * **
-.555
.0633
.574
Male driver
-.005
.0408
.994
W & A driver * **
.221
.0555
1.246
Constant
-.6634
.0954
* p <.05. * ** p <.001
Arrests
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Assignment
-.031
.0301
.964
Daytime stop * **
-1.258
.0996
.248
Moving violation * **
-1.308
.1291
.270
Equip violation * **
-1.04
.1306
.352
Male driver * **
.3724
.0971
1.451
W & A driver * **
-08583
.0971
.4238
Constant
-.8981
.1741
* * *p <.001
Consent Request
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Assignment **
-.121
.0431
.885
Daytime stop * **
-.590
.1093
.554
Moving violation*
.374
.167
1.454
Equip violation * **
.838
.167
2.312
Male driver * **
.953
.137
2.595
W & A driver * **
-1.092
.111
.335
Constant
-3.28
.249
* * *p <.001, * *P <.01, *p <.05
Interpretation: the results of logistic regression are consistent with odds ratio analyses. Even after
controlling for several important alternative explanations, results show that in comparison to W & A
drivers, the odds were slightly greater that a white /Asian driver would receive a ticket (1.24) but the
odds were greater that a minority driver would be arrested (2.33) and have an officer ask to search the
vehicle (2.98).
61
2007 Logistic Regression (minority code as 1)
Citations
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Officer's race
-0.348
0.225
0.706
Officer's gender **
0.704
0.145
2.021
Years of service **
0.062
0.004
1.064
Assignment*
-0.028
0.012
0.972
Daytime stop **
1.127
0.069
3.087
Moving violation **
0.616
0.107
1.851
Equip violation
0.095
0.108
1.1
Male driver
-0.014
0.063
0.986
W & A driver **
0.262
0.091
1.3
Constant
-2.744
0.199
*p<.5, * *p<.01
Arrest
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Officer's race
-0.634
0.732
0.53
Officer's gender
-0.207
0.26
0.813
Years of service **
-0.049
0.01
0.952
Assignment
-0.047
0.033
0.954
Daytime stop **
-1.069
0.155
0.343
Moving violation **
-0.712
0.224
0.491
Equip violation **
-0.999
0.232
0.368
Male driver **
0.853
0.162
2.346
W & A driver **
0.747
0.153
2.111
Constant
-1.625
0.411
*p<.5, * *p<.01
Search Request B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Officer's race
0.33
0.632
1.391
Officer's gender **
-1.07
0.358
0.343
Years of service **
0.035
0.016
1.036
Assignment*
0.031
0.013
1.032
Daytime stop **
-1.7
0.287
0.183
Moving violation
-0.203
0.368
0.816
Equip violation **
-0.177
0.373
0.838
Male driver **
1.531
0.356
4.623
W & A driver **
1.501
0.228
4.484
Constant
-4.374
0.584
*p<.5, * *p<.01
Interpretation: the results of logistic regression are consistent with odds ratio analyses. Even after
controlling for several important alternative explanations, results show that in comparison to W & A
drivers, the odds were roughly equal minority driver would receive a ticket (1.3) but the odds were
CA
greater that a minority driver would be arrested (2.11) and have an officer ask to search the vehicle
(4.84).
63
2010 Logistic Regression (minority coded as 0)
Citations
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Officer's race
0.047
0.118
1.048
Officer's gender
-0.066
0.138
0.936
Years of service **
0.033
0.003
1.033
Assignment **
-0.01
0.001
0.99
Daytime stop **
-0.867
0.054
0.42
Moving violation **
0.329
0.087
1.39
Equip violation **
-0.332
0.087
0.718
Male driver
0.047
0.048
1.049
W & A driver **
-0.423
0.059
0.655
Constant
-0.777
0.201
*p <.05; * *p <.01
Arrests
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Officer's race **
-0.63
0.198
0.532
Officer's gender
0.185
0.306
1.203
Years of service **
-0.021
0.008
0.979
Assignment
0
0.003
1
Daytime stop **
0.657
0.118
1.93
Moving violation **
-1.54
0.148
0.214
Equip violation **
-1.72
0.149
0.179
Male driver*
0.276
0.113
1.318
W & A driver **
-0.951
0.109
0.386
Constant
-1.025
0.393
*p <.05; * *p <.01
Search Requests
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Officer's race*
1.775
0.714
5.902
Officer's gender
-0.104
0.319
0.901
Years of service*
-0.021
0.01
0.979
Assignment
-0.001
0.003
0.999
Daytime stop **
0.817
0.15
2.264
Moving violation **
-0.796
0.217
0.451
Equip violation **
-0.636
0.21
0.53
Male driver **
0.721
0.154
2.057
W & A driver **
-0.856
0.135
0.425
Constant
-4.856
0.818
*p <.05; * *p <.01
Interpretation: the results of logistic regression are consistent with odds ratio analyses. Even after
controlling for several important alternative explanations, results show that in comparison to W & A
drivers, the odds were greater that minority drivers would receive a ticket (1.52) would be arrested (2.6)
and would have an officer ask to search the vehicle (2.354).
64
2011 Logistic regression (minority coded as 0)
Citation
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Officer's race
0.154
0.089
1.166
Officer's gender **
0.677
0.168
1.967
Years of service **
0.031
0.003
1.031
Assignment **
-0.016
0.001
0.984
Daytime stop **
0.454
0.051
1.574
Moving violation **
0.209
0.08
1.232
Equip violation **
-0.782
0.082
0.458
Male driver **
-0.003
0
0.997
W & A driver **
-0.583
0.056
0.558
Constant
-1.597
0.21
** p <.01
Arrests
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Officer's race
-0.318
0.19
0.728
Officer's gender
0.266
0.346
1.305
Years of service
0.012
0.007
1.012
Assignment
-0.001
0.002
0.999
Daytime stop **
-1.035
0.115
0.355
Moving violation **
-1.149
0.14
0.317
Equip violation **
-1.099
0.139
0.333
Male driver*
0.003
0.001
1.003
W & A driver **
-0.928
0.1
0.395
Constant
-1.334
0.422
** p <.01
Search requests
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Officer's race*
0.76
0.326
2.139
Officer's gender
0.049
0.346
1.05
Years of service
-0.008
0.008
0.992
Assignment
-0.003
0.003
0.997
Daytime stop **
-0.646
0.127
0.524
Moving violation
-0.012
0.179
0.988
Equip violation
0.016
0.177
1.016
Male driver
0.001
0.001
1.001
W & A driver **
-1.284
0.112
0.277
Constant
-3.134
0.514
*p <.05; * *p <.01
Interpretation: the results of logistic regression are consistent with odds ratio analyses. Even after
controlling for several important alternative explanations, results show that in comparison to W & A
drivers, the odds were greater that minority drivers would receive a ticket (1.79) be arrested (2.53) and
have an officer ask to search the vehicle (3.61).
65
2012 Logistic Regression (minority coded as 0)
Citations
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Officer's race
0.083
0.108
1.087
Officer's gender **
0.589
0.121
1.803
Years of service
0.005
0.003
1.005
Assignment **
-0.01
0.002
0.99
Daytime stop **
0.649
0.055
1.914
Moving violation **
-0.371
0.087
0.69
Equip violation **
0.363
0.088
1.437
Male driver **
0.181
0.048
1.199
W & A driver **
-0.49
0.056
0.613
Constant
-2.104
0.197
** p <.01
Arrest
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Officer's race **
-0.506
0.183
0.603
Officer's gender
0.443
0.329
1.557
Years of service
0.003
0.009
1.003
Assignment
0.002
0.003
1.002
Daytime stop **
-1.318
0.137
0.268
Moving violation **
-1.161
0.14
0.313
Equip violation **
-1.367
0.146
0.255
Male driver **
0.425
0.104
1.529
W & A driver **
-0.764
0.1
0.466
Constant
-1.286
0.411
** p <.01
Search Request
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
Officer's race **
1.564
0.583
4.776
Officer's gender
0.413
0.39
1.511
Years of service
0.014
0.011
1.014
Assignment
-0.01
0.007
0.99
Daytime stop **
-1.234
0.18
0.291
Moving violation
-0.345
0.21
0.708
Equip violation
-0.103
0.21
0.902
Male driver **
0.661
0.142
1.937
W & A driver **
-0.754
0.128
0.471
Constant
-4.998
0.744
** p <.01
Interpretation: the results of logistic regression are consistent with odds ratio analyses. Even after
controlling for several important alternative explanations, results show that in comparison to W & A
drivers, the odds were greater that minority drivers would receive a ticket (1.63) be arrested (2.15) and
have an officer ask to search the vehicle (2.12).
m
Appendix B
Logistic Regression Analyses: Comparing Racial Differences in Traffic Stops 2005 -2007 to 2010 -2012
Logistic Regression for all Beats Comparing 2005 -2007 to 2010 -2012
Driver's Race =DV
B
S.E.
Year of Study * **
-.3059
.024
Male Driver * **
-.195
0..24
Assignment
.003
.0009
Moving violation * **
.523
.0398
Equip violation
.098
.0400
Male driver * **
0.071
0.047
Daytime Stop * **
.277
.0243
Constant
1.413
- 0.3569
n
53100
4876
* ** p t.001 (DV-minority driver coded as 0) Note: year of study is an indicator variable
with 2010 -2012 coded as 1
Logistic Regression for individual beats comparing 2005 -2007 to 2010 -2012
Driver's Race =DV
B
S.E.
Exp(B)
n
Year of Study Beat -1
0.0841
0.0576
1.087
9821
Year of Study Beat -2 * **
- 0.5121
0.0258
0.599
16314
Year of Study Beat -3 * **
- 0.5791
0.0564
0.560
11592
Year of Study Beat -4
- 0.1371
0.0627
0.871
8212
Year of Study Beat -5 * **
- 0.3569
0.0893
0.693
4876
* ** p t.001 (DV-minority driver coded as 0) Note: year of study is an indicator variable with 2010 -2012 coded as 1. The control
variables used are the same as the analysis above but are not listed in this table
67
Appendix C
Detailed Information for Odds Ratio Analyses
2005 Citations
Citations
No
Yes
Total
Percent of Stops
Minority
831
530
1361
14%
W & A
4592
4044
8636
86%
Total
5423
4574
9997
100%
* 5 cases missing data
2005 Odds Ratio for citations = .724 (1.38)
Received Citations
No
Yes
Minority Percent Cited
61%
39%
W & A Percent Cited
53%
47%
Interpretation: in 2005 given that a citation was issued, the odds were 1.35 times higher that a
white /Asian driver would receive a ticket than would a minority driver.
Arrests
Arrests
No
Yes
Total
Minority
1230
131
1361
W & A
8288
348
8636
Grand Total
9518
479
9997
* 5 cases missing data
2005 Odds Ratio for arrests = 2.54
Arrests
No
Yes
Minority Percent Arrested
90%
30%
W & A Percent Arrested
96%
4%
Interpretation: given that an arrest was made, the odds were 2.5 times greater that a minority driver
would be arrested during a traffic stop than would a W & A driver in 2005.
m
Searches
Consent Request
No
Yes
Total
Minority
1299
61
1360
W & A
8479
157
8636
Grand Total
9778
218
9996
* 6 cases missing data
2005 Odds Ratio for consent search requests = 2.54
Consent Search Requests
No
Yes
Minority Percent Requested
96%
4%
W & A Percent Requested
98%
2%
Interpretation: given that a search was requested, the odds were 2.5 times greater that an officer would
request to search a car driven by a minority member than a car driven by a W & Adriver in 2005.
2005 Odds Ratio for hit rates = .624 (1.60)
Search Hits
No
Yes
Total
Minority Hits
54
7
61
W & A
130
27
157
Grand Total
184
34
218
Minority Hits
89%
11%
W & A Hits
83%
17%
Interpretation: compared to W & A drivers, the odds were 2.5 times greater that an officer would
request a search from a minority driver during a traffic stop in 2005; however in the same year the odds
were 1.60 times greater that an officer would find evidence or contraband as a result of the search
requested of W & A drivers as opposed to minority drivers. In plain terms minority drivers were
subjected to more search requests but when voluntary searches were conducted, the hit rates were
higher when requested from W & A drivers.
10
2006 Outcomes
Citations
Citations
No
Yes
Total
Percent of Stops
Minority
1137
718
1855
15%
W & A
5302
4928
10230
85%
Total
6439
5646
12085
100%
2006 Odds Ratio for citations = .67 (1.49)
Received Citations
No
Yes
Minority Percent Cited
62%
38%
W & A Percent Cited
52%
48%
Interpretation: in 2006 given that a citation was issued, the odds were 1.49 times higher that a
white /Asian driver would receive a ticket than would a minority driver.
Arrests
Arrests
No
Yes
Total
Minority
1675
180
1855
W & A
9855
375
10230
Grand Total
11530
555
12085
2006 Odds Ratio for arrests = 2.82
Arrests
No
Yes
Minority Percent Arrested
90%
10%
W & A Percent Arrested
96%
4%
Interpretation: given that an arrest was made, the odds were 2.8 times greater that a minority driver
would be arrested during a traffic stop than would a W & A driver in 2006.
70
Searches
Consent Request
No
Yes
Total
Minority
1714
141
1855
W & A
9990
240
10230
Grand Total
11530
381
12085
* 6 cases missing data
2006 Odds Ratio for consent search requests = 3.42
Consent Search Requests
No
Yes
Minority Percent Requested
92%
8%
W & A Percent Requested
98%
2%
Interpretation: given that a search request was made, the odds were 3.4 times greater that an officer
would request to search a car driven by a minority member than a car driven by a W & A driver in 2006.
2006 Odds Ratio for hit rates = 1.20
Search Hits
No
Yes
Total
Minority Hits
121
20
141
W & A
211
29
240
Grand Total
332
49
381
Minority Hits
86%
14%
W & A Hits
87%
13%
Interpretation: compared to W & A drivers, the odds were 3.4 times greater that an officer would
request a search from a minority driver during a traffic stop in 2006 and in the same year the odds were
1.20 times greater that an officer would find evidence or contraband as a result of the search requested
of W & A drivers as opposed to minority drivers. In plain terms minority drivers were subjected to more
search requests and when voluntary searches were conducted, the hit rates were higher when
requested from minority.
71
2007 Outcomes
Citations
Citations
No
Yes
Total
Percent of Stops
Minority
690
493
1183
13.8%
W & A
3949
3383
7332
86.2%
Total
4639
3876
8515
100%
2007 Odds Ratio for citations = .979 (1.02)
Received Citations
No
Yes
Minority Percent Cited
58%
42%
W & A Percent Cited
54%
46%
Interpretation: given that a citation was issued, the odds were 1.02 times greater that W & A drivers
would receive a citation during a traffic stop than would a minority driver in 2007.
Arrests
Arrests
No
Yes
Total
Minority
1085
98
1183
W & A
7073
259
7332
Grand Total
8158
357
8515
2007 Odds Ratio for arrests = 2.47
Arrests No Yes
Minority Percent Arrested 92% 8%
W & A Percent Arrested 96% 4%
Interpretation: given that an arrest was made, the odds were 2.47 times greater that a minority driver
would be arrested during a traffic stop than would a W & A driver in 2007.
72
Searches
Consent Request
No
Yes
Total
Minority
1120
63
1183
W & A
7249
83
7332
Grand Total
8369
146
8515
2007 Odds Ratio for consent search requests = 5.67
Consent Search Requests
No
Yes
Minority Percent Requested
95%
5%
W & A Percent Requested
99%
1%
Interpretation: given that a search request was made, the odds were 5.67 times greater that an officer
would request to search a car driven by a minority member than a car driven by a W & A driver in 2007.
2007 Odds Ratio for hit rates = .735 (1.37)
Search Hits
No
Yes
Total
Minority Hits
53
10
63
W & A
66
17
83
Grand Total
119
270
146
Minority Hits
84%
16%
W & A Hits
80%
20%
Interpretation: compared to W & A drivers, the odds were 5.67 times greater that an officer would
request a search from a minority driver during a traffic stop in 2007; however in the same year the odds
were 1.37 times greater that an officer would find evidence or contraband as a result of the search
requested of W & A drivers as opposed to minority drivers. In plain terms minority drivers were
subjected to more search requests but when voluntary searches were conducted, the hit rates were
higher when requested from W & A drivers.
73
2010 Outcomes
Citations
Citations
No
Yes
Total
Percent of Stops
Minority
1680
619
2299
19.2%
W & A
7395
2288
9683
80.8%
Total
9075
2907
11982
100%
2010 Odds Ratio for citations = 1.19
Received Citations
No
Yes
Minority Percent Cited
73%
27%
W & A Percent Cited
76%
24%
Interpretation: given that a citation was issued, the odds were 1.19 times greater that minority drivers
would receive a citation during a traffic stop than will a W & A driver in 2010.
Arrests
Arrests
No
Yes
Total
Minority
2124
175
2299
W & A
9435
248
9683
Grand Total
11559
423
11982
2010 Odds Ratio for arrests = 3.13
Arrests
No
Yes
Minority Percent Arrested
92%
8%
W & A Percent Arrested
97%
3%
Interpretation: given that an arrest was made, the odds were 3.13 times greater that a minority driver
would be arrested during a traffic stop than a W & A driver in 2010.
74
Searches
Consent Request
No
Yes
Total
Minority
2190
109
2299
W & A
9509
174
9683
Grand Total
11699
283
11982
2010 Odds Ratio for consent search requests = 2.72
Consent Search Requests
No
Yes
Minority Percent Requested
95%
5%
W & A Percent Requested
98%
2%
Interpretation: given that a search request was made, the odds were 2.72 times greater that an officer
would request to search a car driven by a minority member than a car driven by a W & A driver in 2010.
Search Hits (Requests)
No
Yes
Total
Minority Hits
96
13
109
W & A
137
37
174
Grand Total
233
50
283
Minority Hits
88%
12%
W & A Hits
79%
21%
2010 Odds Ratio for hit rates = .50 (1.99)
Interpretation: compared to W & A drivers, the odds were 2.72 times greater that an officer would
request a search from a minority driver during a traffic stop in 2010; however in the same year the odds
were 1.99 times greater that an officer would find evidence or contraband as a result of the search of W
& A drivers as opposed to minority drivers. In plain terms minority drivers were subjected to more
search requests but when voluntary searches were conducted, the hit rates were higher when
requested from W & A drivers.
75
2011 Outcomes
Citations
Citations
No
Yes
Total
Percent of Stops
Minority
1627
679
2306
18.0%
W & A
8093
2450
10543
82.0%
Total
9720
3129
12849
100%
*485 cases missing data
2011 Odds Ratio for citations = 1.38
Received Citations
No
Yes
Minority Percent Cited
71%
29%
W & A Percent Cited
77%
23%
Interpretation: given that a citation was issued, the odds were 1.38 times greater that minority drivers
would receive a citation during a traffic stop than would a W & A driver in 2011.
Arrests
Arrests
No
Yes
Total
Minority
2111
195
2306
W & A
10245
298
10543
Grand Total
12356
493
12849
* 485 cases missing data
2011 Odds Ratio for arrests = 3.18
Arrests
No
Yes
Minority Percent Arrested
92%
8%
W & A Percent Arrested
97%
3%
Interpretation: given that an arrest was made, the odds were 3.18 times greater that a minority driver
would be arrested during a traffic stop than a W & A driver in 2011
76
Searches
Consent Request
No
Yes
Total
Minority
2144
162
2306
W & A
10342
201
10543
Grand Total
12486
363
12849
*485 cases missing data
2011 Odds Ratio for consent search requests = 3.89
Consent Search Requests
No
Yes
Minority Percent Requested
93%
7%
W & A Percent Requested
98%
2%
Interpretation: given that a search request was made, the odds were 3.89 times greater that an officer
would request to search a car driven by a minority member than a car driven by a W & A driver in 2011.
Search Hits (Requests)
No
Yes
Total
Minority Hits
109
53
162
W & A
124
77
201
Grand Total
233
130
363
Minority Hits
67%
33%
W & A Hits
62%
38%
2011 Odds Ratio for hit rates = .78 (1.27)
Interpretation: compared to W & A drivers, the odds were 2.89 times greater that an officer would
request a search from a minority driver during a traffic stop in 2011; however in the same year the odds
were 1.27 times greater that an officer would find evidence or contraband as a result of the search
requests of W & A drivers as opposed to minority drivers. In plain terms minority drivers were subjected
to more search requests but when voluntary searches were conducted, the hit rates were higher when
requested from W & A drivers.
77
2012 Outcomes
Citations
Citations
No
Yes
Total
Percent of Stops
Minority
1681
597
2278
19.0%
W & A
7736
1914
9650
81.0%
Total
9417
2511
11928
100%
*439 cases missing data
2012 Odds Ratio for citations = 1.44
Received Citations
No
Yes
Minority Percent Cited
74%
26%
W & A Percent Cited
80%
20%
Interpretation: given that a citation was issued, the odds were 1.44 times greater that minority drivers
would receive a citation during a traffic stop than will a W & A driver in 2012.
Arrests
Arrests
No
Yes
Total
Minority
2097
181
2278
W & A
9334
316
9650
Grand Total
11431
497
11928
* 439 cases missing data
2012 Odds Ratio for arrests = 2.55
Arrests
No
Yes
Minority Percent Arrested
92%
8%
W & A Percent Arrested
97%
3%
Interpretation: given that an arrest was made, the odds were 2.55 times greater that a minority driver
would be arrested during a traffic stop than a W & A driver in 2012.
ID
Searches
Consent Request
No
Yes
Total
Minority
2176
102
2278
W & A
9468
182
9650
Grand Total
11644
284
11928
*439 cases missing data
2012 Odds Ratio for consent search requests = 2.44
Consent Search Requests
No
Yes
Minority Percent Requested
96%
4%
W & A Percent Requested
98%
2%
Interpretation: given that a search request was made, the odds were 2.44 times greater that an officer
would request to search a car driven by a minority member than a car driven by a W & A driver in 2012.
Search Hits (Requests)
No
Yes
Total
Minority Hits
35
67
102
W & A
57
125
182
Grand Total
92
192
284
Minority Hits
34%
66%
W & A Hits
31%
69%
2012 Odds Ratio for hit rates = .87 (1.15)
Interpretation: compared to W & A drivers, the odds were 2.44 times greater that an officer would
request a search from a minority driver during a traffic stop in 2012; however in the same year the odds
were 1.15 times greater that an officer would find evidence or contraband as a result of the search
requested of W & A drivers as opposed to minority drivers. In plain terms minority drivers were
subjected to more search requests but when voluntary searches were conducted, the hit rates were
higher when requested from W & A drivers.
79
/_19940 11D7 f
HMLM
We use hierarchical multivariate linear modeling (HMLM) to investigate the effects of time on levels of
disproportionality in individual officers' disparity indexes. Statistical hierarchies are common in data and
usually consist of units grouped at different levels. For the present analysis, this structure came about
because the same individuals were measured on more than one occasion during the study period.
Consequently, we treat multiple observations on each officer as nested within the officer.
When measurements are repeated on the same participants the measurement repetitions (called
occasions) are level -1 units and the participants are level -2 units. We model a linear relationship
between the year of the study and a given officer's disparity index. This simple model is appropriate for
data like ours because there are only a few observations per officer and the time period between
observations is short (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). The model takes the form of a linear growth model,
where the year of the study is treated as an age metric. This variable is grand- mean - centered so it
describes the difference in years between a given year of the study period and the midpoint of the study
(2009). Both the intercept and the time parameter vary at level -2 as a function of characteristics of the
officer.
Equation 1 specifies the level -1 model for this investigation.
Y;; = n0; + n,;(time)a + nzj(beat) + r;; (1)
This equation models a linear relationship between time elapsed during the study period, the beat or
area of the town and a given officer's disparity index. In equation 1, the symbol Y;; represents the value
of officer j s disparity index at time i, no; is the average level of disparity across occurrences for a given
officer, it represents the officer's effect on the disparity index, n,; is the change in levels of disparity
across occurrences that is due to time period for a given officer, nZ; is the change in levels of disparity
across occurrences that are due to the area of town an officer is working, this is a time varying covariate
and r;; is the unique effect of a given occurrence for a particular officer. We assume that the errors are
independent and normally distributed with a common variance. Equations 2, 3 and 4 model how the
stage of an officer's career mediates the effect of time on disparity. The seniority variable is defined as
the maximum number of years an officer has worked on the street at the end of the study period.10
n0; =/300+ /30,(years of service); + u0; (2 )
At level -2 the average level of disparity across occurrences of the study for an officer (no;) is a function of
the average level of disparity across all officers (f3oo); plus the amount of disparity that is a function of
the officers' years of service, (f3o,); and a unique individual component of disparity that is due to a given
officer (u0;) this is formulated as the difference between the officer's mean change in disparity and f3oo.
10 It was unreasonable to include other officer level characteristics such as age or race for this analysis because nearly all the
officers were white males. This limited the variance in the data and made estimates unreliable.
ED
rill _ Pro. #,,(years of service); + ul; (3)
The parameter Rio represents the average change in disparity across all officers that is a function of the
time period of the study. This coefficient denotes the effect of time on disparity. The parameter f3„ is
the amount of change in disparity that results from an interaction between an officer's years of service
and time period. Finally, u,; is an error term representing the unique portion of the change in disparity
that is due to a given officer.
Rzi — #20+ azi (4)
The parameter R2o represents the average change in disparity across all officers that is a function of area
of town. This coefficient denotes the effect of a beat on disparity. The parameter uzi is an error term
representing the unique portion of the change in disparity that is due to a given officer.
The table below gives the estimated fixed effects results of HMLM analysis. The table includes results of
estimates of three models: (i) a control model consisting of the intercept parameter only, (ii) a restricted
model consisting of the intercept and slope parameters and (iii) a full model that includes all the
parameters.
Summary for HMLM analysis
Fixed Effects
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Coefficients
Coefficients
Coefficients
Net Effects Officers (intercept)
flm
0.582(0.057) * **
0.566(0.059) * **
0.818(0.099) * **
#01
--
--
- 0.0229(0.006) * **
Net Effects of Time (slope)
#10
--
0.317(0.080) * **
0.579(0.163) * **
%iii
--
--
- 0.0223(0.0104)*
#20
-
0.0421(0.058)
0.0412(0.057)
Deviance
376.8
366.2
349.1
n
76
76
76
*p <.05, * *p <.01, * * *p <.001
The results of HMLM suggest the following: changes in time during the study period are associated with
significant increases in levels of disproportionality, as reflected by officers' disparity indexes net of area
of town. In the control model the estimated mean disparity across all officers (Roo) is significantly
different from zero at 0.582. This result serves as a rough and ready indicator that can be used to see if
there is traffic stop disparity in the data, Rou s value suggests there is. Model 2, the restricted model, is
used as a preliminary test of a change in disparity levels across occasions of the study. This model is
analogous to independent t- tests, but this test takes into consideration the nested nature of the data.
Results show that that the intercept Roo equals 0.566 and is significantly different from zero. This value
represents the logged average level of disparity across all officers when the difference between the year
of the study and the grand mean equals zero (the mid -point of the study). The slope parameter Rio is
also significant. This implies that the level of disparity increases over the occasions of the analysis, for a
unit change in year of the study the logged disparity index increases 0.317 units. The slope
0
parameter Rzo which indicates the net effects of a beat or area of town on officers' disparity indexes is
not significant. Finally, the full model tests the net effects of time and officer seniority on disparity. The
two of the three slope parameters in this model are significant. f31o, represents the degree to which the
average level of disparity changes as a function of time across occasions of the study, a year change in
time brings a 0.818 unit increase in the average logged level of disparity units net the other variables.
R11, is the coefficient for an interaction effect. It indicates whether the stage of an officer's career
mediates the effect of time on disparity. Results show that a one year increase in seniority reduces the
effect of time by 0.022 logged units. This implies that the year of the study (before or after 2009) had
more impact on less experienced officers than veteran officers. The parameter X0 is not significant. This
suggests that the area an officer worked did not have a net significant effect on levels of
disproportionality. Finally, the analysis for the intercept coefficients, Roo and flolshow that net baseline
levels of disparity across officers are not affected by job seniority. The value of Roo, indicates that a
significant amount of disparity remains even after the effects of seniority and news stories are taken
into account. The significant parameter flo1, implies that seniority has a net effect on levels of disparity,
meaning that less senior officers have higher disparity indexes than more seasoned officers regardless of
the time period of the study.
ET
Appendix E
Adapted Time Line of Some Important Events Affecting ICPD during Study Period
2006 2007 2008 2009
"Groper" appears Suepple Murders
Downtown Drinking & Assaults
'Mother's Day Riot"
October 2006, increasing September 2007 with an arrest made July 19, 2008 —The "Groper," an
assailant who sneaks up behind women, pushes them down, and gropes them before fleeing. Almost 40
cases reported. "Law- enforcement authorities have stressed that they're pouring resources into solving
these cases."
"Local police deal with open cases, some take years," Daily Iowan, REGINA ZILBERMINTS, MARCH 11,
2009, http: / /www.dailyiowan.com /2009 /03/11 /Metro /10537.htmi
2006 - 2010 — Downtown underage drinking and violence crackdown. "In response to a string of random
and seemingly unrelated assaults involving men in the downtown area, Iowa City and UI police are
collaborating to assign more officers to the Pedestrian Mall, where many attacks have occurred.
"Violence tests police," BY REGINA ZILBERMINTS I APRIL 15, 2009 7:38 AM,
http://www.dailyiowan.com/2009/03/11/Metro/10537.htmi
2008 — Suepple Murders. "Iowa banker facing federal embezzlement and money laundering charges
murdered his wife and four young children in their home before killing himself...."
"Indicted Banker's Desperate Murder - Suicide," ABC News, DAVID SCHOETZ
March 26, 2008, http: / /abcnews.go.com /US /story ?id = 4521545 &page =1
May, 2009 —The "Mothers Day Riot" Violent fights that broke out in Southeast Iowa City later dubbed
the Mother's Day riot
Al Number of crime stories published in IC Press Citizen during the study period*
RE
i
i - - -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa S2240 -1826
(319) 356 -Soon
(319) 3S6 -S009 FAX
www.tcgov.org
City Council Work Session Agenda
June 17, 2014
Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
5:00 PM
• Questions from Council re Agenda Items
• Discuss Local Option Sales Tax recommendation [IP # 5 of 6/12 Info Packet]
• Information Packet Discussion [June 5, 12]
• Council Time
■ Meeting Schedule
■ Pending Work Session Topics [IP # 6 of 6/12 Info Packet]
■ Upcoming Community Events /Council Invitations
Lor-fr-Tr-I
IP5
Local Option Sales Tax Exploratory Committee
Report on Findings and Recommendations
June 10, 2014
The Local Option Sales Tax Exploratory Committee members include: Susan Mims, Tom Markus, Eleanor
Dilkes, Marian Karr, Dennis Bockenstedt, Simon Andrew, and Cyndi Ambrose. The Local Option Sales
Tax Exploratory committee respectfully submits the following report for the Iowa City City Council's
review and consideration.
Introduction
As part of the fiscal year 2015 budget process, the City Council and the City's management identified the
City's short term and long term financial risks and determined the City's financial priorities. In addition,
the City Council determined the community's service priorities and allocated the City's scarce resources.
As part of the fiscal year 2015 budget process, there was also discussion of the financial risks that the
City is facing and potential ways for the City to have a diverse and sustainable financial structure for the
future. These risks and priorities were derived from various sources. The major sources for discussion
included the property tax reform legislation that passed the State legislature in May 2013 and the bi-
annual update of the City's strategic plan. These two major elements created the backdrop for this
assessment of a potential local option sales tax (LOST) referendum.
In May 2013, the State of Iowa passed property tax reform legislation. As a result of that reform
legislation, there will be a significant impact on the City's financial ability to provide services to its
citizens. Fiscal year 2015 was the first year the bill began to take effect; however, the true impact will
materialize over the next ten years as the bill's provisions are phased in. The estimated impact to Iowa
City is reduced property tax revenue of $37 million over the next ten years and an additional $14.7
million of revenues to be replaced by State funding. Due to the sizable impact of this legislation, and the
State's history of not meeting its backfill commitments, it is important that the City seek ways to
diversify its revenue structure, create contingencies in the event of revenue shortfalls, and look for
sources of revenues to replace those lost through this legislation. Attached to this report is a copy of a
memorandum sent from the City's Finance Director to the City Manager last May following passage of
the property tax reform legislation. The City Council also considered this legislation when it met last fall
to update the City's strategic plan.
The City Council issued the latest update to its strategic plan during the fiscal year 2015 budget process.
The major priorities of the strategic plan were instrumental in the development of the 2015 budget. The
Council's major priorities are fostering a more inclusive and sustainable Iowa City through a
commitment to: 1) healthy neighborhoods, 2) a strong urban core, 3) strategic economic development
activities, 4) a solid financial foundation, and 5) enhanced communication and marketing. These
priorities not only helped develop the current operating budget but also are helping shape the long term
vision of the City and the direction the City is going to go over the next decade. Given the City Council's
strategic priorities, the City's finance department is looking at various ways to develop a long term
sustainable financial structure that will support the City Council's strategic plan. In light of the property
tax reform legislation, the City Manager's office and the City's finance department have developed the
following strategies:
1) Revenue diversification —to reduce the City's reliance on property tax
2) Contingency /emergency funding —to provide flexibility to react to financial uncertainty
3) Controlled spending and operating efficiency —to reduce overall growth of the City's
expenditures that will coincide with the expected slower growth of property tax revenue
due to the recently passed legislation
The local option sales tax has the potential to help create financial stability and revenue diversification
while creating a revenue source to help fund the City Council's strategic priorities. The first
determination forthe adoption of a local option sales tax is the feasibility of implementing or renewing
this revenue source.
Feasibility
When looking at the potential feasibility of a local option sales tax, there are many statewide, regional,
and local considerations. From a statewide perspective, Iowa City should contemplate the impact that
the tax has had on other jurisdictions that have approved a local option sales tax. In addition, although
the local option sales tax is considered a 'local' tax, it is in reality a metropolitan tax that impacts the
surrounding cities and the county. How these other jurisdictions fit into the sales tax's feasibility is
important for the city to understand. Finally, the City should analyze its own experience in using a sales
tax and other local factors that will apply to its implementation.
Across the state, use of the local option sales tax is not unique anymore. With the passage of the local
option sales tax in Cedar Rapids, of the metropolitan areas in Iowa, only the Iowa City and the Des
Moines areas do not have a local option sales tax in place. The communities that currently collect a local
option sales tax are able to diversify their revenue structures and have been able to reduce their
property tax rates and invest in community amenities and infrastructure. Iowa City has lowered its
property tax rate in each of the last three years through reduced staffing and restructuring, but it still
has the fourth highest property tax rate amongst the ten largest cities in the state. From a comparative
stand point, this leaves Iowa City at a disadvantage with the other metro areas in the state. In addition,
Iowa City's property tax rate is also significantly higher than its neighboring communities of Coralville
and North Liberty. Despite efforts by City management to create operating efficiencies, consolidate
operations, and continually review service charges, the only feasible way for the city to make a
significant impact in the property tax rate that will compete with these other jurisdictions is to have an
alternative revenue stream as a means to offset and lower the city's property tax rate. The local option
sales tax versus other potential revenues sources would provide the biggest impact as it provides the
largest alternate revenue source.
Coralville and North Liberty are also significant considerations for the passage and implementation of a
local option sales tax. In order for Iowa City to adopt a local option sales tax, the referendum must be
adopted by all jurisdictions that are contiguous. Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, University Heights,
and Tiffin are all contiguous which means that more than fifty percent (50 %) of the total votes cast in
Iowa City and these four communities must be in favor of the sales tax for it to be adopted. This is an
important fad to note as the passage of the sales tax is not entirely in the hands of Iowa City residents.
In addition, whether the tax passes in the non - contiguous cities and the unincorporated area, also
impacts the division and distribution of the sales tax revenues amongst the other communities that are
participating. These nuances in how the local option sales taxis adopted and divided create
cooperative as well as competitive issues with the neighboring jurisdictions due to differences in taxable
sales and population. In the 2014 legislative session, legislation was proposed to alter how the local
option sales tax is adopted and split. This legislation did not pass, but it proposed de- coupling the
contiguous jurisdictions from each other to pass the sales tax. It also proposed altering the formula for
splitting the taxes collected amongst the participating jurisdictions. When this legislation was reviewed,
we determined that it was not favorable to Iowa City's interests as many of our residents utilize the
commercial areas in the surrounding communities, and it could possibly lessen the cooperation between
the jurisdictions in regards to commercial /retail development and passage of a local option sales tax.
Due to the potential for this type of legislation to resurface in future years and the issues that surround
it, we have determined that it would be more favorable for Iowa City to act on a local option sales tax
sooner.
Locally, the City has a recent history with a local option sales tax. Pursuant to special disaster relief
legislation, a 1% local option sales tax was adopted by a small margin in 2009 by Iowa City residents and
was collected from 2010 through 2013 on sales within the Iowa City limits. The local option sales tax
was for flood protection projects and was earmarked for the Dubuque Street reconstruction project
(Gateway Project) and the expansion of the South Wastewater Treatment Facility. During the four year
period, the City collected slightly over $35 million, and the sales tax was allowed to expire on June 30,
2013. Overall, we determined that the passage, the subsequent use, and the expiration of the local
option sales tax developed goodwill and trust of the general public in the City as stewards of a local
options sales tax. The citizen survey conducted in the summer of 2013 asked the poll respondents about
their support for reinstatement of the local option sales tax. 54% of the respondents supported
reinstatement of the local option sales tax and 18% were neutral to the idea with only 28% opposed.
This would seem to indicate a strong level of support without identification of uses, marketing, or
informational activities. For nearly all of the Iowa cities with a local option sales tax, the initial passage of
the tax was the most difficult with the subsequent renewals being adopted by much wider margins. In
addition, the local option sales tax seems to provide the best overall fit with the City's strategic plan
versus the other available revenue options. The City's other options include:
1) The Emergency property tax levy ($0.27 levy available). —This would generate
approximately $840,798 annually. Given the City's goal to reduce property tax rates for
economic development competitiveness, this revenue option would be inconsistent
with that strategic plan priority.
2) The Trust and Agency property tax levy (all employee benefits not levied). —This would
generate $1,791,756 or more annually. This is also a property tax levy increase and
therefor has the same drawbacks as the Emergency property tax levy. Raising property
tax rates is not consistent with the City's strategic plan priorities.
3) The Utility Franchise Fee (1% enacted, 5 %allowed). —A4 %increase in the fee would
generate approximately $3,672,916 annually. This user fee is a potential option that can
be passed by the City Council without requiring an election of the people; however, a
citizen petition could require that it be submitted to the voters. The franchise fee was
originally adopted in 2009 at 2% and then subsequently lowered to 1% in 2010 in order
to maintain the City's economic development competitiveness. This is anotherviable
option for the City.
A. The Local Option Sales Tax (1% sales tax available through referendum). This could
generate anywhere from $9,000,000 to $12,000,000 annually depending on which cities
are participating. Although this requires a referendum to implement, the potential
revenue generation is significantly higher than the other options.
With all of the various options available to the City and the City's overall strategic plan priorities, the
local option sales tax appears to provide the greatest potential revenue generation with the least
negative financial impact on city residents. Given the structure of the sales tax, a substantial portion of
the revenue would be derived from non -Iowa City residents and visitors from outside of Johnson
County. In addition, its passage would put Iowa City on equal footing with the other largest
metropolitan areas in the State of Iowa.
Use recommendations
Much like the other cities in the State of Iowa that have adopted a local option sales tax, Iowa City must
determine what the best use of the local option sales tax funds would be. The City's updated strategic
plan provides excellent guidance on how any potential funds would be allocated. This plan outlines the
City Council's vision and priorities for the City's development and future growth and has been the
underlying structure for the development of the annual operating budget. The City Council's strategic
plan priorities include fostering a more inclusive and sustainable city through:
4
1) Healthy Neighborhoods
2) A Strong Urban Core
3) Strategic Economic Development Activities
4) A Solid Financial Foundation
5) Enhanced Communication and Marketing
In addition to the strategic plan priorities, we used the results from the City's citizen survey to assist in
identifying the potential uses of a local option sales tax. During the summer of 2013, the City conducted
a survey through the International City /County Managers Association that is used by cities around the
country to gauge citizen satisfaction with City services. Through that survey, several areas were
identified as below the national benchmark for citizen satisfaction. The first identified service at this
level was street repair which was considered excellent by 6% of the respondents and good by 31% of the
respondents. These scores were "much below' the national benchmark of other communities. Another
area identified as below the national benchmark was the availability of affordable quality housing. The
City was only rated by 7% as excellent and 29% as good in this area. These rating levels placed the City
"below" the national benchmark for available affordable quality housing. Other areas receiving poor
ratings by the City were snow removal, quality of new development, land use /planning and zoning,
safety in the downtown, cable television services, and the overall direction of the City. In the majority of
the categories of the survey, however, the City was rated above or much above the national
benchmarks.
Based on the above priorities and feedback, the committee determined the following uses for a local
option sales tax: 1) 60 %- property tax relief, 2) 30 %- street improvements, and 3) 10% - affordable
housing. The reasoning for each of these categories is as follows:
1) Property tax relief (60 %) — this use is consistent with the City's strategic plan priorities of
building a solid financial foundation and strategic economic development activities. This use
of the sales tax funds could diversify the City's revenue structure and lower its reliance upon
property taxes. This would help mitigate the loss of revenue from the State property tax
reform legislation and would strengthen the City's financial position. The annual revenue
could be $5.4 to $7.2 million and could potentially lower the City's property tax rate by
$1.75 to $2.35 per $1,000 of value. This would place Iowa City's property tax rate lower
than Cedar Rapids and more competitive with Coralville's.
2) Street improvements (30 %) —the use of the local option sales tax funds for street
improvements would be consistent with the City's strategic plan priorities for a strong urban
core and healthy neighborhoods. This is also an area that has suffered deferred
maintenance due to the struggling Road Use Tax fund. Although the City has seen an uptick
in revenues since the 2010 census, it will not be enough to substantially change the annual
overlay program to recover from the years where the program stagnated and could not
keep up with inflation. These funds could also be used for the City's ADA curb /ramp
replacement program which would benefit elderly and handicapped individuals as well as
bicycles and similar forms of transportation. The local option sales tax could generate
approximately $2.7 to $3.6 million annually for street maintenance activities and projects.
3) Affordable housing (10 %) —the use of funds for affordable housing would be consistent with
the City's inclusive values and would directly correlate with the strategic plan's healthy
neighborhoods priority. In addition, this is an area identified by the citizen survey as an area
that is substandard. The allocation of funds could be anywhere from $.9 to $1.2 million
annually which could be dispersed to housing agencies, used for affordable housing
projects, or be used by the Iowa City Housing Authority.
Overall, it was felt that this mix would meet the needs of the City Council's strategic plan, the needs of
the general public, and address the financial issues facing the City due to the property tax reform
legislation. In addition to determining the use of the local option sales tax, there were other
miscellaneous issues the committee had to consider.
Other Issues
One additional consideration for the committee was whether or not the local option sales tax
should have a sunset clause. Sunset options considered included a five year clause, a ten year
clause, and no clause at all. Of those three options, it was determined that a five year clause
would be too short and not give a sufficient time period for the sales tax's impact to be
dispersed throughout the community before the sales tax would expire. On the other hand, it
was felt that the sales tax should have some future expiration date. It was generally felt that a
sunset clause would provide the general public a greater comfort level with supporting the local
option sales tax. A sunset clause would also provide the voters a chance to not renew or vote
down the sales tax in the future if they felt that it was not being used properly by the City or if
they felt it was not a good fit with the City tax structure. Due to these considerations, a 10 -year
sunset clause is recommended for the local option sales tax referendum. In addition to the
sunset clause, the sales tax referendum timeline was taken into consideration.
Other items that were reviewed for a potential local options sales tax referendum included the
timeline for City Council and voter consideration. The committee's recommended timeline is to
have a local option sales tax ballot ready for voter consideration on the general election on the
first Tuesday in November 2014. This date is being recommended for several reasons. The first
reason is that this would be less expensive to the City and the other jurisdictions since there is
already an election scheduled. The City and other jurisdictions would not have to pay for
staffing and holding a special election, which would not create additional taxpayer expense.
The second reason is that the general election would maximize voter participation. Special
elections tend to have a lower turnout, and it was felt that the general election would have a
0
larger turnout and thus achieve a greater level of participation and achieve a better
representation of the voter's wishes. In order for a ballot to be placed on the general election
in November, City Council would need to approve a resolution calling for the referendum by
August 27, 2014. This report is being prepared and presented in a time frame consistent with
this schedule.
Conclusion
The conclusion of the local option sales tax exploratory committee is as follows:
1) Adoption of a local option sales tax fits within the priorities of the City's strategic
plan, the community's service level needs, and the City's financial uncertainties, and
the sales tax would have a substantial impact on the City's ability to achieve its
initiatives and goals in these areas;
2) The local option sales tax generally has support amongst the residents due to the
prior successful passage and use by the City;
3) The local option sales tax provides the greatest potential for an alternative revenue
source with the least direct impact on residents due to much of the sales tax being
collected from non -city residents;
4) A local option sales tax should be split 60% for property tax reduction, 30% for street
improvements, and 10% for affordable housing;
5) The local option sales tax referendum should be held on the November general
election.
7
DRAFT — 5/30/14
Prepared by: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5030
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING SUBMISSION OF THE QUESTION OF THE
IMPOSITION OF A LOCAL SALES AND SERVICES TAX TO THE QUALIFIED
ELECTORS OF THE INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF
JOHNSON COUNTY.
WHEREAS, Chapter 4236 of the Iowa Code provides for the imposition of certain local option
taxes, including a local sales and services tax; and
WHEREAS, the Code provides that the question of the imposition of a local sales and services
tax shall be submitted to the registered voters of the incorporated and unincorporated areas of
the county upon receipt by the county commissioner of elections of the motion or motions,
requesting such submission, adopted by the governing body or bodies of the city or cities within
the county representing at least one -half the population of the county; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is the governing body of a city whose
population constitutes in excess of one -half of the population of Johnson County; and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that the State property tax reform legislation passed in 2013 will
result in lost property tax revenue of $37 million over the next 10 years to the City of Iowa City
and the potential for an additional $14.7 million in lost revenue if the State fails to honor its
backfill commitments; and
WHEREAS, in addition to other strategies such as controlled spending and the creation of
operating efficiencies, it is essential for the City to diversify its revenues if it is to have funds
available to implement the Council's strategic plan to foster a more inclusive and sustainable
Iowa City through a commitment to healthy neighborhoods, a strong urban core, strategic
economic development activities, a solid financial foundation and enhanced communication and
marketing; and,
WHEREAS, with the exception of the Iowa City and Des Moines areas, all metropolitan areas in
the State of Iowa have a local option sales tax which allows them to diversify their revenue
structure, reduce their property tax rates and invest in community priorities; and
WHEREAS, while Iowa City has lowered its property tax rate in each of the last three years
through reduced staffing and restructuring, it still has the fourth highest property tax rate of the
ten largest cities in the State and a rate that is significantly higher than its neighboring
communities, putting it at a competitive disadvantage both in the region and the State; and
WHEREAS, significant additional reductions in Iowa City's property tax rate will require an
alternative revenue stream; and,
WHEREAS, adequate funding for the construction and maintenance of public street
infrastructure is essential to creating and maintaining a strong urban core and healthy
neighborhoods; and,
WHEREAS, maintenance of City streets has been deferred due to inadequate revenues in the
Road Use Tax Fund; and,
WHEREAS, adequate funding of street and trail infrastructure to serve pedestrians, bicycles and
elderly and disabled persons is essential to fostering a sustainable and inclusive community;
and,
WHEREAS, in recognition of the need for additional affordable housing in the Iowa City
metropolitan area, and in furtherance of the City's commitment to Healthy Neighborhoods, the
City's 2014 -2015 strategic plan includes a new initiative to evaluate programs and methods to
promote affordable housing; and,
WHEREAS, the Iowa City area is home to a network of entities that are dedicated to increasing
the availability of affordable housing and able to effectively and efficiently implement affordable
housing projects in the event that additional revenue is made available to them; and,
WHEREAS, when compared to other available sources of revenue the local option sales tax
provides the greatest amount of revenue with the least financial impact on city residents
because a substantial portion of the revenue would come from visitors to the Iowa City
metropolitan area; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it to be in the best interests of the City for the voters to be
asked whether a 1 cent local sales and services tax should be imposed for a period of ten (10)
years and used by the City of Iowa City for property tax relief, public street and trail
infrastructure and affordable housing as set forth in the ballot proposition stated below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, as follows:
1. The following ballot proposition language for the proposed imposition of a local sales and
services tax is approved:
SHALL THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC MEASURE BE ADOPTED? Yes
in
Summary: To authorize imposition of a local sales and services tax in the cities of Iowa City,
and the unincorporated area of Johnson County
at the rate of one percent (1 %) to be effective from July 1, 2015 until June 30, 2025.
A local sales and services tax shall be imposed in the cities of Iowa City, ,
at the rate of one percent (1 %) to be effective from July 1, 2015 until June 30, 2025.
Revenues from the sales and services tax are to be allocated as follows:
FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY:
60% for property tax relief.
30% for maintenance, repair, construction and reconstruction of public streets and
associated infrastructure.
10% for programs and initiatives that increase affordable housing.
2. The Johnson County Commissioner of Elections is hereby requested and authorized to place
said ballot proposition language on the ballot for a special election to be held on the date of the
general election on November 4, 2014.
3. The Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to consider the Iowa City City Council's
request to direct that the ballot contain a provision for the repeal, without election, of the local
sales and service tax on June 30. 2025.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to promptly provide a certified copy of this
resolution to the Johnson County Commissioner of Elections and to notify the Johnson County
Board of Supervisors of the adoption of this resolution.
Passed and approved this day of 2014.
ZIEVIO7
Approved by ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
City Attorney's Office
CITY O F IOWA C 1 TY
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 29, 2013 COPY
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: Dennis Bockenstedt, Director of Finance
Re: State Property Tax Reform
On May 22, 2013, the State of Iowa legislature passed a property tax reform bill (SF295) that will have a
significant impact on the City's ability to finance services in the future. The property tax reform bill has
multiple components; the specific provisions of bill SF295 that affect the City's ability to finance services
are briefly explained below along with an estimate of the future financial impact to the City's
operations. Exhibit 'A' is attached to provide a summary of the financial impact of the provisions of
SF295 overthe next ten years.
Residential Assessment Limitation
Summary: For each assessment year beginning January 2013 and thereafter, SF295 reduces the limit of
taxable valuation growth from 4 percent to 3 percent or whichever is lowest of the agricultural and
residential classes. The City will not receive any money from the State due to lost revenue from this
provision.
Financial Impact: The overall financial impact of this change will be significant overtime, however, less
noticeable initially. The effect will be that the taxable percentage of residential property will increase at
a slower pace. Without the change, the estimated taxable percentage of residential property would be
60.85% in assessment year 2022. With the provision in place, the estimated taxable percentage in year
2022 will be 55.11 %, a reduction of 5.74 %. With approximately $3.4 billion of assessed residential
property, the impact on the City in fiscal year 2015 will be $306,121 in lost revenue which will grow to
$4,177,423 in fiscal year 2024. The cumulative loss will be $20,772,185 over the next ten years.
Commercial & Industrial Rollback
Summary: Forvaluations at January 1, 2013, commercial and industrial propertywill be rolled backto 95
percent. For valuations at January 1, 2014, commercial and industrial property will be rolled backto 90
percent. Thereafter, the two classes will be taxed at 90 percent of their assessed value. The bill
establishes a standing appropriation for the State to backfill losses to the City due to the commercial and
industrial rollback beginning in Fiscal Year 2015 and then caps the amount at Fiscal Year 2017 levels.
Financial Impact: The initial year's impact to the City will be negligible due the State's backfill of lost
revenue. In 2003, however, the State of Iowa eliminated reimbursements to cities for backfills of
personal property tax and industrial machinery and equipment property tax after similar promises. If
the State was to do the same, the loss in property tax revenue is estimated to be $1,460,203 in fiscal
year 2017. The cumulative reduction in commercial and industrial property taxes due to the percentage
rollback is estimated to be $15,417,536 over the next ten years. The maximum reimbursement from the
State would be $14,732,059.
Multi- residential Property
Summary: This provision establishes a multi - residential property classification that includes mobile
home parks, manufactured home communities, land- leased communities, assisted living facilities and
property primarily intended for human habitation containing three or more separate living quarters.
Additionally, for buildings that are not otherwise classified as residential property, that portion of a
building that is intended for human habitation can be classified as a multi - residential property, even if
May 29, 2013
Page 2
human habitation is not the primary use of the building and regardless of the number of dwelling units.
The following rollback percentages will be phased in over eight years, beginning in assessment year
2015 (fiscal year 2017).
The projected loss will not be backfilled:
• January 1, 2015
— 86.25%
• January 1,2016-
82.50%
• January 1,2017-
78.75%
• January 1,2018-
75.00%
• January 1,2019-
71.25%
• January 1,2020-
67.50%
• January 1, 2021 - 63.75%
• January 1, 2022 and thereafter —same as residential property
Financial Impact: The loss to the City in fiscal year 2017 is estimated to be $851,745. This will grow until
reaching an estimated annual loss of $3,428,308 in fiscal year 2024. The total estimated cumulative loss
will be $15,504,902 over the next ten years. None of this loss will be reimbursed by the State of Iowa.
Telecommunications Property Taxation
Summary: This provision provides partial exemption of property used by companies in the transaction of
telegraph and telephone business that is on a graduated percentage scale based upon the value of the
property. This is phased in, with half in assessment year 2013 (Fiscal Year 2015) and the remainder being
added in assessment year 2014 (Fiscal Year 2016). The projected loss will not be backfilled.
40 percent of the actual value of the property that exceeds $0 but does not exceed $20 million.
35 percent of the actual value of the property that exceeds $20 million but does not exceed $55
million.
25 percent of the actual value of the property that exceeds $55 million but does not exceed
$500 million.
20 percent of the actual value of the property that exceeds $500 million.
Financial Impact: There are not any good estimates on the financial impact of this provision due to the
lack of information of the valuation being affected. In fiscal year 2013, the City's apportioned share of
the telecommunication property taxes was $187,463. Due to the lack of a good estimate, this provision
was not included in the attached exhibit.
Summary
The property tax reform bill, SF295, has been passed by the State legislature and will be applied to
valuations as of January 1, 2013. The first budget year impacted will be fiscal year 2015. Property tax
revenue will be reduced by an estimated $1,321,240 in fiscal year 2015 and by $2,662,737 in fiscal year
2016. The State of Iowa will back fill $1,015,119 in fiscal year 2015 and $2,035,314 in fiscal year 2016,
however, the City should consider future contingency plans in the event the State discontinues funding
for this backfill. Preparations for the fiscal year 2015 budget process will begin this summer.
May 29, 2013
Page 3
Exhibit A
(1) 3% annual value growth
(2) At current property tax rate
Not Subject to State Backfill
Subject to State Backfill
Multi- Residential
3% Growth
Corn/Ind
Corn/Ind
Corn/Ind
Total Property
Properties (1)
Limit
Rollback
Total
Rollback - Year 1
Rollback - Year 2
Total
Tax Reduction
FY15
$ -
$ 306,121
$ -
$ 306,121
$ 1,015,119
$ -
$ 1,015,119
$ 1,321,240
FY16
-
627,423
-
627,423
1,017,657
1,017,657
2,035,314
2,662,737
FY17
851,745
982,915
-
1,834,660
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
3,294,863
FY18
1,116,560
1,350,772
3,651
2,470,982
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
3,931,186
FY19
1,396,497
1,757,911
50,443
3,204,852
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
4,665,055
FY20
1,692,226
2,177,375
54,219
3,923,821
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
5,384,024
FY21
2,004,442
2,638,952
109,644
4,753,038
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
6,213,242
FY22
2,333,868
3,115,578
113,569
5,563,014
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
7,023,218
FY23
2,681,255
3,637,715
174,931
6,493,902
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
7,954,105
FY24
3,428,308
4,177,423
179,019
7,784,750
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
9,244,954
Total
$ 15,504,902
$20,772,185
$685,477
$36,962,564
$ 7,873,589
$ 6,858,470
$14,732,059
$ 51,694,623
(1) 3% annual value growth
(2) At current property tax rate
Iowa League of Cities - Local Option Sales Tax
Finance
Local Option Sales Tax
Web Exclusive March 2013
In order for a city to have a local option sales tax (LOST), a majority of Downloads /Links
the eligible electors in that city must approve it in a county-wide election to Secretary of State
impose the local option sales tax. The local option sales tax is placed on
the ballot through a petition of 5 percent of the county electors having Iowa Department of Revenue
voted in the last state general election or by a motion (or motions) of
governing bodies within the county that represents at least half of the population of the county.
The election for a local option sales tax can be held during any regular election or one of the special election dates
allowed by state code (go to the Secretary of State's Web site to review those dates). The election cannot be held
sooner than 60 days following publication of notice of the ballot proposition in the newspaper. The election is county
wide, but the local option sales tax will only apply in those incorporated or unincorporated areas of the county where
the majority of the eligible electors approve the tax. The ballot must specify:
The type of tax. (in this case Local Option Sales Tax)
The tax rate. (not more than 1 percent)
The date it will be imposed.
The approximate amount of local option tax revenue that will be used for property tax relief, if any.
The specific purpose(s) for which local option tax revenues will be spent if for purposes other than property tax
relief.
A sunset clause for termination of the tax. (optional)
Cities are considered contiguous if their borders are adjacent or touching. For the purposes of the local option sales
tax, the contiguous cities are considered as one taxing jurisdiction. The local option sales tax can only be imposed if a
majority of voters in the total jurisdiction approves the tax.
For the imposition, repeal or change of the LOST, within 10 days after a successful referendum, the county auditor
must give written notice of the results and abstract of votes to the Director of the Iowa Department of Revenue. This
must be done 90 days before the effective date which is on the ballot (plan out this timing with the county
auditor before the ballot language is drafted).
The LOST is imposed on the same items as state sales and excise tax except on
Room rentals, in a hotel, motel or other similar facility.
Sales of equipment by the State Department of Transportation.
Sales of natural gas or electric energy subject to a city or county imposed franchise fee or users fee.
The sale of direct -to -home satellite pay television service.
Self- propelled building equipment, pile drivers, motorized scaffolding or attachment customarily drawn or
attached to them including auxiliary attachments which improve their performance, safety, operation or efficiency
and including replacement parts used by contractors, subcontractors and builders for new construction,
reconstruction, alterations expansion or remodeling of real property or structures.
Vehicles subject to a 5 percent one -time registration fee.
By August 15 of each fiscal year, a written estimate will be sent to each city stating how much money the city will
receive for each month of the following year. Ninety-five percent of the money will be distributed to the city by the end
of the month following the month in which the money was collected. Any remaining amount due to the city at the end
of the fiscal year will be sent to the city before November 10 of the next fiscal year. If an overpayment has been made,
htips:llw .iowaleague.mglmemberslPagesI Local% 200ption% 20Sales %20Tax.aspx[5/28/2014128:24 PM]
Iowa League of Cities - Local Option Sales Tax
a reduced monthly distribution will begin with the November distribution until all overages are reconciled
Not all local option sales tax collected in a jurisdiction will be returned to the jurisdiction. The amount distributed is
calculated based on a formula that takes into account the percentage of population and the property tax collected in
the jurisdiction out of the total for the county. For a more thorough explanation of the formula and any other possible
adjustments, visit the Iowa Department of Revenue (IDR) Web site.
Distributions of the taxes collected by the IDR are paid to the city in the subsequent month by direct deposit to the city
designated account based upon the IDR estimates. To see the history of funds previously distributed, see the IDR Web
site listed above. Also on that web site is a listing of all jurisdictions that have LOST and the history of sales
generated.
To repeal the tax or change the designations for the money to be used, an election may be called and held in the
same manner and under the same conditions and restrictions as the election which approved the tax.
This information relates to the "regular' local option sales tax and not the "school" local option sales tax which was
abolished in 2008 when the state rate for Iowa sales tax increased from 5 percent to 6 percent. The School Local
Option Sales Tax (SILO) no longer exists as a separate tax.
htipsJhN' Nc v.iowaleague.orglmembersIPagesI Lora t %20OpROn %20Sates %20Tax.aspx[5 /28/2014 128:24 PM]
Iowa Department of Revenue - Iowa Taxes
Department of
IM REVENUE
Search...
Individuals For information about:
Tax Professionals . Elections to adopt or change local option taxes: Contact the Iowa Secretary of State at (515) 281 -
Local Government 0145 or 1- 888 - SOS -Vote.
. Collecting the tax: Contact the Iowa Department of Revenue at (515) 281 -3114 or 1- 800 - 367 -3388
(Iowa, Omaha, Rock Island, Moline).
Q. How is a local option sales tax imposed?
A majority of voters at an election must approve the local option sales tax.
Q. How does the issue of local option sales tax get on the ballot?
There are two ways:
• A petition is presented to the county board of supervisors. The number of signatures must be equal to
5 percent of the persons in the county who voted in the preceding state general election. Eligible
voters of the county must sign the petition.
• A motion or motions of governing bodies within the county that represent at least half of the population
of the county.
Q. When can a vote on local option tax be held?
The special election may only be held on one of the special election dates allowed by law for the jurisdiction.
See Special Election Dates Calendar on the Secretary of State's Web site. Local option sales tax elections
cannot be held sooner than 84 days after the notice of the election is given to the county auditor by the county
board of supervisors, and no sooner than 60 days after the notice of the ballot proposition is published by the
auditor.
The question of repeal of the tax or of a rate change can also be voted upon at a general or special election
as outlined above.
Q. Is the election countywide?
The election is countywide, but the tax only applies in the incorporated areas (city) and the unincorporated
area of the county where a majority vote in favor of the local option tax.
Q. What happens when cities are contiguous to each other?
All cities contiguous to each other are treated as one large incorporated area, even if located in different
counties, subject to a joint county agreement. The tax can only be imposed if the majority of those voting in
the total contiguous area approve the tax.
Q. When are two geographical areas contiguous?
They are contiguous when their boundaries are in actual contact or touching. Burd v. Board of Education of
Audubon County, 167 N.W. 2nd 174 (IA 1969), City of Walker, et al v. Oxley, et al.
Q. If there is a question whether two geographic areas are contiguous, who will
resolve the issue?
The issue must be resolved by the county board of supervisors.
Q. What must the ballot proposition specify?
The ballot must specify:
http: //w .iowa.gov/ tax /educate /78601.html[5/28/2014 1:25:52 PM]
Iowa Department of Revenue - Iowa Taxes
• the type of tax
• the tax rate (not more than 1 percent)
• the date it will be imposed
• the approximate amount of local option tax revenue that will be used for property tax relief, if any
• the specific purpose(s) for which local option tax revenues will be spent if for purposes other than
property tax relief
• a sunset clause for termination of the tax (optional)
Questions about elections and ballot language should be addressed to the Secretary of State at (515) 281-
0145 or 1- 888 - SOS -Vote. A ballot language sample is available from the Iowa Secretary of State.
Q. Who needs to be notified of election results?
Imposition, repeal, or change: Within 10 days after the election, the county auditor must give written notice of
the results and send an abstract of votes to the Director of the Iowa Department of Revenue. This must be 90
days before the effective date.
Q. If local option is approved by the voters, but a county does not pass the local
ordinance as required by law, what happens?
The tax will still be imposed. Passing the ordinance is mandatory. The Linn County District Court in City of
Walker, et al vs. Oxley, et al, EQ 93 1 0, June 4, 1986.
Q. How long does a local option sales tax remain in effect once it is imposed?
If a sunset clause is part of the ordinance, the tax remains in effect until that date. If no sunset clause, it stays
in effect for an unlimited period. It may also be repealed by election.
Q. For what can the revenue from this tax be used?
Local option tax revenues can be expended for any lawful purpose, but they may not be used for the benefit
of a school district.
Q. Can a local option sales tax be repealed?
Yes. To repeal the tax, an election may be called and held in the same manner and under the same
conditions as the election which approved the tax. However, only qualified voters of the areas of the county
where the tax has been imposed can vote. The tax cannot be repealed before it has been in effect for one
year.
The county board of supervisors can, upon its own motion, repeal the local option tax in any unincorporated
area of the county where the tax is imposed. For any municipality, the county board of supervisors must, upon
receipt of a motion of the governing body of the municipality, repeal the local option tax within that
municipality. The tax can be repealed within a municipality which is contiguous to other municipalities.
Q. Can the rate of tax be increased or decreased or a change be made to the
designated use of the local option tax revenue?
Yes. The criteria for placing the proposition on the ballot are the same as previously explained. However, only
qualified voters of the area of the county where the tax has been imposed can vote. The rate cannot exceed 1
percent.
As of July 1, 2008, a change in the use of local option tax revenues for the purpose of funding an urban
renewal project no longer requires an election but can now be done by ordinance of the city council of an
eligible municipality.
Q. What are the dates that the tax can be imposed, changed, or repealed?
This tax can be imposed on either January 1 or July 1 only. Repeals can only occur on June 30 or December
31. Any jurisdiction with a repeal date specified in the ballot prior to April 1, 1999, may repeal on the date
specified. Imposition or change in rate or use can occur no sooner than 90 days following the election.
The local option tax cannot be repealed or reduced in rate if bond obligations are outstanding unless sufficient
funds to pay the principal, interest, and premium, if any, on the outstanding obligation at and prior to maturity
have been properly set aside and pledged for that purpose.
Q. What if a tax has been imposed in a portion of a county and now another
incorporated or unincorporated area of the county wants to vote on the tax?
http: //w .iowa.gov/ tax /educate /78601.html[5/28/2014 1:25:52 PM]
Iowa Department of Revenue - Iowa Taxes
The criteria for placing the proposition on the ballot are the same as previously explained. However, only
qualified voters of the area of the county where the tax has not been imposed can vote.
Revenue Estimates
Q. How can a locality estimate what amount of local option sales tax it might receive?
The Department of Revenue is able to provide an estimate based on general state sales tax data. This
estimate would represent the potential collections that would be generated in a county by the retailers
collecting local option sales tax for that county.
By August 15 of each fiscal year, a written notice of the monthly estimated local option payments for the fiscal
year will be sent to localities.
Since the local option sales tax and the state sales tax are imposed differently based on each transaction, the
data is adjusted. For example, the local option sales tax is imposed on goods delivered into a locality. State
sales tax statistics are kept on the basis of sales made by merchants within a locality. Local option sales tax
is not imposed on room rental or on the sale of natural gas or electric energy in a city where these receipts
are subject to a users fee or a franchise fee, to mention just a few differences.
Q. If a locality has made its own estimates, will the Department of Revenue review
them?
Yes. Often, local officials are better economic predictors, because they are familiar with the occupation,
purchasing, and spending patterns in a locality. The Department will review the logic and the variables
considered in compiling the estimate.
Q. Can a locality obtain information about sales tax payments made by specific retail
establishments?
Yes. The Department may enter into a written information exchange agreement for tax administration
purposes with a county entitled to receive local option sales tax funds. The agreement allows no more than
two paid county employees to have access to actual return information. This information cannot be shared
with anyone else due to confidentiality requirements.
Note: There are severe penalties in place for any illegal disclosure of this information to any unauthorized
individuals. [IA Code "Information Confidential penalty" 422.20,72, IRS Code 6103(b)]
Distribution of Funds
Q. How soon after a local option sales tax is imposed will a locality get its money?
By August 15 of each fiscal year, a written notice of the monthly estimated local option payments for the fiscal
year will be sent to localities.
Ninety -five percent of estimated tax receipts are paid monthly. For example, localities' estimated monthly tax
distributions will be issued for July by August 31.
A final payment of any remaining tax due to a locality for the fiscal year will be made before November 10 of
the next fiscal year. If an overpayment to a locality exists for the fiscal year, a reduction of monthly
distributions to reflect the overpayment will begin with the November payment.
Q. Will a jurisdiction receive the actual amount of tax collected by merchants in the
locality?
No. The local option tax collected within a county is placed in a special distribution fund. The fund is
distributed on the basis of population and property tax levies.
Q. How does the distribution formula work?
Each county's account is distributed on the basis of population (75 percent) and property tax levies (25
percent). The population factor is based on the most recent certified federal census. The property tax factor is
the sum of property tax dollars levied by boards of supervisors or city councils for the three years from July 1,
1982 , through June 30, 1985 . The property tax data is compiled from city and county tax reports available in
the State Department of Management. Only population and property tax levies of the jurisdiction imposing the
tax are used in figuring percentages.
The actual distribution is computed as follows:
http: //w .iowa.gov/ tax /educate /78601.htm1[5/28/2014 1:25:52 PM]
Iowa Department of Revenue - Iowa Taxes
D= (.75xPxZ) +(25xVxZ)
D = distribution for the taxing jurisdiction
P = jurisdiction percentage of the population
V = jurisdiction percentage of the property tax levied
Z = the total collections for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.
Examples of an actual distribution are in 701 Iowa Administrative Code § 107.10.
Q. Who will receive the distribution check?
Checks will be made out to each city and each unincorporated area (county) that imposed the tax.
Q. Is it possible for a jurisdiction without the tax to receive a distribution of local
option tax money?
No. Only the jurisdictions in which the tax is imposed can participate in the distribution.
Q. Are any adjustments made to the monthly remittance of local option tax prior to
distribution?
Adjustments are possible. For example, local option taxes can be refunded to governmental units if imposed
on materials associated with construction projects. Erroneous collections can occur which are also subject to
refund. Amended sales tax returns will also be filed. Refunds will most likely be identified after distributions for
a given tax period have been made, therefore, account adjustments will be necessary.
When a local option tax is repealed, the local option tax monies, penalties, or interest received or refunded
within 180 days after the repeal date are distributed, more than 180 days after repeal, funds are deposited
into or withdrawn from the state general fund.
Q. What happens to local option taxes which are collected, but it cannot be
determined which county is the origin of the money?
The funds will be allocated to active counties based on special rules filed by the Department. The rules
specify distribution be made based on individual county population to total active county population.
Notification
Q. Once local option sales tax is imposed, how are businesses informed?
The Department regularly a -mails newsletters and notices to anyone who has signed up on the Department's
Web site to receive free information by e-mail. A current jurisdiction list is also maintained on the
Department's Web site.
Related Costs
Q. Who pays for reprogramming computers and cash registers for businesses in a
jurisdiction imposing a local option tax?
Businesses are responsible for all programming changes and costs.
Noncompliance
Q. What happens if a business fails to collect or refuses to collect local option tax?
Anyone aware of a problem may contact our Taxpayer Service Section by e-mail or by calling 1- 800 -367-
3388. In most cases, the problems are the result of misunderstandings and not intentional noncompliance
Whenever the Department audits for state sales tax, it will also audit for local option taxes. The penalties
associated with the nonpayment of local option sales tax are the same as those for state sales tax.
Applying the Local Option Sales Tax
Q. Is the local option sales tax imposed on the same items as state sales /excise tax?
Yes, except on:
• room rentals, in a hotel, motel, or other similar facility
• sales of equipment by the State Department of Transportation
• sales of natural gas or electric energy subject to a city- or county- imposed franchise fee or users fee
• the sale of direct -to -home satellite pay television service
• self - propelled building equipment, pile drivers, motorized scaffolding, or attachments customarily drawn
or attached to them, including auxiliary attachments which improve their performance, safety,
operation, or efficiency and including replacement parts used by contractors, subcontractors and
http: //w .iowa.gov/ tax /educate /78601.ht"[5/28/2014 1:25:52 PM]
Iowa Department of Revenue - Iowa Taxes
builders for new construction, reconstruction, alterations, expansion or remodeling of real property or
structures
Q. Are local option sales taxes imposed on cars and trucks?
No. Vehicles subject to registration are subject to a 5 percent one -time registration fee rather than a state
sales tax. However, the receipts from the rental of cars and trucks can be subject to local option tax. Also,
sales of parts and repair services are subject to tax.
Q. Can a county with a local option sales tax impose the tax on items and services not
subject to state sales tax?
No. A local option sales tax cannot be imposed on any property or service not subject to state sales tax, with
the exception of residential energy on which the state tax has been phased out, but on which local option tax
still applies.
Q. When local option sales tax is figured, is it imposed -on top" of the state sales tax?
No. It is imposed in addition to, but not on top of, the state sales tax. A taxable sale will be subject to the state
sales tax and the local option tax. However, the amount of the sale for purposes of determining the amount of
local option sales tax does not include any amount of state sales tax or other local option taxes R a jurisdiction
imposes more than one local option tax.
Q. Do retailers have to obtain a special sales tax permit in order to collect local option
sales taxes?
No tax permit other than the state sales tax permit is required or available. Local option tax is remitted to the
State of Iowa along with the state sales tax, retailers make no payment directly to a locality.
Q. How and when is local option sales tax remitted to the Department?
Local option taxes are remitted whenever state sales tax is remitted. Retailers show a breakdown of local
option taxable sales and tax by county on quarterly and annual returns. Paper deposits and returns are not
mailed, filing is through eFile & Pa v. (Note that the amount of local option tax collected is not used to
determine how frequently a retailer should file.)
Q. When does the tax apply to a sale?
As with the state sales tax, the local option sales tax is remitted for the tax period in which the tangible
personal property is delivered to the customer. Even if the customer has not paid for the merchandise, the tax
is due when delivery occurred.
For taxable services, the retailer remits the local option tax for the tax period in which the first use of the
service occurs, or potentially could occur.
Q. What does delivery have to do with the taxability of a sale?
Where tangible personal property is delivered determines whether or not a sale is taxable. If delivery occurs
within a local option jurisdiction, the local option sales tax may be due. If delivery does not occur in a local
option jurisdiction, local option tax is not due.
Delivery usually occurs when the sellertransfers physical possession of the property to the buyer. In most
instances, this transfer takes place at the seller's place of business. If the seller transfers the property to the
buyer from the seller's own vehicle, then delivery is considered to take place at the place of transfer. Finally, R
the seller transfers the property to a common carrier or the U.S. Postal Service for subsequent transport to
the buyer, the "delivery" of the property occurs at the customer's location.
Q. How is the delivery or sale of tangible personal property affected by the use of
FOB or a similar term when it is moved by a common carrier?
It does not affect the sourcing of a transaction, but an FOB designation will determine whether it is a sales tax
or a use tax, and whether local option applies.
Q. If residents in a local option tax jurisdiction shop in a city that does not have a
local option sales tax, does that mean that they avoid paying the local option tax?
Maybe. If a resident of a taxing jurisdiction takes physical possession of the Rem in a non - taxing jurisdiction,
no local option tax can be imposed. However, if the Iowa seller delivers R by the seller's vehicle or through a
common carrier to the purchaser who lives in a local option tax jurisdiction, then the seller must collect the
local option tax applicable in the buyer's location.
http: //w .iowa.gov/ tax /educate /78601.htm1[5/28/2014 1:25:52 PM]
Iowa Department of Revenue - Iowa Taxes
Q. If Iowa sellers send items through the mail or by common carrier to the purchaser
and the sellers do not have "nexus" in the purchaser's location, must they charge the
local option tax?
Yes. The seller will charge the local option tax applicable where the customer receives the item.
Q. What happens if the seller is located in a taxing jurisdiction and delivery of an item
is made into a jurisdiction where no local option tax has been imposed?
Local option tax cannot be charged on a transaction where delivery occurs in a non - taxing jurisdiction.
Q. What happens when an item is purchased outside Iowa? Would local option sales
tax be due?
• If the item is brought into Iowa by the purchaser:
No. These transactions are subject to the state consumer's use tax. Local option sales tax can only be
imposed when state sales tax is applicable. Iowa does not impose a local option use tax.
• If the item is brought into Iowa by the seller in the seller's own vehicle:
Yes, if delivery occurs in a local option jurisdiction.
• If the item is sent into Iowa by a common carrier with an FOB Shipping Point designation or
without an FOB designation, orthrough the U.S. Postal Service:
If the out -of -state retailer is registered to collect Iowa tax, the state rate is charged. If the retailer is not
registered, the customer owes consumer's use tax. No local option tax is due in either case.
• If the item is sent into Iowa by a common carrier with an FOB Destination designation:
If the out -of -state retailer is registered to collect Iowa tax, the state rate is charged as well as any local
option tax imposed by the destination jurisdiction.
Q. What about vending machines?
The location of each individual vending machine determines whether or not the local option sales tax applies.
If it is in a local option jurisdiction, the tax applies.
Q. What happens when a business uses its own inventory?
If a retailer located in a taxing jurisdiction purchases items for resale or processing and later withdraws them
from inventory for other purposes, the local option tax is imposed. It does not matter where or when the items
were first purchased.
Owners, contractors, subcontractors, or builders purchasing building materials, supplies, and equipment for
use in a construction project must pay local option sales tax on these items if they take delivery in a taxing
jurisdiction.
Contractors, subcontractors, or builders who are also retailers located in a taxing jurisdiction must pay local
option tax when they withdraw building materials, supplies and equipment from their resale inventory for
construction projects in Iowa, even if the construction project is outside the taxing jurisdiction.
Manufacturers of building materials located in a taxing jurisdiction who are principally engaged in
manufacturing and selling building materials and who withdraw them from inventory for use in a construction
contract must pay local option tax tithe construction contract is within Iowa. The tax is computed on fabricated
cost. They must pay local option tax when they withdraw building materials, supplies and equipment from
inventory for construction purposes even tithe construction project is outside the taxing jurisdiction.
Q. What if a construction contract is entered into prior to the imposition of local
option tax?
It makes no difference when the contract is signed or where it is signed. "Delivery' is the taxing event. If
tangible personal property subject to state sales tax is delivered into a jurisdiction after the date local option
sales tax has been imposed, local option sales tax is due. If a taxable service is rendered, furnished, or
performed after the date local option sales tax has been imposed, local option sales tax is due.
If a local option tax is imposed or increased after a construction contractor enters into a written contract, the
contractor may apply for a refund of additional local option sales tax paid as a result of the imposition or
increase if all the following circumstances exist:
http: //w .iowa.gov/ tax /educate /78601.ht"[5/28/2014 1:25:52 PM]
Iowa Department of Revenue - Iowa Taxes
1. The additional tax was paid on tangible personal property incorporated into an improvement to real
estate in fulfillment of a written construction contract entered into prior to the date local option sales tax
is imposed or its rate increased, and
2. The contractor has paid the full amount of both state and local option sales tax due to the Department
or to a retailer, and
3. The claim is filed with the Department within one year of the date the tax was paid. The IA843 (pdf)
Claim for Refund is used for this purpose.
This local option tax right of refund is not applicable to equipment transferred under a mixed construction
contract.
Q. What about motor fuel and special fuel?
Motor fuel and special fuel are subject to local option tax when sales tax applies if delivery occurs in a taxing
jurisdiction. Fuel subject to motor fuel tax is not subject to sales tax at the time of purchase.
Services
Q. How is local option sales tax imposed on services?
Local option sales tax is imposed on any service subject to state sales tax when the first use of the service
occurs, or potentially could occur, within a taxing jurisdiction.
Q. Does it matter when a contract for services is signed?
No. Sometimes services are contracted before the local option sales tax becomes effective. The tax still
applies when the first use of the service occurs or potentially could occur.
Q. Does it make any difference if the service contract is signed outside the taxing
jurisdiction?
No. Local option tax is due on all taxable services when the first use of the service occurs, or potentially could
occur, in the taxing jurisdiction regardless of where the contract was entered into.
Q. What if there is a single contract and services are performed both within and
outside a taxing jurisdiction?
The local option tax is imposed tithe the first use of the service occurs, or potentially could occur, in the taxing
jurisdiction..
Lease and Rental
Q. How is local option sales tax computed on rented or leased property?
The general rule is that payments associated with periods when the property is used within a taxing
jurisdiction are subject to local option tax. Motor vehicle, recreational vehicle and recreational boat rentals
where state sales tax is imposed are subject to local option sales tax only if pursuant to the rental contract,
possession of the vehicle or boat is transferred to the customer within the taxing jurisdiction and payment is
made within the same taxing jurisdiction.
Utilities
Q. How are utility payments taxed?
Delivery of gas and water occurs and the services of electricity, heat, communication, and pay television are
rendered, furnished, or performed at the address of the subscriber who is billed for the purchase of this
property or services. If that billing address is located in a local option taxing jurisdiction, the tax will apply.
Q. What about telephone credit card calls made outside a taxing jurisdiction and
billed to an address within a taxing jurisdiction?
Assuming that it is an intrastate call (within Iowa) local option tax applies if the call is billed to an address
within a taxing jurisdiction.
Q. What date controls whether local option tax applies?
Local option taxes, and state sales tax, on utility payments are imposed based on the "billing date."
Q. Do pay television franchise fees imposed by a local jurisdiction exempt cable
television charges from local option taxes?
No. Only franchise fees and users fees for natural gas and electric energy trigger the exemption.
Updated 02104/10
http: //w .iowa.gov/ tax /educate /78601.htm1[5/28/2014 1:25:52 PM]
Revenue Comparisons
Property Tax Rate Comparison
(Levy Rate per $1,000 Valuation)
City
FY14
Tax Rate
Rank
FY14 /FY13
% Change
Council Bluffs
$17.75
1
-0.56%
Waterloo
$17.49
2
-3.95%
Des Moines
$16.92
3
0.00%
Iowa City
$16.81
4
- 2.66%
Davenport
$16.78
5
0.00%
Sioux City
$16.25
6
1.63%
Cedar Rapids
$15.22
7
0.00%
Coralville
$13.53
8
0.00%
West Des Moines
$12.05
9
0.00%
North Liberty
$11.03
10
0.00%
Dubuque
$11.02
11
2.23%
Ames
$10.86
12
1.31%
FY2014 Estimated General Fund Revenue
FY2014 Adopted Budget
City
Revenues
Transfers
In
Debt
Proceeds/
Asset
Sales
Total
Revenues
Per
Capita
Revenue*
Per
Cap.
Rank
Council Bluffs
$60,359,635
$11,000,000
$0
$71,359,635
$1,146.71
1
Dubuque
$51,524,631
$12,216,658
$52,750
$63,794,039
$1,106.82
2
West Des Moines
$45,059,223
$11,976,112
$6,000
$57,041,335
$1,007.64
3
Coralville
$14,724,609
$3,431,171
$7,500
$18,163,280
$960.66
4
Cedar Rapids
$83,322,843
$31,851,323
$120,000
$115,294,166
$912.67
5
Iowa City
$43,733,068
$9,610,582
$4,081,450
$57,425,100
$846.20
6
Sioux City
$41,092,112
$19,835,312
$59,232
$60,986,656
$737.59
7
Des Moines
$116,770,284
$32,666,194
$19,000
$149,455,478
$734.67
8
Waterloo
$42,746,668
$7,388,704
$88,000
$50,223,372
$734.20
9
Davenport
$50,348,501
$20,424,567
$10,000
$70,783,068
$710.07
10
North Liberty
$7,247,029
$2,053,495
$50,000
$9,350,524
$699.16
11
Ames
$23,324,640
$8,487,818
$0
$31,812,458
$539.51
12
*Per Capita calculations used 2010 US Census data
Hotel /Motel Tax Revenues
FY2013 Receipts
City"
Effective
Date
Receipts
Des Moines
4/1/1979
$4,758,396
West Des Moines
4/1/1979
$3,287,208
Cedar Rapids
4/1/1979
$2,862,393
Council Bluffs
4/1/1979
$2,539,232
Coralville
7/1/1983
$2,424,856
Davenport
4/1/1981
$2,170,593
Dubuque
4/1/1979
$1,953,763
Ames
4/1/1988
$1,784,274
Sioux City
4/1/1979
$1,424,670
Waterloo
4/1/1981
$1,227,556
Iowa City
4/1/1983
$871,706
North Liberty
7/1/2008
$65,149
*All cities listed impose the state allowed maximum rate of 7%
Source: Iowa Department of Revenue
Utility Franchise Tax Rates
City
Franchise
Fee Rate
North Liberty
0%
Davenport
0%
West Des Moines
0%
Ames
0%
Coralville
1%
Iowa City
1%
Sioux City
2%
Cedar Rapids
2%
Council Bluffs
2%
Waterloo
2%
Dubuque
3%
Des Moines
5%
Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) Revenues
FY2013 Receipts
*The chart only includes those communities with a LOST. Iowa City's LOST expired in FY 2013
Source: Iowa Department of Revenue
Utility Rates (Residential Monthly Billing)
City
Water
Effective
Sunset
Storm
Total
City"
Rate
Date
Date
Receipts
Purpose
$92.78
1
Davenport
$34.94
$36.16
90% Flood Recovery, 10% Property
Cedar Rapids
1%
4/1/2009
6/30/2014
$17.76 M
$36.08(3)
$15.50(4)
$3.50(5)
$83.79
3
West Des Moines
Tax Relief
$34.80
$11.25
$4.25
$80.60
4
60% Property Tax Relief, 40% Capital
Davenport
1%
1/1/1989
N/A
$15.43 M
5
Des Moines
$23.15
$33.50
$13.00
$9.74
Improvements and Equipment
6
Dubuque
$22.99
$31.91
$12.74
60% Property Tax Relief, 20%
Sioux City
1%
1/1/1987
N/A
$12.05 M
Infrastructure Projects, 10% City
$4.78
$71.73
8
Council Bluffs
$32.56
Facilities, 10% EDX
Waterloo
1%
4/1/1991
12/31/2015
$9.94 M
100% Street Repair
Iowa City
-
7/1/2009
6/30/2013
$9.08 M
100% Flood Related
Council Bluffs
1%
4/1/1990
N/A
$8.47 M
Streets and Sewers
Waterloo
$16.06
$24.38
$15.50
$2.75
50% Property Tax Relief, 20% City
Dubuque
1%
1/1/1989
N/A
$8.31 M
Facilities Maintenance, 30% Special
Assessment Relief
60% Property Tax Relief, 40%
Ames
1%
1/1/1987
N/A
$6.72 M
Community Betterment
*The chart only includes those communities with a LOST. Iowa City's LOST expired in FY 2013
Source: Iowa Department of Revenue
Utility Rates (Residential Monthly Billing)
City
Water
Sewer
Waste
Storm
Total
Rank
North Liberty
$37.66
$43.77
$9.35
$2.00
$92.78
1
Davenport
$34.94
$36.16
$13.90
$2.35
$87.35
2
Iowa City*
$28.71(7)
$36.08(3)
$15.50(4)
$3.50(5)
$83.79
3
West Des Moines
$30.30
$34.80
$11.25
$4.25
$80.60
4
Sioux City
$29.32
$34.54
$14.90
$0.83
$79.59
5
Des Moines
$23.15
$33.50
$13.00
$9.74
$79.39
6
Dubuque
$22.99
$31.91
$12.74
$5.60
$73.24
7
Cedar Rapids
$26.95
$21.49
$18.51
$4.78
$71.73
8
Council Bluffs
$32.56
$17.21
$16.00
$0.00
$65.77
9
Ames
$31.26
$28.72
$0.00
$3.45
$63.43
10
Coralville
$17.80
$22.62
$19.00
$2.00
$61.42
11
Waterloo
$16.06
$24.38
$15.50
$2.75
$58.69
12
*Projected FY 2015 Water Rate is $30.14 and Refuse Rate is $15.90
You're going to know about Cedar Rapids' Paving for Progress
City to start on fixing some streets
By Rick Smith, The Gazette
Published: June 12014 12:01 am in Government, LinnCo, NJ
000200
<style TYPE = "text /css "5 #tabs -2 { display: block! important }ff art _photo_1 {display: block! important}
< /style>
Photos
The intersection of 8th Ave and 17th St SW is marked in preparation for repaving in Cedar Rapids on
Thursday, May 29, 2014. 17th St SW is one of the roads that will be repaved with LOST funds, with work
set to begin this week. (Adam Wesley/The Gazette -KCRG)
❑
4
Cedar Rapids taxpayers don't pass the local- option sales tax (LOST) gladly.
After all, less than nine months after the city's historic 2008 flood disaster, only 59 percent of local
voters agreed to the 1 percent sales tax for 63 months to fill gaps left by hundreds of millions of dollars
of federal and state flood- recovery help.
In May 2011 and again in March 2012, voters rejected plans to extend the tax for 20 years and then 10
years for flood protection and street repairs — and then just for flood protection.
"I still think people want to protect both sides of the river," City Council member Monica Vernon said
after the 2012 defeat for flood protection funds. "Perhaps the message is they don't want to pay for it.
... But cities are forever. You never give up on Cedar Rapids. You never give up on each other."
By November 2013, 62 percent of voters finally agreed that the condition of city streets had become
sufficiently jaw - rattling that it made sense to approve the local sales tax for 10 years to fix streets.
City officials now are vowing to make sure that residents know when and how the revenue from the tax
renewal — estimated at $180 million over 10 years in today's dollars — is spent.
They've given the program a name — Paving for Progress — worthy of government initiatives with tall
ambition and big promises.
And city crews also have created 50 large, eye- catching signs, which will promote streets repaired,
resurfaced or rebuilt with LOST money in the Paving for Progress program.
Emily Muhlbach, communications coordinator for the city's Development Services Department who has
spearheaded the effort to design the signs, said the city doesn't want residents to wonder if and when
the street transformation is going to happen and where.
"We want then to see action right away, and we want to make it as easy as possible for people to see
what is going on, to see the progress," Muhlbach said. "We want to be as transparent and as visible as
possible so people can feel really good about how they have invested with their vote."
Rob Davis, the city's engineering operations manager, said city engineers typically are lousy self -
promoters when it comes to infrastructure projects.
However, Davis said he is reminded every time he takes his children swimming in Cedar Rapids pools
how local taxpayers put the LOST in place for one year in July 2001 to build and fix pools.
"I still remember what we got for that $16 million to $18 million all these years later," Davis said. "You
now know what you can get with that 1 cent tax. You can get a heck of a lot.
"We would not have a Cherry Hill Pool and a Noelridge Pool without that. Those are fantastic. And I'm
hoping we can say the same thing 10 years later about the streets."
'Once and for all'
Late last week, George Heeren didn't realize that his quiet tree -lined street off First Avenue SW next to
Cleveland Park suddenly had become the poster child for the city's new Paving for Progress program.
Over the years, Heeren said city crews have patched and fussed a little with 17th Street SW, and then
they did it again and again.
"It's nice for them to come through and fix it once and for all," said Heeren, president of the Cleveland
Neighborhood Association.
This week, a city street crew will be on Heeren's street to put down an asphalt overlay — the first of
many to come on city residential streets during the 10 -year life of the city's fix - the - streets sales tax.
Davis estimated that 500 city streets will see work in one form or another with LOST money.
The city is launching the Paving for Progress program on 17th Street SW between First and 10th avenues
SW — about three city blocks long — because, Davis said, 17th Street SW is exactly the type of
residential street of subpar quality that long has missed out on good care and long would have — but for
voter approval of the LOST funds.
By itself, this isn't that exciting a project," Davis said. "What is exciting is that we're doing it at all."
The overall city strategy, he said, is to replace the worst streets, which is the highest -cost option, and at
the same time to resurface or otherwise improve needy streets so that they don't get to the status of
the city's worst streets.
Davis said there is something like a continuum of care for streets in need of help. The life on some can
be extended by sealing cracks or replacing joints or panels in the street. Some will get asphalt overlays,
but some need a total street replacement.
"This is a tricky thing where some streets are so bad we have to work on the worst," he said. "But you
want to work on streets that are in fair condition as well."
The city's 10 -year tax for streets doesn't begin to be collected until July 1, and the first revenue from it
won't be here until September. The city, though, can't lose most of a street construction season waiting,
so it is using street funds on hand to begin Paving for Progress work now with the idea that revenue
from LOST will replace short-term funds used now.
Davis said the city expects to do 30 projects and $8 million of Paving for Progress work this construction
season, with city crews doing some projects and larger projects ones sent out for bids and handled by
local contractors.
At the same time, the city will be working on an expanded curb - and - gutter repair program throughout
the city and will be doing other street maintenance work in some instances in preparation for asphalt
overlays in 2015. The city also has hired a consultant to determine the construction priority in upcoming
years.
Other large street projects will be underway as well that are not funded by Paving For Progress dollars,
but are paid for largely with federal grants, property assessments and /or property -tax revenue within
special tax increment financing districts.
Mike Duffy, the city's streets superintendent, said the Public Works Department worked overthe winter
and during the early spring to identify "quick- start" projects so it could get as much done as possible this
construction season. Street crews, for instance, already are busy replacing concrete panels on
Northbrook Drive NE off Council Street NE as the city asphalt program gets ready to go.
"We're excited to be making lasting improvements instead of temporary ones," Duffy said.
Davis said 17th Street SW rose to the top of residential asphalt projects, in part, because many street
candidates were set aside for this year because they need in- street utility work first or at the time of the
street work.
Initially, Davis said Duffy had identified six miles of residential streets as first ones to target this year.
However, only one of the six miles is ready for work this year, he said.
One case in point, 42nd Street NE between Interstate 380 and Wenig Road NE, fell off this year's
resurfacing list when the city discovered its subsurface had crumbled. The street needs replaced, not
resurfaced, Davis said.
He said the city expects to use its existing street crew members this summer as Paving for Progress takes
off. In the end, city workers will need to do less street maintenance as more permanent street
improvements take hold.
Davis pointed to the street project on 76th Avenue SW near The Eastern Iowa Airport, which is being
paid for with funds other than LOST money. Every other year, city crews spent considerable time on
76th Avenue SW put a new layer of seal coating on it. With the new street, they can use that time and
effort on Paving for Progress projects, he said.
On Thursday, city workers were marking up spots on 17th Street SW in preparation for the asphalt
paving work to come in upcoming days.
"Really," said Sheryl Ochs, who has lived on the street for years, "I don't see a lot of potholes."
The street isn't the worst, she said, but it could use the help if the city is fixing more than just the worst,
she said.
A new layer of asphalt will make the neighborhood look better than ever, which can't hurt property
values, Ochs said.
Mayor Corbett picked himself off the carpet after he had made himself the pitchman to renew the city's
local- option sales tax in May 2011 to fix streets and help with flood protection.
By last fall, Corbett put on his running shoes, and ran 130 miles of city streets as he ran for mayor to get
close -up look at bad streets. He ran the 17th Street SW neighborhood along the way.
"Over the years, the condition of the streets has been one of the top issues that citizens have really
complained about," the mayor said last week. "They've complained to every mayor and every City
Council member. Finally, we have the resources in place to make a significant difference."
Corbett said he had hoped that the Iowa Legislature and the governor would have steered more state
gas -tax money to Iowa's cities, but they did not.
"We just couldn't wait for them," the mayor said.
This time, the sales -tax push worked.
"The people of Cedar Rapids supported this overwhelmingly," he said. `They know that our city has
challenges, our state and country have challenges. I think they appreciate elected officials being
straightforward with them: Here's the problem and here's the solution."
* * **
Projected 2014 Paving for Progress projects
Asterisked projects will be done by the city; others will be put up for bid
NW Quadrant
Ellis Blvd. from K Avenue to O Avenue
B Avenue NW Improvements from Highland Drive to Eighth Street
13th Street NW from A Avenue to B Avenue *
E Avenue from Stoney Point Road to Rock Valley
Ellis Lane NW, Ellis Blvd to Eighth Street NW
SW Quadrant
Third Avenue SW Improvements from Sixth Street to 10th Street
Eighth Avenue SW Improvements from 10th Street to Seventh Street
Diagonal Drive SW Improvements from Interstate 380 to West Eighth Avenue Bridge Approach
Edgewood Road SW from Williams Boulevard to 16th Avenue
Wiley Blvd SW from Williams Boulevard to 16th Avenue
17th Street SW from First Avenue to 10th Avenue *
West Post Road SW from Ruhd Street to 16th Avenue*
Wilson Avenue SW from West Post Road to Troy Street *
Hawkeye Downs Road from Sixth Street to J Street *
NE Quadrant
Boyson Road NE Improvements from C Avenue to East Corporate Limits
Coe Road NE Improvements from Center Point Road to A Avenue
Glass Road NE Improvements from Edgewood Road to Wenig Road
Kiowa Trace NE, 6821 to 7015 Residences *
Oakland Rd NE from E Ave to H Ave
Seminole Valley Rd NE from Fords Crossing Road to 42nd St
Blairs Ferry Rd NE from W. of Miller Ave to W to Wayside Circle Dr
74th Street from White Ivy Place to C Ave
42nd Street from 1 -380 to Wenig Rd
Northbrook Drive NE from Boxwood Lane to Laurel Lane NE *
SE Quadrant
Fourth Avenue Improvements from Sixth Street to 19th Street
19th Street from Fifth Avenue to Bever Avenue
ever Avenue from 19th Street to 14th Street
Bever Avenue from 22nd Street to Memorial Drive
Garden Drive from Grande Avenue to Washington Avenue
11th Avenue Improvements from Third Street to Fourth Street
I t
-ia...r..
MW
ti.
no
CITY OF IOWA CITY
PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS
June 11, 2014
July 15th, 2014
1. Discuss aesthetic components of the Gateway project
Pending Topics to be Scheduled
1. Review the Equity Report and National League of Cities Institute for Youth,
Education and Families report entitled, "City Leadership to Promote Black Male
Achievement" (originally distributed in the 5/16/2013 Information Packet)
2. Discuss recycling opportunities for multi - family housing (UISG letter in 10/1/2013
packet)- To be considered subsequent to Fiberight related decisions
3. Receive staff update on Gilbert/fIighland/Kirkwood neighborhood concerns (summer
2014)
4. Discuss city related marijuana policies and potential legislative advocacy positions
5. Discuss community business attraction and anti- piracy compact
6. Presentation on Emerald Ash Borer plans and strategies
7. Presentation regarding the planning direction for the Riverfront Crossings Park
�I! CITY OF IOWA CITY �P7
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 12, 2014
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Re: KXIC Radio Show
KXIC offers a City show at 8:00 AM every Wednesday morning. In the past Council has
volunteered for dates, and staff filled in as necessary. Please take a look at your calendars and
come prepared to help fill in the schedule at your work session on June 17th:
June 18 — Dobyns
June 25 —
July 2 -
July 9 -
July 16 -
Future commitments:
August 6 — Dobyns
September 17 — Dobyns
November 12 — Dobyns
U:radioshowasking.doc
I! CITY OF IOWA CITY �P$
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 11, 2014
To: City Council
From: Mayor Matt Hayek
Re: PILOT Report and Meeting with Regents
On June 10, City Manager Tom Markus and I met with Regents Executive Director Bob Donley
and Regent Bob Downer to discuss the April 2014 staff report concerning PILOT issues. The
meeting was productive and positive. We affirmed the strong relationship between Iowa City
and the University of Iowa and agreed that our interests are mutual. We left the meeting with a
clear understanding that any future PILOT (or comparable) arrangements between local
municipalities and the Regents will receive a higher level of scrutiny.
Tom and I are happy to answer questions concerning the June 10 meeting. At this point my
opinion is that we do not need to place the PILOT issue on a work session agenda; if the council
feels otherwise, we will do so. I am confident that staff will remain vigilant in monitoring the
issue and will report to us if circumstances change.
Z IP9
2014 Lobbying Report
To the
City of Iowa City
On the results of the
85th General Assembly, 2014 Session
I. Introduction.
The second session of the 85th General Assembly (the "2014 Session or Session ") ended with
adjournment in the House just before 6:00am on Thursday, May 1 after debating through the
night on some of the year's most controversial pieces of legislation. The Senate did not adjourn
until the morning of Friday, May 2 after introducing a resolution to give the Government
Oversight committee subpoena powers to investigate the administration. As in years past, the
session ran over its scheduled end, adjourning nine days over their 100 -day pay period. As in the
past three years, a split legislature with narrow majorities forced compromise. With huge
accomplishments last year on property tax, education reform and the budget, this session was
predicted to be light. However, the two chambers managed to come together to pass legislation
including a bill to legalize the possession of canabidiol oil for children with epilepsy, updated
Iowa's draconian law on the transmission of the HIV virus, and passed a $7 billion budget.
In all, 1,325 bills, study bills and resolutions were introduced in either the House or Senate in
2014. We reviewed each bill and specifically tracked over 90 bills that related to issues which
could impact the City of Iowa City ( "Iowa City or City "). Our weekly bill tracker was delivered
to the City Manager's Office and reviewed with the City Manager and others every Friday
during the 2014 Session.
After significant changes coming out of the 2013 legislative session, the 2014 session was
largely focused on maintaining or expanding current funding mechanisms for the city, and on
defensive issues. Having passed legislation including property tax reform in 2013, the legislature
focused less on public policy issues in this session, barely discussing pension and road funding.
The city had success in amending the local option sales tax (LOST) bill, and defeating a bill to
eliminate a city's ability to restrict residential rental occupancy based on familial status. In this
report we will compare the City's 2014 legislative initiatives to the actual results of the 2014
Session, as well as describe other issues Iowa City lobbied during the 2014 Session.
II. The City's 2013 Legislative Initiatives
A. Priority One: Ensure the financial sustainability of the Municipal Fire and Police
Retirement System of Iowa
Despite this legislative session being a "pension year," no action was taken on any of the major
pension systems this year. In even numbered years, a legislative interim committee meets to
#2458690 v.2
discuss the state's various pension systems. At the October meeting, the League of Cities as well
as taxpayer organizations and the MFPRSI system itself presented on the need for reforms to the
411 system. Despite their testimony, the interim committee declined to make recommendations
on legislative action for the 2014 session.
At the League's annual 411 meeting in December the chairs of the respective House and Senate
State Government committees attended to state their positions and take questions from the
member cities. The House made it clear that any attempt to reinstate the annual state contribution
of 3.79% would have no chance of success in the House unless the Senate passed systemic
reforms. The Senate chair also made it clear that he would not accept any systemic reforms, but
would pass a bill to reinstate the state contribution. Although several bills and amendments were
proposed to reinstate the state contribution, it did not receive serious discussion in either
chamber.
Several bills and amendments were introduced in the House to expand MFPRSI member benefits
and rights this session. These included a bill to increase earnings for disability retirees, and a bill
to allow members the right to appeal a benefit denial directly to the MFPRSI board.
B. Priority Two: Increase infrastructure funding that supports a diverse transportation
network
Infrastructure funding did not receive much debate this session. Legislation to increase the gas
tax passed out of a House subcommittee this year, but never made it out of committee. Several
legislators pressed DOT Director Paul Trombino on the funding of passenger rail, but the
Director did not include funding for the project in his final budget.
C. Priority Three: Provide local governments more flexibility in determining local revenue
sources and preserve the Local Option Sales Tax formula
In the 2014 session, legislation was introduced by Senators from Des Moines and West Des
Moines to allow an individual city to hold a referendum to approve a local option sales tax
without the approval of other cities in the county. SF2331 decoupled the elections so all
contiguous cities would not need to approve a referendum and updated the distribution formula
to use current property tax and census numbers. The bill attempted to exclude counties in which
the major population centers had seen a declining population. After learning that the updated
distribution formula would put Iowa City at a competitive disadvantage, we lobbied to also
exclude Johnson County. We reviewed several draft amendments that excluded Dallas, Johnson
and Polk counties, but the bill died before being amended.
One bill to reform tax increment finance (TIF) was introduced in the House. HF2467 contained
several reforms:
1. Prohibited the use of TIF to finance any public building project.
2. Restricted a city's debt, including annual appropriation debt, from exceeding the
constitutional debt limit of 5% of the taxable value in a city,
3. An automatic step -up of base valuations and rapid phase -out after twenty years for any
TIF without a sunset. This included slum, blighted and pre -1995 economic development
TIFs.
4. Limited all future TIFs to 20 years.
The bill passed out of the House Ways and Means committee but was not taken up for debate.
The City remained generally opposed to the bill although indicated its support for items 1, 2 and
4 above.
A bill to allow owners of Section 42 housing a one -time opportunity to be assessed at market
value and receive the residential rollback also passed the House and Senate this session. After
consideration by the City's staff, the determination was made that the bill would not affect the
City.
D. Priority Four: Support the University of Iowa's efforts to be a global leader in 21St
century higher education
The City supported the University in its annual appropriation and tuition freeze efforts.
E. Priority Five: Support the legislative efforts of the Iowa League of Cities and the
Metropolitan Coalition
The City supported the League and the Metropolitan Coalition ( "Metro Coalition ") in their
opposition of the cell tower citing amendment to HF2329, the Governor's broadband bill. The
cell tower citing amendment was very unfavorable to cities, allowing telecommunications
companies access to virtually any public structure without going through a city zoning process.
A watered -down version of this amendment was added to the bill, but the bill failed a vote in the
House.
The City also joined the League and the Metro Coalition in opposition to House and Senate bills
to restrict a city's ability to regulate residential rental property occupancy based on familial
status. The House version passed out of committee, but did not receive a floor vote.
III. Additional Issues
1. The City supported SF2310, a bill to create host liability for underage drinking. The final
bill only applies to those 18 and under, and excludes landlords and property managers
and religious services. The bill passed and was signed by the Governor on April 24.
2. The City supported S172212, a bill to allow landfills to accept yard waste resulting from
storm damage or for the purposes of controlling or eradicating pests (emerald ash borer).
3. The City supported SF383, a bill to require the automatic sealing of juvenile records.
The bill was originally sponsored by Senator Dvorsky, and requires the court, on its own
motion, to schedule a hearing two years after the last action or upon the child's eighteenth
birthday to order their official juvenile records sealed. This bill passed both chambers and
was signed by Governor Branstad.
4. The City opposed several bills to legalize the sale of commercial fireworks in Iowa. None
of these bills reached the floor of the Senate or House for debate.
5. Bills restricting the use of automated traffic cameras were introduced again this session.
We did not lobby any of the bills for the City and the bills received little due to the
administrative rules introduced by the DOT.
—.The 2014 Session was generally a success for the City. With the exception of financing for
passenger rail and expanding revenue sources for the City its legislative agenda was largely
implemented.
We enjoyed lobbying for the City during the 2014 session and 1Qok forward to working with you
during the interim on issues important to the City in preparation for the 86th General Assembly
Submitted by DavisBrown Law Firm (Attorneys Thomas Stanberry and Kate Carlucci)
From the City Manager
Two -Way Streets Can Fix Declining Downtown
Neighborhoods
Wednesday, June 11, 2014 - 5:00am PDT by JAMES BRASUELL
John Gilderbloom
Infrastructure, Transportation, Kentucky
aj
America's multi -lane one -way streets are a disaster for neighborhoods. A recent study
released at the International Conference on Livability led by John Gilderbloom finds
Brad Cronin / The one -way multi -lane stretch of Breckinridge Street in Louisville,
Kentucky
Here is one simple and affordable strategy to renew our downtown neighborhoods:
immediately convert multi -lane one -way streets back to two -way traffic. Such
conversions reduce car speeds and encourage greater pedestrian and bike mode -
share. As a response of calmer residential streets, neighborhoods become more livable,
more prosperous, and safer.
While 100 cities have rushed to convert multi -lane one -way streets, few researchers
have performed rigorous studies of traffic calming impacts. Under my supervision,
University of Louisville planning graduate students and faculty (Winston Mitchell, Nick
1IPage
York, Zaria Murrell, Brad Cronin, Wesley Meares, Billy Riggs, and Samantha Alexis
Smith) produced a rigorous study of just two streets in Louisville (Brook and First
streets) that were converted nearly three years ago from, in effect, multi -lane freeways
to slow and sane streets, available to all users. We examined the before and after
conditions of the conversion of Brook and First and compared the newly converted two -
ways with the unconverted multi -lane one -ways (Second and Third) next to them. We
also explored another street that was part one -way and two -way.
The results were stunning. Two -way conversion improves the livability of a
neighborhood by significantly reducing crime and collisions and by increasing property
values, business revenue, taxes, and bike and pedestrian traffic. Outside consultants,
with price tags of millions of dollars, never predicted this in places like Oslo, San
Francisco, St. Louis, and Atlanta.
The downtown Louisville neighborhood (which is 80 percent renter, with a racial mix of
whites and blacks being evenly split, and household incomes ranging from low to
moderate) is being reborn. Property improvements on the two -way streets have nearly
doubled, thanks to neighbors demanding aggressive code enforcement of mandated
property upgrades.
The sight of dumpsters, scaffolding and home improvement trucks have replaced
prostitution, drug dealers, and fencing operations. Babies in carriages, joggers, bikers,
retirees, same -sex couples, and hipsters have reclaimed these streets. Compare this
scene to West Louisville's unlivable multi -lane one -ways.
While Louisville experienced a five percent jump in crime during the post- conversion
study period (2011 to 2013) as well as the period before conversion (2008 to 2010), a
disproportionate amount of crime occurred on multi -lane one -way streets (according to
police records). Yet nearly three years after the conversions took place, crime dropped
a jaw dropping 23 percent on the converted streets. Auto theft alone has decreased by
almost a third on the converted streets, even as it climbed by 36 percent on the nearby
one -way streets. At the same time, there was a 42- percent reduction in robberies on the
converted streets.
2 1 P a g e
Some of the best returns on real estate investment in Louisville are now found on these
formerly fast and furious streets. Property values have increased on two -way streets
while nearby one -way streets have declined. The now two -way Brook Street has seen a
39 percent increase in property values after conversion, according to records from the
Property Valuation Administration.
The two -lane section of the 1400 block of Breckinridge Street in Louisville, Kentucky
Before the street conversion, First Street stood out as the most dangerous street among
the four studied in terms of traffic collisions. In the three years since the conversion,
auto collisions decreased there by 60 percent. Collisions on Brook Street decreased by
36 percent after the conversion. Collisions actually increased in our control sample: on
Second Street by almost 23 percent and seven percent on Third Street. "Before the
conversion we had several horrific car crashes that caused needless loss of life —
several of whom were children," according to neighborhood activist and lawyer, Ken
Plotnik.
As one would expect, the reductions in crime, coupled with increased traffic (but much
slower now!) and lower accident rates, have been good for grocery stores, restaurants,
3 1 P a g e
and coffee houses on the converted streets. Dan Borsch, the owner of "Burger Boy
Diner" claims patronage has skyrocketed on Brook, allowing him to double his table
space. The Louisville case studies provide clear evidence that livable street equals
neighborhood prosperity.
A more recent study showed that cities might not be able to afford multi -lane one way
streets because the impact on the tax base is significant. A recent study by the Center
for Sustainable Urban Neighborhoods found that on just one street (East Breckinridge)
that was part one -way and two - way —the property taxes produced were twice as much
($42,052) on the average two -way per block compared to the average one -way block,
which produced on average half as much ($20,135). If you use this ratio on all multi-
lane one -way streets, the city of Louisville loses roughly $1 million per year.
Property Taxes
Pmperly Taxes; Paid by Block Breekisrlsiye
Block one-Way orTwo-Way Total Value of Buildings Total Property Tax
on Buildings
200
Ono- Way
$632.050
S9369
300
Ono- Way
$1.231.940
$16312
1400
One-way
S 10913
$924,190
Soo
On Wsy
$12077
5912,120
600
One-way
$11076
$836.520
700
Ono- Way
S17731
S1.340,620
900
One-Way
S824,740
S10920
1000
One-Way
$ 2.768,8911
$36663
1100
One'way
$1,976.790
$26175
1200
Ooe way
$ 28600
S 2.139,930
1300
TwWsy
$22428
S1,693.8t0
1400
7MOWay
S64362
S 4,860,800
1500
Two-way
t1IAI AN
541670
By every measurable aspect, First and Brook streets are better places since they were
converted to two -way traffic supplemented by smartly designed bike lanes. While there
is no magical, quick -fix when it comes to turning around neighborhoods, converting
multi -lane one -way streets to two -way streets is a smart and affordable policy.
Neighborhoods will also blossom if one -way conversions are coupled with other proven
4 1 P a g c
infrastructure improvements, such as street trees, bike lanes, community gardens,
public art, and adaptive reuse of abandoned properties.
Neighborhoods with multi -lane one ways have needlessly suffered for too long. We
need bold leadership that enacts proven policies that work and respond to
neighborhood demands. Metro Councilmember and police officer David James' surprise
victory three years ago in District 6 (Old Louisville / California) shows that by promising
conversion of one -ways, politicians can win elections. Similarly, the mayor of Lexington,
Kentucky ran on a campaign to convert all downtown streets in Lexington into two -way.
In fact, his first act as mayor was to order multi -lane one -way streets converted to two-
way.
Traffic calming works, as we see in these dramatic results on Brook and First streets.
Slumping downtown historic neighborhoods from San Antonio and Houston; Cincinatti to
Indianpolis; and West Palm Beach to Lexington could also benefit from this sustainable
planning approach. It's a win -win for the city, neighborhoods, children, developers, and
homeowners.
5 1 P a g e
a
June 12, 2014
Board of Regents
State of Iowa
11260 Aurora Ave
Urbandale, IA 50322
Dear Members of the Board of Regents,
t
2014 JUN 13 AM
CITY Cl ER ,
As leaders of government, economic development agencies, and school systems in the Iowa City
area, we would like to demonstrate our support for the University of Iowa (UI) by highlighting its
progressive vision for higher education in the state. We will specifically address several
misconceptions that have been reported recently related to the new funding allocations for regent
universities.
First, we are proud of the UI's undergraduate and graduate programs, especially their recruiting
standards in the face of an extremely competitive enrollment environment among statewide
higher education institutions, public and private universities across the nation, and increasingly,
for - profit entities. Despite the increased competition, UI is finding success in broadening its
scope to attract local Iowa students and out -of -state and international students. While these efforts
recruit people to Iowa for school, in many cases they stay and grow our communities, building
our population base. This results in economic development for the state, and we applaud UI for
this vision. We all benefit from these efforts.
The University of Iowa works closely with our cities and takes seriously its role in the collective
effort to make the area attractive to prospective students and their families. In partnership with
UI, the City of Iowa City places great importance on the student experience, offering services
such as public safety, transit, parks, pedestrianibicycle amenities, the downtown business
landscape, housing, rental property regulation and arts and culture.
We collaborate with UI in many ways to promote a positive relationship with the student body
and to welcome new students from Iowa and beyond. Examples include:
• The City of Iowa City sends a letter each year to every admitted student and his or her
family welcoming the student to town, introducing the student to City Hall, and providing
contact information for questions or concerns. The City of Iowa City also sends a letter to
international students, which puts Iowa on the global map.
• A representative from UI Student Government sits at the City Council and Iowa City
Downtown District table during work sessions and, although non - voting, provides
considerable input on issues of mutual interest. Students are encouraged to get involved
in their local government.
• Other examples in which we interface with UI and its student body include; a rental
housing summit between the City of Iowa City and UISG; a public - private Partnership
for Alcohol Safety and the interaction of our neighborhood and housing departments with
renters (e.g. informational, "get to know your neighbor" picnics at the start of the year).
• Investments in the UI Research Park in Coralville and new facilities in downtown Iowa
City have engaged our private sector economy and led to significant private sector
investments and tax base expansion in the state. UI students are at the forefront of these
initiatives and are welcomed into the private sector industry.
• UI Masters of Fine Arts and Studio Arts programs have impacted downtown Iowa City
helping to emerge an informal arts and science incubator. These are celebrated locally, as
well as statewide, and have increased our tourism appeal.
• The cities and the UI worked together to make the area a UNESCO City of Literature
based on the international reputation of the Iowa Writer's Workshop.
The UI and our organizations are well engaged in social media that keeps students
apprised of student programs and community offerings with an array of "tweet" touch
points. We host a free concert and movie series through Summer of the Arts, we utilize a
town/gown committee to plan "Welcome Back Week," and host "Taste of Iowa City" to
welcome students downtown and encourage them to know our business community and
the services available to them.
• The public transit systems of Iowa City, Coralville, and UI provide service throughout
the metropolitan area, including North Liberty, with common transfer points, shared
passes, and extensive cooperation and coordination to assure the systems meet the needs
of students.
• The City of Coralville has partnered with UI to offer FryFest, a celebration of all that is
Hawkeye, on the first home football weekend of the year. The festival includes a trade
show, concert, pep rally, and other events designed to encourage students to explore the
area during their first weeks on campus.
We consider UI graduate programs, specialized academic units and specialized programs in law,
medicine and science incredibly important to the Creative Corridor economy, and indeed the
entire state. These programs attract talent from across the state and beyond our borders, which
benefits Iowa.
We believe each of the regent institutions is unique, and from our perspective that is what makes
our regent system strong.
We hope these points provide a perspective that highlights the University of Iowa strengths, its
importance to our economy, and how we collaborate to ensure all students feel at home in ogs
region.
Sincerely,
'-
c_._
ME
Matt Hayek, Mayor of Iowa City
�--
w
John Lundell, Mayor of Coralville
75 T2
Gerry Kuhl, Mayor Pro Tem of North Liberty
Terrence Neuzil, Johnson County
X:-
Nancy Quellhorst, President & CEO of the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce
R,?
Mark Nolte, President of Iowa City Area Development Group
Josh Schamberger, President of Iowa City Coralville Convention and Visitors Bureau
Nancy Bird, Executive Director of the Iowa City Downtown District
Steve Murley, Iowa City Community School District Superintendent
John Kenyon, City of Literature
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MAY 14, 2014 — 5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
L06 -12 -14
IP11
onj
PRELIMINARY
Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Brock
Grenis, Becky Soglin
None
Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Grenis outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF APRIL 9. 2014 MEETING MINUTES
Soglin moved to approve the minutes.
Goeb seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM
EXC14- 00006: Discussion of an application
expansion of an existing school of general
(CC -2) zone at 1030 Cross Park Avenue.
submitted by Faith Academy, to allow the
instruction in the Community Commercial
Walz said this school was established about a year ago when the applicants came before the
Board to establish grades K -1. She said they are now seeking to expand the school. She
showed the Board where the existing school is located and where the additional space will be
added. She said as part of the previous special exception, the applicants fenced the outside
play area and established a sidewalk. She pointed out where the parking is and where
Board of Adjustment
May 14, 2014
Page 2 of 4
additional parking will be added and said they have ample parking. Walz showed the new
location of the front entrance, which will put it further away from the nearby loading dock.
Walz said that each year the school plans to add one grade, and their eventual goal is to have
grades K -12. She said staff is recommending approval with the conditions of completion of the
sidewalk along the east side of the playground to the school entrance and that the enrollment is
capped at 105 students or as if required by Code they add another 500 square feet.
Soglin asked for clarification about how the large trucks coming to the loading dock coincides
with the school's hours. Walz said there are not frequent or regular deliveries to make it a
concern of staff.
Soglin asked if there was a crossing guard here. Walz explained that crossing guards are only
used on arterials.
Baker ascertained that the applicant is renting the subject property and that buying the building
and using it for religious purposes would change its tax status. He asked if there's anything in
the Comprehensive Plan that talks about tax base maintenance as an issue in land use
decisions. Walz said there isn't.
Greenwood Hektoen said the power to zone property is based on health, safety and welfare
issues, not tax value, so that's not a factor that comes into play in zoning decisions. Walz said
the Board's job is to look at the use, not the tax yield.
Grenis invited the applicant to speak.
Doug Fern of 621 N. Johnson St. explained that up to this point, there have been no issues
involving the loading dock, as the one truck they see there daily has come and gone before the
children arrive. He said that the amount of space they want to add will give the school enough
square footage for five years of growth.
Soglin asked if the hours of operation ever change and there could be more of an overlap
between school hours and traffic at the loading dock. Fern said there is an isolated event or two
outside of the designated 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 hours.
Grenis opened public hearing.
Grenis closed public hearing.
Goeb moved that EXC14- 00006, a special exception to allow the expansion of a General
Education Facility for up to 105 students in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone
located at 1030 Crosspark Avenue be approved with the following conditions:
• Completion of a sidewalk connection along the east side of the playground to the
school entrance.
• An enrollment of more than 105 students or an addition of more 500 square feet of
floor area will be considered an expansion of the use that requires a new special
exception.
Board of Adjustment
May 14, 2014
Page 3 of 4
Baker seconded.
Baker said that regarding EXC14 -00006 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report
of May 14, 2014, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless
amended or opposed by another Board member he recommended that the Board adopt the
findings in the staff report as their findings for the acceptance of this proposal.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0.
Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to
appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with
the City Clerk's Office.
OTHER:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
ADJOURNMENT:
Baker moved to adjourn.
Soglin seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote.
F-
z
w
N
D
Q
LL
O
a
m
0
V
W
w
W
z
Q
z
LU
H
a
le
r
O
N
M
r
O
N
IV
x
x
x
x
x
LO
a)
x
x
X
x
x
CM
x
x
x
x
X
M
°�°
x
X
x
x
X
r
N
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
x
oo
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
X
w
0
X
X
X
x
ti
N
X
X
X
X
co
x
X
X
X
X
0
X
x
X
X
x
et
w
o
0
0
0
0
0
rt
N
N
N
N
N
N
w
r
r
r
r
r
r
F-
LU
Z
LU
I--
W
V
N
J
Y
z
3
v
-J
LU
0
m
=
c6
m
Z
V1
V
Z
LU
w
CO)
Q
Q
O
M
=
Z
0
LU
i
z
m
C9
t9
V
vi
a
a>
U �
W
d C N
N h N
N .0 . Z
a. Q Q
II II II 11
xOw '
0�
}
w
Y
M IP12
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MAY 8, 2014
EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Gosia Clore, Kate Corcoran, Frank
Durham, Andy Litton, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell, Ginalie Swaim
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kent Ackerson, Frank Wagner
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Schabilion
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
None.
CALL TO ORDER: Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
431 Rundell Street
Miklo explained that this is a contributing property built by Howard Moffat in the Longfellow
Historic District. He said there are additions that were constructed before this became a historic
district. He showed photographs of several views of the house. He said the proposal is to add a
cupola to the area of the house that he indicated in the photographs. He said in staff's opinion
these recent additions to the house are in the spirit of Moffat and his use of salvaged material.
He said staff feels that additional ornamentation on the roof follows that character, and staff is
recommending approval.
Michaud said this looks great to her but knows that it isn't architecturally unified.
Swaim said it's a delightful and imaginative house.
Jeff Schabilion of 431 Rundell Street said when he purchased the house the front and sides
were attractive in detail but the back was a blank slate and not in keeping with the front, which
was what encouraged him to build the additions to the back before the area was made a historic
district. He said he thinks the addition of the smaller cupola will harmonize with the larger one.
He said the height of the smaller cupola is about seven feet.
MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at
431 Rundell Street, as presented in the application. Agran seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 9 -0 ( Ackerson and Wagner absent).
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 8, 2014
Page 2 of 7
Michaud said that she had to leave early but she wanted to discuss the Unitarian Church. The
Commission agreed to put it on the agenda for its next meeting.
926 Bowery Street
Miklo said this one -story early bungalow is in the Summit Street Historic District. He said the
proposal is to change some of the basement windows into egress windows. He said the
applicant has agreed to use a material in the window wells similar to the foundation, which
would be concrete, and then dress the top portion with stone. Miklo said the windows would be
wood aluminum clad and would meet the guidelines by having divided lites similar to the main
windows on the house and the windows that were removed in the basement. He said staff finds
that this meets the guidelines with stipulations as outlined in the staff report.
MOTION: Durham moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 926
Bowery Street, as presented in the application with revisions as described in the staff
report. Corcoran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9 -0 (Ackerson
and Wagner absent).
At this point, Michaud left the meeting.
219 N. Gilbert Street
Miklo said that this property is a local landmark. He said the proposal is to put a projecting, or
flag, sign at the front entrance. He explained how it would be mounted and showed where it
would be located. He said there is a decorative panel on the entry, and staff recommends that
the mounting bracket be designed so it doesn't obscure that panel. He said the applicant has
agreed to that, and staff recommends approval of the sign.
MOTION: Durham moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a front entrance
sign at 219 N. Gilbert Street, as presented in the application with minor revision of upper
attachment plate dimensions per staff comments. Litton seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 8 -0 ( Ackerson. Michaud and Wagner absent).
518 Bowery Street
Miklo said this property was recently added as a local landmark as well as a National Register
property given its unique storefront design. He said the proposal is to put a sign on the front of
the property. He said the sign would be of modern material but would look like painted wood. He
said staff recommends approval.
MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 518
Bowery Street, as presented in the application. Agran seconded the motion. The motion
carried on a vote of 8 -0 ( Ackerson. Michaud and Wagner absent).
1111 E. Burlinaton Street
Miklo said the property is in the College Hill Conservation District, was originally 1 -1/2 stories
and was added onto at least twice. He said the proposal is to replace the front door with a
fiberglass, paintable door that meets the historic preservation guidelines. He pointed out a
window on the second floor would become egress and where there would be a new window in
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 8, 2014
Page 3 of 7
the kitchen. He said staff is recommending approval with stipulations as outlined in the staff
report.
Swaim asked if the kitchen window will have a frame that will show. Miklo said staff hopes they
are able to do that but it's not been determined whether it can have a frame or the applicant will
replace it in the existing frame.
MOTION: Agran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1111
E. Burlington Street, as presented in the application with conditions as described in the
staff report. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0 ( Ackerson,
Michaud and Wagner absent).
1116 E. Burlington Street
Miklo said the proposal is to rebuild the back porch as a heated room and finish it as a
bathroom /laundry room. He pointed out where a window would be added for the kitchen. He
said staff is recommending approval with stipulations noted in the staff report.
MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1116
E. Burlington Street, as presented in the application with conditions as described in the
staff report. Durham seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0
(Ackerson, Michaud and Wagner absent).
Swaim noted that the speed with which the Commission went through six applications is based
on the thorough reports that staff and Chery Peterson put together as well as a lot of behind the
scenes work with the applicants.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Swaim stated that this is available for review in the Commission packet.
REVIEW NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION OF JOHNSON COUNTY POOR FARM AND
ASYLUM HISTORIC DISTRICT
Miklo said the Poor Farm is located on the south side of Melrose Avenue west of Highway 218.
He said it's the role of the local Commission to review these when they are nominated and
make comment or recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Office on whether or not
the Commission deems this eligible for the National Register.
Swaim said she thinks this is the only poor farm /asylum in Iowa of this smaller size and is
therefore a unique structure.
Corcoran said she remembers that there used to be a large, imposing stone building on this
property. Miklo said there is also a cemetery with unmarked graves on this property.
Durham asked what the implications are of historic status for this property.
Miklo said it's honorary and is entered into the National Register and also provides the
possibility of federal funding. He said because this is owned by Johnson County, a public entity
rather than a private one, there are fewer possibilities for tax incentives. He said the building is
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 8, 2014
Page 4 of 7
also protected if there's an undertaking in the area such as a highway or federally funded
program, and therefore any harmful effect would have to be mitigated.
Agran asked what the future plans are for this property. Miklo said the county has a plan for the
bulk of the property to become open public space. He said there was discussion about the
possibility of selling the western portion for private development.
Sandell asked if because Johnson County has a plan to make this open space, the opportunity
for improvements and alterations would be limited. Miklo said it wouldn't be limited unless they
are using federal funds, in which case they would have to follow Secretary of Interior Standards.
MOTION: Durham moved to approve the designation of this property with the National
Historic Register. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0
(Ackerson. Michaud and Wanner absent).
DISCUSS COMPLETION OF FEMA PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT FORM
Miklo explained that FEMA is providing some flood recovery to the University of Iowa, and since
its federal funding, any harm on a National Register eligible building or site should be
considered or mitigated if it can't be avoided. He said the university traded land with some
banks for the new school of music, and because the Sabin School will be taken down to
accommodate the banks' needs, FEMA is required to somehow mitigate the loss of that
building. He said the Commission considered the same proposal a couple years ago and
identified three potential projects that could be funded that would mitigate the loss:
1. Construct an elevator for the Horace Mann and /or Longfellow School, which were built in
the same year and by the same architect as the Sabin School. He said because the
school district is committed to renovating both schools and making them handicapped
accessible this is not a likely recommendation.
2. Fund a facility study for Horace Mann and Longfellow focused on maintaining these
buildings for long -term continued use. He said this isn't a likely recommendation for the
reason indicated in #1.
3. Fund a National Register nomination for the Horace Mann Elementary School.
Miklo said another possibility that was considered by the Commission but not forwarded the last
time it reviewed this was to salvage some of the decorative stone elements from Sabin School
to possibly re -use in a public space. He said it's up to the Commission to make one or more
proposals on how to mitigate the loss of the Sabin School.
Swaim asked if the work already done for Longfellow School could be used in nominating
Horace Mann, as their history relevant to the nomination is similar. Miklo said that Longfellow
was nominated as part of a larger district, so there may not be much detail on the building itself.
Swaim asked if the property owner's permission is needed. Miklo said to nominate it is not, but
to list it the property owner must consent.
There was discussion whether materials taken from the Sabin School could be re -used in the
renovation of Horace Mann and Longfellow. Miklo said it was unlikely, as most of the work
would be done on the interiors of the schools and on additions. He said that Sabin is masonry,
and the damage to masonry when you take it down renders it generally unusable.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 8, 2014
Page 5 of 7
Sandell asked about the cost estimate for salvaging the materials. Miklo said it came from an
architect retained by FEMA.
Swaim said the pieces were less decorative than they were massive. Miklo said the size is what
makes them difficult to salvage.
There was discussion how to get the most value. Miklo said he thought the National Register
nomination would have some benefit by highlighting the importance of Horace Mann to the
community and may support the continued use of the building. Swaim said it would also dovetail
with the proposed conservation district around Horace Mann.
It was suggested that the Commission propose replacing the bricks on Brown Street. Miklo said
that would cost more than what FEMA has indicated is available.
Corcoran suggested that some of the features of Sabin be salvaged and used somewhere in the
city. Swaim said if they were stored at the Salvage Barn, they could be bought privately and
there ends the community story of the school.
Sandell said Sabin seems to have many re -use materials, but the question is if it's fiscally
feasible. He said he was frustrated that they can't find a good use.
Durham asked if the cost of preservation was versus the utility or the aesthetic value of having a
similar decorative piece made of new materials. Miklo said part of the difficulty is not having an
identified use for the materials.
Swaim asked if the Commission wanted to make a recommendation along the lines of a
reasonable effort to remove and reuse the pieces that are manageable.
Corcoran said it would be nice to save something if they could.
Sandell asked if cost estimate for salvage prepared by the architect is separate from the demo.
He said if it was demo at the same time as salvage, it might come in a lot less than $50,000.
Durham said they don't have a cost basis for the salvage costs versus using new materials,
although the preference is that it be reused. He said if it proved to be economically feasible and
suitable for the reuse, the Commission prefers that it be preserved.
Miklo said if you remove the stone from Sabin not knowing where it will be placed, the only thing
that will retain its aesthetic quality would be the entrance archways. He said a possible
suggestion would be for them to explore reusing the archways.
Agran said when the renovations and additions are done to Horace Mann and Longfellow it
would be aesthetically pleasing and more durable to have these doorways from Sabin used
instead of some lesser modern material.
Baker said she would love to save the archway because it's so beautiful, but there's also the
logistics of storing and maintaining it to consider. She asked if Friends of Historic Preservation
are interested in it. Miklo replied that he thought they were not likely interested in something this
monumental, but he could not speak for them.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 8, 2014
Page 6 of 7
Clore said if it went to the Salvage Barn, it would probably benefit only the buyer, but if it was
used in the renovation of the schools, it would benefit the larger community.
Swaim said another idea would be if there were elementary school units on preservation or an
art class that toured historic districts and drew elements of historic houses - something to sow
the seeds of seeing and appreciating older houses.
Miklo summarized the options put forth in the discussion;
1. To encourage the reuse of at least the archways or one of the archways either in a
public setting or making it available to the Salvage Barn
2. To nominate Horace Mann School for the National Register perhaps coupled with some
educational programs
Miklo said he would be surprised if one person wanted this archway, as it could be reproduced
less expensively. He said at one time there was the thought that it could be used in the future
park where the waste water treatment plant now stands.
MOTION: Agran moved to recommend in order of priority: 1. salvage the three archways
for the Henry Sabin School for reuse in a public park; 2. salvage the main archway of the
Sabin School for reuse in a public space or school and supplement this with an
educational program aimed at teaching school students about historic buildings and
neighborhoods; 3. prepare a National Register nomination for Horace Mann School and
supplement this with an educational program aimed at teaching school students about
historic buildings and neighborhoods. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried
on a vote of 8 -0 ( Ackerson, Michaud and Wagner absent).
There was discussion regarding the Iowa Memorial Union and possible recommendations for
mitigation.
MOTION: Baker moved to concur with the proposal from FEMA for educational programs
regarding the archeological findings in Hubbard Park near the Iowa Memorial Union.
Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0 ( Ackerson, Michaud
and Wagner absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 10, 2014:
MOTION: Durham moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation
Commission's April 10, 2014 meeting as written. Corcoran seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 8 -0 (Ackerson, Michaud and Wagner absent).
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned.
Minutes submitted by Joy Bayshore
z
O
N
N
O
U O
z U LU
O w V
H LV o
U
> M
� Z
T
N N
W z
W
a
U a
oc
0
U)
z
O
O
U
z
O
F-
LU
U)
W
w
CL M
N O
O - t-
b
rs
2�.
o
uj
X
X
x
X
x
X
x
x
X
X
LU
u�
0
X
p
X
-
X
X
LU
X
X
X
X
CO)
z
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
p
CO)
CO) a
Np
X
x
X
x
X
X
O
X
X
x
n
CL
N !M
x
X
x
�
x
;
X
X
N
N
r
X
X
X
O
0
X
X
O
x
O
O
a
x
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
0
Q
X
i
x
X
X
X
X
LU
0
x
x
N
X
i
X
X
X
X
X
O
O
O
x
w
X
X
X
p
0
X
X
X
O
O
N
x
i
X
x
X
x
0
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
o
'
x
o
o
X
X
o
x
x
x
�o
x
x
X
x
x
x
w
O
x
x
LU LU
O
co
r
�
r
U')
r
v
r
�
r
co
r
co
r
�
r
r
r
r
r
IL
W W
rn
N
rn
N
rn
N
rn
N
rn
N
rn
N
rn
N
rn
N
rn
N
rn
N
rn
N
rn
N
rn
N
M
M
Cl)
Cl)
M
Cl)
M
M
M
C\7
M
M
M
Q
W
W
�[
Y
O
2
H
=
N
O
Y
Q
D
Q
D
a
m
Q
Q
p
H
W
L
O
Q
Q
W
z
O
LL
z
z
z
z
C
J
p
Q
z
O
x
W
W
Y
O
V
x
O
Q
v
Z
a
O
V
Q
m
0
U
O
G
W
N
3
a
a
v
m
-a
N
(D
7 N
x E
W N
a�icc�
N
�M.0 o
a¢Qz
XOW
w
Y
M
Minutes Preliminary
Human Rights Commission
May 20, 2014 — 6 P.M.
Helling Conference Room
Members Present: Harry Olmstead, Joe Coulter, Shams Ghoneim, Paul Retish, Andrea
Cohen, Orville Townsend.
Member Excused: Ali Ahmed, Kim Hanrahan.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Recommendations to Council: No.
Call to Order:
Olmstead called the meeting to order at 18:00.
Consideration of the Minutes from the April 29, 2014 Meeting:
Motion: Moved by Coulter, seconded by Ghoneim. Motion passes 6 -0.
Meeting Business:
Before You Know It (Event)
This film will be screened on June 17th at 5:45 p.m. at FilmScene. This is the same date and time of the
next Commission meeting. The Commission is a co- sponsor of this event.
Commissioners voted to move the date of the June 17th meeting to 4:30 p.m. for those Commissioners
who wish to attend the screening. Motion: Coulter moves to change meeting time on June 17, 2014 from
6:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Ghoneim seconds. Motion passes 6 -0.
Juneteenth Celebration (Event)
The Juneteenth Celebration is June 14th from 12-4 p.m. at Mercer Aquatic and Recreational Center. The
Commission is co- sponsoring this event. Commissioner Townsend will be present at the event. Staff
submitted a proclamation to the Mayor for Juneteenth for the Council meeting of June 3rd.
Iowa City Pride Festival (Event)
Commissioners Cohen and Coulter will attend this event on behalf of the Commission. It is scheduled for
June 21 st from 12 -5 p.m. on the Ped Mall. The Commission is a financial contributor for this event.
Building Blocks to Employment Job Fair
Retish encouraged other Commission members to be a part of the planning committee for this job fair.
The job fair will be held in the fall of 2014. The job fair is geared at individuals who are unemployed or
underemployed. Meetings are usually held in the months leading up to the date of the job fair and are
scheduled for noon here at City Hall. Coulter and Townsend agreed to assist in the fall job fair
preparations.
Subcommittee Reports:
Youth Awards
The event went very smoothly. Recipients and attendees enjoyed it. This year had more attendees than
last year.
Education
No subcommittee meetings have been held in recent months. Retish suggests adopting a wait - and -see
approach, then speak up when something develops. Townsend is interested in having more information
concerning the District's programs and whether the programs result in high school aged students
receiving diplomas or certificates. Retish and Townsend will meet to discuss and draft a written request to
the District for more information.
Building Communities (Housing)
Townsend discussed the need for materials, in general, to be consumer friendly.
Adjournment: 18:45
Next Regular Meeting — June 17, 2014 at 4:30 pm.
2
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2013/2014
(Meetin¢ Date)
NAME
TERM
EXP.
5/21
/13
6/18/
13
7/16/
13
8/20/
13
9/17/
13
10/15/
13
11/19/
13
12/17/
13
1/21/
14
2/18/
14
3/18/
14
4/29/
14
5/20/
14
Diane
Finnerty
1/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
Ali Ahmed
1/1/17
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
O/E
O/E
O/E
Orville
Townsend, Sr.
1/1/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Paul Retish
1/1/17
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
Dan Tallon
1/1/14
X
X
O/E
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Kim
Hanrahan
111115
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
Shams
Ghoneim
111115
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Jessie Harper
111115
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Jewell Amos
111115
-
-
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
R
R
Katie
Anthony
1/1/16
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Joe D. Coulter
1/1/16
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Harry
Olmstead
1/1/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Andrea Cohen
1/1/16
-
-
-
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
Connie Goeb
1/1/13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Howard
Cowen
1/1/13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
David B.
Brown
1/1/14
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Henri Harper
1/1/14
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
- -- = No longer a member
R = Resignation