Loading...
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