Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-26 Info Packet of 1/18City of lovas City MEMORANDUM DAT1: January 18, 1988 TO: City Council FROM: City Mgr. RE: Material in information packet Memo from City Mgr. re Potential Building Moratorium. Ltr. from Ruth Becker regarding clearing snow from sidewalks w/attached reply. Ltr. from Old Capitol Center re Handicapped Accessible Doors. Ltr. from Susan M. Phillips, Vice President, U of I regarding sewer services. Copy of Legislative bulletin. Copy of statement presented by AFSCME to Council during budget work session on 1/25/88 regarding elimination of jobs. 7� Petitions from 424 individuals asking Council to reject position elimination in the proposed budget. — City of lows City MEMORANDUM Date: January 18, 1988 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Potential Building Moratorium You recently received a copy of the violation notice from the DNR concern- ing the new sewage treatment plants. In addition to this correspondence, the attached letter from the DNR was received by an area developer. In our conversations with DNR officials, they have advised that due to our inability to make satisfactory progress in our project planning, they question the City's overall ability to meet the DNR requirements. While I suspect this letter is a means to "put the squeeze on us," it does appear that DNR will become tougher as we deal with our project plans. There is also the potential for a significant community outcry, particularly from homebuilders, developers, etc., if the County fails to provide zoning. We have spoken with the DNR officials about the Oakes letter and they indi- cated that they are giving consideration to a construction moratorium by limiting and/or denying sewer permits. We have scheduled a meeting with them in Des Moines in late January and at that time we will hopefully learn more. SJA/sp Attachment cc: Dale Helling Chuck Schmadeke WM 147 V ! 7SY OFA TERRY E. BRANSTAD. WA [An January.7, 1988 Mr. Dean Oakes Box 1456 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LARRY J. WILSON. wAl.crou Dear Mr. Oakes: This is to acknowledge receipt of the construction permit appli- cation for a sewer extension in .the Dean Oakes Second Addition, Iowa City. However, because there is a concern of the ability of the Iowa City treatment facility to properly treat the waste load it re- ceives, we are in the process of reviewing the facility's daily monitoring reports in order to make a thorough evaluation. Until that evaluation is completed, action on your project will be de- layed. If there are any questions, feel free to contact me at 515/281-8885 Sincer y, Lavoy Haage Supervisor Wastewater Permits Section LGH:lgh cc: ./Christopher Stephen, MMS Consultants, Inc. Charles Schmadeke, Director of Public Works Field Office 16 WALLACE STATE OFFICE BUILDING/ DES MOINES. IOWA $0319 / 515.201.5145 1467 i V To: City Manaaer and From: Ruth Becker 521 West Park Council Persons Road RECEIVED JA?1 15 1988 14 January 1986 While you are di SCUssina an ordinance to prevent " dumoino." I hone you also will snow consider a Potentially more =_erious problem: householders not clearing their sidewalks within 24 hours after a snowfall as required by city ordinance. There are addresses around us where the walks have never been touched in the more than 25 •years we have lived here. I have talked to oast city manaaers and council winter for many vears. persons every but cannot get action. Enforcina the ordinance after the first snow of the season. and once again if necessary. em . should take care of the probl so that pedestrians would not risk life and l in Iowa Citv's residential areas. imb on sidewalks On soots on Park Road where no parking exists between sidewalk and street. so that the snow Plow piles snow high on the sidewalk. it is difficult, but not impossible to clear. On other streets where there is a parking. there is even less excuse to flaunt the ordinance. At the minimum. oeoole should be reouired to spread a little sand on the icy sidewalk when they cannot clear it adeouately. especially since it is at free at City Par{;, All of us who must use these sidewalks will aooreciate any help you can Provide on this matter. /W I CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIC CEN(ER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IOVVA 52240 (319) 356-5000 January 19, 1988 Ms. Ruth Becker 521 West Park Road Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Ms. Becker: In response to your letter dated January 14 concerning the removal of snow from sidewalks, 1 am unaware of your inability to be provided with the action you feel appropriate. I can assure you that we will enforce the ordinance and policies governing this ordinance as well as we can, within our resources. The removal of snow from sidewalks is primarily a complaint initiated program; that is if a resident should express concern about snow removal from the sidewalk, the City will initiate the action. We simply do not have sufficient personnel to provide for routine patrol of sidewalks. To initiate a response by our inspection personnel: 1. Call the Department of Housing and Inspection Services at 356-5120 and advise them of the address of the sidewalk in need of snow removal. 2. Upon receipt of this information, depending upon work responsibilities for that particular day, an inspector will, hopefully within the same day, provide notice to the homeowner by a tag on the door of the residence. The notice advises the property owner that they have 24 hours to remove the snow from the sidewalk. 3. After the 24 hour period the inspector will visit the area a second time and determine whether an effort has been made to remove the snow. If it has not, he will advise the Department of Parks and Recreation, who will schedule the removal of the snow as soon as possible. I can assure you that every reasonable effort will be undertaken to sat- isfy the snow removal/sidewalk complaints that are received. Please keep in mind that the crews are busy and the removal of snow from the sidewalk will be attended to as soon as personnel are available. I Ar Ms. Ruth Becker January 19, 1988 Page 2 Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. Sincerely yours, teph.ov�� City MnMa ger tp2/1 cc: City Council Doug Boothroy /GF i BECE IVED Jdid 1 9 ;953 Heitman Properties of Iowa. Ltd. January 18, 1988 Mr. Stephen J. AtkinsLi/iCQy,rr� City Manager, City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Old Capitol Center Handicapped Accessible Doors Dear Mr. Atkins: To reiterate our conversation of 1-18-88, please be assured that Heitman Properties of Iowa ltd., is committed to providing the community of Iowa City with a clean and accessible shopping environment, We have made great strides to not only improve the appearance of the interior of the mall but the exterior has been upgraded as well. As discussed, the handicapped doors will be a "budget buster" for 1988, however my associates in Chicago and I both believe that this is an improvement to the property that must be made. Please relay my assurance to the City Council that this matter will be attended to in the most expeditious manner. i Should you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. If not, I look forward to meeting ,you in person to i discuss further mutual concerns of Old Capitol Center and the City. Sincerely, i HEITMAN PROPERTIES OF IOWA LTD., a Delaware corporation not personally but solely as trustee of the Old Capitol Center Trust w David Schmidt I Vice President DAS:pky cc: David Sternberg _ �Z M Old Capital Center 201 South Clinton Street Suite 300 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319338-7858 / e The University of Iowa RE C E IVED JAN 1 ° 1049 Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Vice President for Finance u and University Services 101 Jessup Hell YrYi }L!�I (319) 335.3552 ®Y January 15, 1988 Mayor John McDonald 410 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear John: For some weeks now you have probably been following press accounts of the University's disagreement with the City of Iowa City over sewer services provided by the City to the University. We very much regret that this complex issue, involving a contractual dispute between the City and the State, has been characterized as simply the refusal to pay an overdue bill. I want to assure you that the University has acted and continues to act in good faith and in careful consideration of its stewardship of state tax dollars. The University has attempted over the past few years to resolve this disagreement through negotiation or arbitration, but it became clear as time passed that agreement could not be reached through negotiation. Now the matter is in the courts, and we are hopeful that it will be resolved quickly. In view of your position and understandable concerns about this difficult matter, we feel it is important that you understand the factual and legal basis of the disagreement as well as its current status. Attached is a brief report from the University we hope you will find of use. The City and the University have a long history of harmonious cooperation, which continues in other areas. I must stress that we stand ready to engage in constructive discussion and will do our best to protect the longstanding and productive partnership between the City and the University. We hope you will loin us in that effort. I will seek to keep you informed of the progress of the litigation and of its outcome. If you have any additional questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Susan M. Phillips Vice President Attachment I STATUS REPORT ON THE SEWER ISSUE The University of Iowa has always met its responsibility to pay its fair share of the cost for municipal services provided by Iowa City, including the costs of wastewater treatment, both operating expenses and capital improvements. However, as a tax -supported institution, the University must at all times be certain that its relationships with the City are consistent with state law and that there is a just and appropriate connection between services received and costs assessed. For many years the University and the City have had a contractual relationship for the provision of wastewater treatment services to the University and for the financing of capital improvements to wastewater treatment facilities which serve the University. In 1935, for example, the State Board of Regents and the City entered into a contract for joint construction of the existing wastewater treatment plant. That plant was financed in part by the University (under authorization from the Board) from funds appropriated by the General Assembly for that purpose, in an amount reflecting the University's anticipated use of the facility. Other contractual agreements between the University and the City for wastewater services or facilities were entered into in 1950, 1957, 1969, 1966, and 1977. The 1977 contract differed from the preceding contracts in that the University agreed to change the method of payment in part to assist the City to obtain State and Federal funding for construction of capital improvements. The University (and Board) agreed to that change with the understanding that the contract was for a definite term of years and would expire in 1983. The funding the City had hoped to receive did not materialize. Between 1983 and 1985, the City undertook a new planning process. The University and the City continued to operate by the terms of the expired 1983 contract. By the fall of 1985, the City had selected a plan to improve and expand its wastewater treatment facilities. Thereafter, the University asked the City to begin discussions leading to a new contract. The University sought to enter into a new contract which provided, as had contracts prior to 1977, for the University to pay for services and improvements in proportion to its use of the system. The City, however, refused to enter into meaningful negotiations for a new contract, asserting that the University was to pay the rate established by the City by municipal ordinance in June, 1986. That rate covered both operating and capital costs and did not take account of the University's anticipated use of the planned facilities. In fact, it appears that the University will not use or benefit from more than half of the planned improvements. Thus the /:790 4 e increased expenditure for sewer services due to the new ordinance --an amount which equals a 255 percent increase for the University from September of 1986 to September of 1988 (approximately $390,000 per year to $1,900,000 per year) --is in effect a tax to be paid by the University (and the State) to finance the City's expansion plans south of Iowa City. Starting in September of 1986 and each month thereafter, the University paid the first step of the increased rate, making clear that it did so in the expectation and on the condition that meaningful contract negotiations would take place. The City continually refused to participate in any meaningful negotiations. The municipal rate ordinance provided for a second increase in the sewer rate to take effect in September of 1987. To demonstrate the seriousness of its concerns and to stimulate the City to begin negotiations, the University continued to pay at the September 1986 rate while placing the September 1987 increase in an escrow account. The use of an escrow account in this circumstance was intended to demonstrate the University's intent and ability to pay its share of the costs of sewer services once a fair and equitable rate --whatever it might be --was negotiated and agreed to. The City again refused to participate in any meaningful negotiations. At the same time the escrow account was established, the University offered to pay all planned rate increases until 1990 if the City would agree to enter into meaningful negotiations and to bring in a neutral third party to arbitrate the dispute in the event of an impasse. The City refused. In December 1987, the City served notice that it would begin shutting off sewer service to University buildings due to the University's payment of funds into the escrow account rather than to the City. At this point, the University and the Board of Regents determined that it was necessary to seek judicial intervention. A petition for declaratory judgment was filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Iowa, at the request of the State Board of Regents and the University. In its petition, the State asked the Court to resolve a series of legal questions including, whether the City has the power to exercise authority over the State of Iowa or one of its agencies in the absence of approval by the state legislature. At issue is whether Iowa City may unilaterally establish rates for municipal services provided to The University of Iowa, and whether the University is obligated to pay whatever rate is /70 set by the City, without a negotiated contract and without regard to whether the rate is fair and equitable. The University also asked for a temporary injunction to prevent the shut-off while the matter was in litigation, and thus avert extensive damage to University buildings, facilities, equipment, and research in progress. On December 28, the Court found that "in this case there is absolutely no question that the issues raised by the petition must be litigated" and that "there appears to be nc room for negotiation with the defendants (City) by the plaintiffs (State)." However, the Court denied the University's request for a temporary injunction on the ground that there was an adequate remedy at law, that is an action to recover any overpayment. The University immediately paid the escrowed funds to the City. The University's action for declaratory judgment remains to be litigated, and the City has counterclaimed. Thus, the Court is faced with a series of serious legal questions concerning the relations between municipalities and state government including: Can the City exercise authority over the State or state agencies, and can the City use its rate structure to bypass state legislative processes for funding municipal capital improvements? The University of Iowa January 1988 7d r, ,L,EG1S.LA,.r.1u etin League of Iowa Municipalities • 100 Court Ave., Suite 209 •50309 • (515) 244-7282 January 15, 1988 188 SESSION: BUDGET BALANCING AND GAS TAXES The 1988 session of the Iowa General Assembly is expected to be a difficult one for lawmakers. Against a backdrop of an improving economy, budget -writing Senators and Representatives face the specter of a state budget deficit in the neighborhood of $150 million. Like in our own cities, service demands far exceed the state's ability to fund needs throughout the state. Not surprisingly, some very difficult choices must be made. To add fuel to the fire, this year is an election year for legislators and many believe that 'nothing of significance" is likely to come out of the General Assembly because of election year posturing. The League, through its policy development process, has identified five key target issues of major significance to cities this year. Through meetings around the state, policy committee discussions, adoption of a policy statement by delegates at the annual business meeting in Davenport, and further refinement by the policy committee and Executive Board, the League is pressing the following "priority" issues: • maintaining state -shared revenues • increasing the gas tax and addressing the existing allocation formula ' supporting authorization for a local option, voter approved levy for ecomonic development • further limits 'on local government tort liability • broadening the use of lottery funds for infra- structure construction and replacement Additional details on these five issues, as well as the 35 or so remaining issues expected to be considered, are included in following sections of this first Legislative Bulletin. GAS TAX TOPIC OF DEBATE How to best address the growing road financing needs remains *difficult political problem. Without question, cities, counties and the state all need additional funds for street and road projects. The continuing question is the allocation of road use tax funds. There are several program proposals now being discussed. As reported in the popular press, the two most visible are the DOT Commission's 4 cents per gallon and fee increases. The Commission's proposal is intended to address the state's needs, particularly related to the loss of some $28 million in federal highway monies. Compared to the existing traditional allocation formula, local government's portion of new money is reduced significantly. ° The Governor has renewed his effort to push his Transportation 2000 plan, intended to target resources on a "commercial network". His proposal calls for a "phased in" 4 cents per gallon increase and increases in pickup truck fees. A new and positive twist from cities' perspective is the Governor's suggestion that this fee increase be shared on a 50/50 basis between cities and counties. A third proposal is in the offing: the product of an ongoing discussion among the League and county and state DOT officials. Under discussion is a proposal to replace some of the state's loss of federal money, allocating a portion of any increase along traditional formula lines, and mandating an independent study of the allocation formula. From the cities' perspective, this may V well be the best shot at modifying the allocation formula for the long-term. ABOUT THIS BULLETIN This Legislative Bulletin is intended to provide city officials with an as up-to-date as possible overview of key "city" legislation being considered and debated by the General Assembly. Published every other week during the session, the Legislative Bulletin will include a narrative recap of key action by subject area, as well as a "status" report on League priority bills. A word of caution. Action in the legislative process can move at a snail's pace -- or like wild fire. By the time this Legislative Bulletin reaches you, it is very possible that a particular bill may have changed status since the bulletin was typed, printed, and distributed. To find the current status of a bill, feel free to call the Statehouse Public Information Office (515) 281-5129 or the League office at (515) 244-7282. This Legislative Bulletin is not being distributed to all city officials due to cost considerations. Feel free to copy the bulletins for circulation to other city officials. LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE SET FOR FEBRUARY 25 On Thursday, February 25, city officials from across the state will be gathering in Des Moines for the League's Legislative Conference. Communicating with Senators and Representatives during the session is crucial if "city" issues are to be considered. Join with your colleagues and push for city issues to be at the top of the legislature's agenda. A separate brochure, including a registration form, will be mailed to you soon. See you in Des Moines on February 251 City Priority issues -- 1988 FINANCE • F-1 Governor's Proposed Limit on City Budgets HSB 146 - Local Government NSB 314 - Ways 6 Means OPPOSE In 1987 the Governor supported proposals to restrict cities' budgeting authority by limiting any city's cash balance surplus to 25 percent of net expenditures. The Governor indicated concern that cities and counties are carrying large cash balances and the "excess" (that greater than 25 percent) should be used as property tax relief. The League, along with other public interest groups, argued against the proposal on the basis that it usurped home - rule powers and local authority and that "excess" cash balances were, in fact, for capital acquisition and to fund mandated programs. As drafted, the bill excludes schools from any consideration since the Department of Management indicated that "financial data from school districts indicates that very few of them have ending fund balances in excess of 25 percent expenditures." The bill would affect only cities and counties and would require them to retain reserves of not more than 25 percent of net expenditures. Certain funds are exempted from the limitations imposed. The director of the Department of Management is authorized to return certified budgets exceeding 25 percent cash balances with instructions to reduce property taxes to the limited amount. A local unit of government may appeal the decision within ten days of receipt of the returned budget. Information from a League survey indicates that many cities have been setting money aside for a capital acquisition to fund new federal or state mandates or maintenance responsibility for roads. Cities have not only held down their tax levy, but have properly managed their local funds. This is contrary to the impression that cities have intentionally exceeded the necessary 2 /?/ levy only to accumulate funds. Local Government Subcommittee: Cooper, Beatty, Eddie, Fuller, Muhlbauer, Platt and Royer. Ways 6 Means Subcommittee: Schnekloth, Connolly, Hanson (Del), May and Siegrist. • F-2 State Payment to Local Governments HSB 150 - Ways 6 Means SF 279 UNDER CONSIDERATION Last session, the Governor's Office prepared and sent to the House a study bill (NSB 150) relating to payments for local governments. Currently, cities receive various appropriations and payments from the State including municipal assistance, liquor profits and personal property tax replacements. These payments are subject to the legislature's annual appropriations process and, for the last several years, have been the subject of possible cuts. The intent of the legislation is to combine certain appropriations and payments to cities, counties and school districts into a consolidated payment system. The funds would then be allocated to various jurisdictions at different times of the year. It is the intent of the bill that the appropriations become a standing appropriation which would free local governments from the annual appropriations process at the state level. Of considerable concern to cities is the proposed payment schedule. In its present form, the proposed legislation will delay a portion of the receipts coming to cities later in the year, which will adversely affect city cash flows. Additionally, a portion of city receipts will be paid in the following fiscal year which will mean cities will experience a net loss of revenues in the first year the proposal goes into effect. There is also every possibility that the Governor's proposal could provide that local government (cities included) would only be entitled to a prorated payment if the necessary appropriations in any year were not enough to cover the payments. The original version of the bill proposed to distribute funds to cities for monies and credits, liquor sales, municipal assistance and personal property tax replacement payments on a 25-25-50 basis with the last payment being distributed in the next fiscal year for cities. Thus, cities would lose the interest they would otherwise earn from being able to invest the entire amount from municipal assistance which is traditionally received on or about December 15. After the bill was originally introduced, the League worked with the Department of Management to attempt to develop an amendment that would retain the current level of assistance in the same year in which a city sets its budget. That amendment was prepared but was not adopted because neither the Senate nor House version of the bill moved through the process. Under the amendments suggested, there would be changes in the payment scheduler however, the total net dollars for cities would remain the same (or have a slight increase) due to making the transition from one allocation system to another. Ways 6 Means: Teaford, Bisignano, Hanson (Del), Parker and Siegrist. Appropriations Subcommittee: Jensen, Husak and Welsh. • F-3 Sales Tax on Recreational Activities HF 24 - Ways 6 Means RF 166 - Ways 6 Means SF 99 - Ways 6 Means SUPPORT .. The 1984 tax package that was approved included a provision that requires cities and counties to collect sales tax on recreational fees. Since that time, the League has received numerous questions (many unanswerable) because of the confusing language on what activities should or should not be subject to the tax. In 1987, the League supported three separate bills that would restore the exemption from collecting the tax for cities 3 / ?/ u and counties. No subcommittee in House Ways 6 Means. Senate Ways 6 Means: Boswell, Drake and Dieleman. • F-4 Publications Costs SUPPORT The League received a petition signed by 180 city clerks supporting a modification to current publication requirements. The focus of the request is to reduce costs by making newspaper publication of receipts and disbursements and a summary of proceedings optional if a city.makes a pamphlet with the same information available to the public. Currently, cities larger than 150,000 in population have this flexibility in informing their citizens of activities of their city. ' F-5 Payments in Lieu of Taxes MONITOR Payments in lieu of taxes, or PILOT, is a concept that has been discussed on the federal and state level for some years. The Executive Board's policy directive has been developed to address this matter on the state level where precedent exists in university cities between the Board of Regents and the city regarding fire protection. There is no pending legislative proposal on this matter. At this time, no comprehensive methodology has been developed that will satisfy city, constitutional and political concerns; however, some cities have formed committees to thoroughly examine the issue. TORT LIABILITY • TL -1 Tort Liability Limits SUPPORT For the past several sessions, the League has been involved on a number of fronts to assist cities in dealing with the liability and insurance availability/affordability "crisis." Efforts will again surface this legislative session to pass a bill that limits recovery for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and loss of chance (non -economic damages) from a defendant in a tort liability lawsuit. A limit of $200,000 per defendant was recommended by the 1986 Tort Liability Commission assembled pursuant to a mandate of SF 2265. • TL -2 Discretionary Function Exemption from Liability SUPPORT Senate File 294 would exempt municipalities from tort liability in matters based upon the exercise or performance of a function or duty of a city that is discretionary, not mandatory. The bill would bring state law in comformity with the intent of Congress and the Iowa General Assembly in protecting local government policy making from after -the -fact judicial scrutiny. Judiciary Subcommittee; Doyle, Varn, Mann, Drake and Gentleman. • TL -3 Recreational Liability SUPPORT House File 434 provides an exemption from liability for recreational property including city recreational property under many circumstances. The bill was voted out of the House Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Committee but was re-referred to the House Judiciary Committee last year. a ' TL -4 Insurance Commissioner's Control over Group Worker's Comp Self -Insurance SUPPORT The self-insurance and pooling authority found in the tort liability bill that passed two sessions ago was very broad in removing State Insurance Commissioner's authority over those municipal programs. However, as a result of the Iowa Municipalities Worker's Compensation Association's (IMWCA) 4 proposed bond financing program, questions have been raised as to the extent of the Insurance Department's authority. Legislation is expected from the Insurance Commissioner's office that would clarify that the League -sponsored workers' compensation pool is also not under the Commissioner's jurisdiction. ROAD USE TAX • AUT -1 Increasing the Gas Tax SUPPORT Efforts to raise gas taxes are currently at an impasse because legislators are reluctant to pass a bill without consensus from the public, the Governor, the cities, the State Department of Transportation, and the counties. None of the jurisdictions agree on how the money should be distributed. The counties contend that the money raised should be distributed through the existing Road Use Tax (RUT) formula. Cities have advocated that the formula should be readjusted in the cities' favor, transit money should be increased and the RISE fund maintained. Last year, the Governor asked for a 4 cents gas tax increase to be earmarked for a designated commercial highway network. Legislators in both the Senate and House attempted to compromise competing claims by putting forth a proposal to raise the tax $.03, and earmarking $.02 for the commercial highways. That proposal also adjusted slightly the distribution formula to make it more favorable for cities and the state. The Joint Committee on Infrastructure recently voiced its support for a $.02 to $.04 increase and affected parties have been meeting in an effort to identify a proposal acceptable to all. • ROT -2 Road Use Tax for Research MONITOR The dedication of a portion of city road use tax funds for research is a long-standing issue unresolved to the satisfaction of certain engineers and public works directors. Currently, a portion of the counties' road use tax is allocated for highway research projects exclusively for the benefit of counties. It has been suggested that a portion of the cities' share of RUT (1/2 of 1,percent of street fund allocation or about $170/1,000 population) be allocated for research projects having a municipal character. The League has taken the position that while research is important, fully funding the extreme shortfall now facing cities is of higher priority at this time. INFRASTRUCTURE * I-1 Modification of CERA SUPPORT City infrastructure (water, sewer, street, storm sewer) funding needs are growing at a faster rate than the revenue necessary to support such needs. The Iowa Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has estimated that "the total gap between the infrastructure needs to the year 2000 and the resources available to meet those needs is estimated to exceed $10 billion!" Companion bills HF 298 and SF 402 both modify existing lottery law provisions governing eligible applications to the CEBA (Community Economic Betterment Account). These two bills would allow cities or counties to apply for CEBA funds for public works and facilities that have been defined as eligible for essential or general purpose bondings. Currently such projects would be automatically disqualified because of the job creation M requirements presently in departmental rules. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • ED -1 Enterprise Zones 5 /1/ SF 47 - Small Business SF 233 - Ways & Means MONITOR The Iowa Department of Economic Development (DED) has repeatedly supported legislation that would provide the Department with authority to designate an enterprise zone. A city or county applying to the Department for such a designation would be required to offer special water, sewer, gas, garbage collection, and electric rates within the area as well as waive zoning requirements, building permits, and local fees. Such an area could not be designated as an enterprise zone unless it met DED requirements on unemployment rates, poverty, population loss, and some measure of poor condition of property. Businesses locating within such a zone would also be eligible for a state corporate income tax and franchise tax credits on new jobs created, and a refund on sales taxes paid on materials and services used in new construction. Small Business & Economic Development Subcommittee: Riordan, Miller (Cerro Gordo), and Holt. Ways & Means Subcommittee: Gronstal, Holt, and Mann. • ED -2 Economic Development Property Tax Levy HF 497 - House Ways & Means SF 395 - Senate Ways & Means SUPPORT Strong economic development programs at the local level continue to be a high priority for cities. Delegates at the League's convention adopted a resolution to support the local option of imposing a $.35 property tax levy for economic development. Last session HF 497 and SF 395 were introduced on this specific issue. Each authorizes a city to impose an economic property tax levy. The levy could be imposed only after an election at which a majority of those voting favor its imposition. The levy would be for a five-year period but could be continued after another election. The maximum rate would be $.35 per thousand dollars of assessed valuation. Revenue could be used for any lawful purpose that will enhance economic development, provided the city determines that the revenue is used for a public purpose. The House Ways & Means committee rejected HF 497. SF 395 remained in the Senate Ways & Means Subcommittee at the close of the session. • ED -3 Closed Session to Discuss Economic Development HSB 130 - State Government SUPPORT As cities increase their economic development efforts, the issue of closing sessions of governmental bodies to consider economic development projects has arisen. HSB 130 would exempt such deliberations from requirements of being open to the public. State Government Subcommittee: Knapp, Fuller, Garman, Lundby, and Running. PERSONNEL & LABOR ,. • PL -1 Military Leave SUPPORT Overly generous military leave provisions are a continuing problem for cities, especially smaller communities with few employees and little flexibility in personnel. Last session, SF 170 was introduced and would reduce from 30 to 10 working days the length of military leave state and local officers and employees are entitled to receive without loss of status. The bill would also provide fiscal relief by eliminating the current "double dip" -- employees would receive their regular compensation less the amount of their base pay for military activities rather than both as is current practice. State Government subcommittee: Dieleman, Drake, and Carr. • PL -2 Pension Benefit Increase OPPOSE N A number of proposals to "improve" the pension benefits of city employees were considered last session. Unfortunately, many have a direct and dramatic fiscal impact on the employer. SF 178 would increase the service retirement allowance of members of the peace officers retirement system and police and fire retirement systems by two percent of the member's final compensation for each year of service in excess of 22 before the member reaches 55 years of age. State Government Subcommittee: Carr, Nystrom, Bruner, Horn, and Schwengels. • PL -3 Cancer Presumption OPPOSE Under current law, if a public safety officer, city police officer or fire fighter has heart disease or diseases of the lung or respiratory tract, they are presumed to have been contracted while on active duty. As a result of this "on duty" presumption, the employee receives accidental disability benefits at considerable expense to the employer. Last session, SF 236 was introduced to add cancer to the list of diseases presumed to be job related. Among other difficulties, the bill fails to define cancer. The League has consistently argued against such presumptions on the basis that they can't be substantiated by medical fact. Proposals of this nature will benefit only a special group of municipal employees. • PL -4 Modification of Heart 5 Lung Presumption SUPPORT All cities covered under the pension requirements of Chapter 411 are obligated for heart or lung disease benefits because present law presumes that those employees contract such diseases because of the nature of their work. Study bills initiated by the League last session would modify this absolute presumption to a "rebuttable" presumption. If such a proposal were enacted, the city could come forward if it could show the heart or lung disease is not attributable to the nature of the employee's work. Senate Local Government Subcommittee: Wells, Kinley, and Taylor. House Local Government Subcommittee: Black, Cooper, and Diemer. • PL -5 Pension Benefits MONITOR One of the many proposals to change pension benefits, HF 271 changes the retirement allowance for members of police and fire retirement systems. For service retirement, it would change the allowance from 50 to 60 percent of average final compensation. For accidental disability, the allowance would be changed from 66 2/3 percent to 60 percent. It also makes corresponding changes in the payments to beneficiaries after the death of a member. The specific fiscal impact of HF 271 on cities as a whole and individual cities has yet to be determined. State Government Subcommittee: Blanshan, Carpenter, Connors, Hammond, and Shoning. • PL -6 Retirement Benefits in Smaller Cities OPPOSE HF 289 would provide full retirement benefits at age 55 after completion of 25 years of service for police in towns of less than 8,000 population. The reduction in age from 60 to 55 is an expense smaller towns can ill afford. State Government Subcommittee: Blanshan, Carpenter, Connors, Hammond and Shoning. GENERAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT 7 X71 ' GLG-1 ECHO Housing OPPOSE In direct conflict with home rule and cities' basic land use planning authority, several bills related to elderly and handicapped cottage housing opportunity (ECHO) housing units were filed and considered. The bills (SF 54, SF 103 and HF 246) prohibit restrictive zoning practices and mandate cities to enact zoning ordinances permitting such housing units as single family residences. SF 54 Subcommittee: Hall, VAndeHoef, and Miller (DSM). SF 103 Subcommittee: Hall, VandeHoef, and Miller (DSM). HF 246 Subcommittee: Fey, Harper, Hester, Peters, and Swearingen. • GLG-2 Firearms Control Preemption OPPOSE For the past few years, legislation has been introduced that would preempt cities from having ordinances that regulate the otherwise lawful ownership, possesion, transfer or transportation of firearms. In 1987, SF 56 was approved by the Senate and the House Local Government Committee and sent to the floor for debate. If passed, it would prevent cities from passing gun control laws that are more restrictive than state laws. ' GLG-3 Swimming Pool Inspections MONITOR We expect legislation to be introduced to grant the State Department.of Health the authority to inspect swimming pools (including municipal pools) for safety hazards. Previous rules and legislation by the Department on this topic have not been supported by the League because they would have unduly exposed cities to further liability. The League is presently trying to explore with the Department acceptable language. ' GLG-4 Billboards OPPOSE Regulation of billboards by local governments continues to be an issue in the General Assemblv. Last year, SF 312 was introduced and passed the Senate that would provide that the state and cities shall not remove or take or cause to be removed or taken a lawfully erected off -premises advertising device without paying just compensation. House Transportation -- no subcommittee. • GLG-5 Election Notice SUPPORT Last year, the House passed and sent to the Senate HF 303 which would give cities added flexibility in the notice process for elections. The bill would allow a city to mail a copy of a notice of an election hearing or other official action to each registered voter by certified mail instead of publishing the notice. The bill, as amended, allows notice to be by first class mail and to each household rather than to each registered voter. Senate Local Government -- no subcommittee. • GLG-6 Building Acquisition Limit OPPOSE HF 231 requires voter approval of new building acquisitions by a city if the proposed acquisition costs more than $1 million. The League is opposed to this concept on the basis of encroachment on home rule authority. ' GLG-7 Conflict in City Election Laws SUPPORT As a result of recent legislation, there is a conflict in .. law as to the deadline for filling nomination papers for city officers. The League will support legislation to correct this technical flaw. • GLG-8 Joint Purchase of Equipment OPPOSE SF 387, as introduced last session and passed in the Senate, would provide that a city shall consider the purchase of equipment costing $50,000 or more as a joint purchase with one or more political subdivisions. The League supports efficient, joint purchasing practices, but questions the wisdom of a mandate in this area. House Local Government -- no subcommittee. ' GLG-9 Conflict of Interest -- Bidding SUPPORT The League will support legislation to clarify the conflict of interest question for city government when competitive bidding is involved. • GLG-10 Conflict of Interest -- Conflict on Vote SUPPORT The League will support legislation to clarify the status of a contract acted upon by a city official with a conflict of interest whose vote was not decisive in the passage of the measure. • GLG-11 Governmental Competition MONITOR HF 529 would prohibit cities, counties, school districts and state agencies from engaging in certain activities which compete with private enterprise. The bill also mandates cities, counties and schools to purchase goods and services from locally owned and located businesses if the cost and other considerations are comparable. * GLG-12 Confidential Tax Information SUPPORT Present law prohibits the State Revenue Department from sharing tax information with cities that have imposed a local option sales tax or a hotel -motel tax. This lack of basic information severly limits cities' ability to project future revenues or verify proper crediting of tax collections. A bill will be initiated to allow confidentiality to continue, but will require the information to be shared with city officials. • GLG-13 Majority Vote to Pass Bond Issues SUPPORT Present law stipulates that general obligation bonds for a general purpose must pass with at least sixty percent of the voters approving such an issue. The League advocates that only a majority of the people are necessary to authorize the issuance of bonds. OTHER • 0-1 911 Appropriation SUPPORT SF 66 provides for a general fund appropriation of $2 million per year for ten years with no reversion to fund approved 911 service plan start-up and implementation costs. The appropriation would also fund developing rules and regulations to encourage the establishment of 911 systems by local jurisdictions. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee: Husak, Jensen, and Dieleman. SF 53 is similar to SF 66 except it does not call for an annual appropriation from the state general fund. It also expands on the procedure for establishing systems. Senate Commerce Subcommittee: Lind, Carr, and Priebe. • 0-2 Fireworks OPPOSE HF 624 would allow sale, transportation and storage of common fireworks in Iowa. The League opposes the expansion of fireworks due to health and safety factors. Senate Judiciary -- no.subcommittee. 9 171 u a Table of Contents FINANCE F-1 Governor's Proposed Limit on City Budgets p. 2 F-2 State Payment to Local Governments 3 F-3 Sales Tax on Recreational Activities 3 F-4 Publication Costs 4 F-5 Payments in Lieu of Taxes 4 TORT LIABILITY TL -1 Tort Liability Limits 4 TL -2 Discretionary Function Exemption from Liability 4 TL -3 Recreational Liability 4 TL -4 Insurance Commissioner's Control over Group Worker's Comp Self -Insurance 4 ROAD USE TAX RUT -1 Increasing the Gas Tax RUT -2 Road Use Tax for Research INFRASTRUCTURE 1-1 Modification of CEBA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ED -1 Enterprise Zones ED -2 Economic Development Property Tax Levy ED -3 Closed Session to Discuss Economic Development PERSONNEL AND LABOR PL -1 Military Leave PL -2 Pension Benefit Increase PL -3 Cancer Presumption PL -4 Modification of Heart 6 Lung Presumption PL -5 Pension Benefits PL -6 Retirement Benefits in Smaller Cities GENERAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT GLG- 1 ECHO Housing GLG- 2 Firearms Control Preemption GLG- 3 Swimming Pool Inspection GLG- 4 Billboards GLG- 5 Election Notice GLG- 6 Building Acquisition Limit GLG- 7 Conflict in City Election Laws GLG- 8 Joint Purchase of Equipment GLG- 9 Conflict of Interest -- Bidding GLG-10 Conflict of Interest -- Conflict on Vote GLG-11 Governmental Competition GLG-12 Confidential Tax Information GLG-13 Majority Vote to Pass Bond Issues OTHER 0-1 911 Appropriation 0-2 Fireworks LEG IS LATI V'Dulletin L,qw of loon Alunici(nlieei • 100 Cwn Aur., 5wu 709 . 50309 • (515) 244-7282 Dale E. Helling Asst. City Maniger 410 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 Iowa City FY89 Budget Analysis by Dr. Russell Clemens AFSCME International Research Associate The City Manager's presentation to the Council never indicated that the City was in poor financial condition or that it faces potential financial problems in the upcoming fiscal year. Such remarks were conspicuous by their absence. Analysis of the General Fund indicates that the City is in sound condition. Neither did the city Manager indicate that he had received instructions from the Citv Council to reduce city personnel in anticipation of financial problems during the upcoming fiscal year. The City Manager offered cost savings and greater efficiency to the City as the major reasons for the elimination of the positions. Yet, questions remain about what efficiency will result since it is unclear how comprehensive a study was done in considering their elimination. Examination of the FY89 proposed budget indicates that the departments which currently have the positions apparently intend to maintain them in the upcoming fiscal year, suggesting that the department managers do not share the City Manager's view on their elimination. Revenues did exceed expenditures in FY86, but by less than projected. Moreover, the General fund maintains a substantial fund balance. Actual revenues in both years were below estimates, but by less than 10. Actual expenditures were also below projections, but by considerably more. In FY86, actual expenditures were 4.6% less than anticipated. In FY87, they were 4.4`3 less than projected. Year-to-date expenditure data indicate that FY88 expenditures will also be less than anticipated. Expenditures were budgeted to exceed revenues in FY86 by $1,192,077, or 8%. Actual revenues of $13,591,673 were .20 less than budgeted. Actual expenditures of $14,122,817 were 4.6% less than budgeted, and they did exceed revenues, but only by 3.7% and not the anticipated 8%. The excess of expenditures over revenues drew down the fund balance from $1,964,253 to $1,433,109. FY86 revenues were budgeted to exceed expenditures by 1.3%. Although actual revenues of $15,082,020 were .8% less than projected, they nonetheless exceeded expenditures of $14,326,128, which were themselves 4.4% less than anticipated, by 5.2%. The excess of revenue over expenditures increased the fund balance to $2.270,969. /,4 Remarks by President Donald G. McKee Since cost savings is the major reason given by the City Manager for the elimination of the positions, why, given the sound financial condition of the General Fund, can't cost savings occur in the manner they have in the past, as opposed to eliminating jobs. The City Managar says the elimination of 6 positions i -n the_Txe.as.ucy Depa-r-tment will result in cost savings and greater efficiency. We ask if that is so, why are the 1.5 positions targeted for elimination going to be contracted out? If anything, the contracting out of these positions will increase dependency on service from an outside contractor. It appears to us, after reviewing.your budget, that these decisions of the City Manager to eliminate these positions may have been made without the concurrence of the Department Head. The Department's request for personal services had included these eliminated positions in their budget, and the City Manager reduced the Department's request. We then ask why the City Manager increased the budget amount for services and charges that the Department requested from $9,747 to $23,697. The FY86 actual expenditure was $10,266. If the City Manager is concerned " about costs, why is he increasing expenditures for this item by approximately $14,000 in two years? The decision to eliminate bargaining unit positions in the Planning and Program, Engineering, and Traffic Engineering, 2 / 70t and Traffic Divisons was also that of the City Manager. The FY89 Proposed Budget indicates that he reduced the budgets for personal services requested by each of those departments. Was a study made prior to this decision? Who made the study and how was the information compiled? Although it is true that reductions were also made in other areas of the budgets of Planning and Program Development and Traffic Engineering, the cuts were not as great. Cuts in personal services in these two departments were 14.6% and 13.1% respectively. Cuts in other areas were 9.5% and .6% respectively. After reviewing the documents and reviewing the analysis by Dr. Russell Clemens, and after discussing this with our leadership here in Iowa City, we can come to only one conclusion: The decisions to eliminate People from our bargaining units is a Political one Therefore, we humbly ask the City Council of Iowa City to overrule the City Manager and fund these positions in the FY89 budget as they were previously submitted by the department heads. a 3 / 7*z 0 PETITION The City hIanager's proposed Budget eliminates positions which are essential to City services. The expertise of these taxpaying breadwinners is indispensable. The 100 years of experience threatened in these positions cannot be replaced. THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, PETITION THE CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT.. 1'MF' POSITION ELIMINATIONS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET. NAME ADDRESS LC LT I V P E T I T[ 0 N ositions which The City I'lanager's proposed Budget eliminates p he expertise are essential to City services. Tof these taxpaying breadwinners is indispensable. The 100 years of experience threatened in these positions cannot be replaced. 'T'Y COUNCIL 'CO REJECT THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, PETITION THE Cl THE POSITION F.LI611.NATIONS IN THE CCTV MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET. ' • ADDRESS -76T 5- �� ��.c... � --- -rte/�/ .-- • -` i YY .Ja1�: l_Sc:�t •_—_._— . • I 1, 1--, -r 1 -.1 -1- () N 'I he City Manager's proposed Nolget el 111111lat es filial L ions which are essential to City services. The expertise of these taxpaying b readw [tine rs is indispensable. T(w LOO years of experience threatened In Lhese I)OStLionS cannot be repl;,-ed. THEREFORF"', WEI THE UNDERSIGNP-, PETITION THE CITY COUNCIL FO REJECT' THE POSITION ELIMINATIONS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGF . f. NAME ,.ret ADDRESS -T.-J-L-F iTy. P F L T I O N The City Manager's proposed Budget eliminates pos Ltions which are essential to City services. The expertise of these taxpaying breadwinners is indispensable. The 100 years of experience threatened in these positions cannot be replaced. THEREFORE, IJE THE UNDRRSIGNED, PETITION THE CI'T'Y COUNCIL 'PO REJECT THE POSITION ELIMINATIONS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET. NAI E ADDRESS -730 -GNPidda-/ Jaw *t,4-wtt.-r Y .s 1' E T I '1' 10 IJ 'rhe City Manager's proposed Midget elinitaateS Pnsltloas which are essential to City services. The expertlse of these Cnxpaying breadwinners is indispensable. The 100 years of experience threatened in these positions cannot be replaced. THEREFORE, W1. THE UNOERSICNEO, PETITION '1'111, CI'T'Y COUNCiI. 'l'0 REJECT THE POSITION ELIMINATIONS LN THE GLTY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET. ADDRESS .. .151? •%_ .lS (/<k�!-_ i'j-cir.Y�-.—� .__- - —_ '7�2._uvvQ SJ 22 W P E 11' 1 11' I O N The City Manager's proposed Midget ellminntes posit tons which are essential to City services. The expertise of these taxpaying breadwinners is indispensable. The WO years of experience threateued in these posiCi.ons cannot be replaced. THEREFORE, WE 9'1117 UNDERSIGNED. PE' IFTION 'HIE CI'T'Y COUNCIL TD REJECT '1'N li POSTTION FIANTNATIONS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S I'ROPOSF.11 BUDGE. F. -- ADDRESS 1.t�G l l L�ZL� -. -l�t-h-'LL-1—._.__ _._— _�.�.�.`fJ11J•)'�L�q-�-�4 C . _�, t—�- -- /,r��Q() �/_ /ULLL,u , I I' If 'I I T 1 0 N The City :ho.igur's proposed BloII;0t CI ilflill;lt vS I)llf4iL 1011S Bich are essential to city services. The eXIICT-Lfse of LIK-Se LaIXIM,111); 6[ 0;1dw I title rs if; indispensable. 'I'll(- 100 years of expericoce I hreat cited in these positions cannot: be repl;wed- THERETORF, WE THE LJNDE.RsiumEi). i,i:riTION THE CI'T'Y COUNCII 10 REJECT THI: POSITTON ELIMINATIONS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSFI) BIIIX;I 1. NAM -F. AD.D.R-ESS o III , 'I -C, �z c 21. Z L& �1 LIC I("' ZZ, ... r-�-5 4 o III , 'I -C, vev C/ H Z - j ....... /7j �z c 21. Z vev C/ H Z - j ....... /7j Y I T I 'I' i. O N The City Manager's proposed Midget eilminaLes poslLtons which arc essential to City services. 'I'hc crpert Tse of hese tnxpny tog breadwinners is indispensable. The 1.00 years or experience Lbrea Lened In these positions cannot be replaced. THEREFORE. WE THE UNDERSIGNED, 11Ii'1'I'I'ION 'I'Illi CI'T'Y COUNCIL -1.0 REJECT 'INE POSI'T'ION EL11•TINKI'IONs IN 'HIE CI.'I'Y MANAGER'S PROPOSE) RUIIGE'1'. P w P E 'I' I 'I' 10 N The City Flanager's proposed Budget eliminates pos Ltlo,lS which are essential to City services. The expertise of these taxpaying breadwinners is Indispensable. The. 100 years of experience tbreatcaed in these positions cannot be replaced. 'I'IIEREFORE, WE 'I'IIE UNDERSIGNED, PE'IrrION THE. CITY COUNCIL 'I'0 RIiJECT '1'111: POSITION ELIMINATIONS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET'. NAME ADDRESS _ '�_u Zu'_ 4 P li 'I• I '1' 10 N 'rhe C1 Ly Nanager's proposed Rodl;eL el.[minnt es pasit foils wh[ch are essential. to City services. The expertise nr these taxpay i.ng breadwinners is indispensable. The 100 years of experience threntened is these pos[tions cannot be replaced. TH EREPORE, I:11•: '1'111' UNDERS[CNEII, PE'1•PI•ION '1111: CITY COUNCIL 1'0 REJECT THE POSITION F:I.ININATIONS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED RUDGH . NAME ADDRESS , ✓G i / %G• /�� iv iii /-v��_ ..— _1 1 .•' %� GSI C'-.t.� 7' a ..hzz?- L.G'.G -Y.'llin6i�/_1�.�.L ���'"iV ....— �4cZ.P `�(r(�GL•�EV �Z _._.. .—. ._ 7-1 1 ....L- .. - ,/ �� he, /S- )1- oltt- PCW) _73 I'Ii'1'1'I'1 ON The City Manager's proposed Budget eliminates positions which are essential to City services. The expertise of these taxpaying breadwinners is indispensable. The 100 ybars of experience threatened In these positions cannot be replaced. THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, PETITION 111E CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE POSITION ELIMINATIONS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET. NAME ADDRESS 7 77 J I ..r ut.• u 4 P E 'I' I T I 0 N The City Manager's proposed Budget eliminates positions which . are essential to City services. The expertise of these taxpaying breadwinners is indispensable. The 100 years of experience threatened in these positions cannot be replaced. THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, PETITION TTIE CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE POSITION ELIMINATIONS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET. ADDRESS ^ /97 /SGS E( /4-17e 2�2-/r cl!" "') // /A ./ % , / A. I. - 0 ,_ u P P 17 I 1 ON The City ilannger's proposed Ita(Iget el lminates posit Ions Which are cssenttal. to City services. The expertise of these taxpneing breadwinners is ind ispensab I c. The LOO years of experience threatened in these positions cannoL be replaced. THEREFORE, 1,11: THE UNDERSIGNEP, PI:I'TIAON THE CI'T'Y COUNCII. 'IU REJECT 'TIIE POSITION ELIMINATIONS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUNT, f. NAhlli ADDRESS Iia P_1. -- )&oSs )1;2- Ct . _Coke I &owq saziy/ C-7n_oc-,�__>t. -Te p_p-ledl�luoX (.0 .IGrC.�i6'itl�j�-��•, -------- -- ke.-17_._U--... - - --- - __ . _.. _./�3 I P E T I T 1 0 N The city maivigur ' s proposed j;,,jj,,t cl ilili ll;lt os posit [WIS 1.111(.11 are Lsqentlal to city services. Tli(s expert lsc of Lll"'e L,1XP!1% illP, breadwinners is indispensable. The too years of expVrivincu threat UTILLI in these posit lon., cannot be replacud. THEREFORE, M� THE UNDERSIGNED, PETrTION TlflC C1.1 -Y (:oUNcl1 1*0 W.JECT ,niF. msinoo IIAMINATIONS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S 111topoSIT BLIDM f. NAME. .- - T 1Cula e -c,& L -A�--k— ADDRESS A d-�z 7 AC, C�Ig3_�i J 1 --. .0 _ V E T I T I O N The City Manager's proposed Rudget el.l.minates pos Ltlons which are essential. to City services. The expertise of these taxpay Lng breadwinners is indispensable. I'he 100 years of experience threatened in these positions cannot be replaced. THEREFORE, WE THE IINDERSICNED, PE'T'ITION 'TIIE CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE POSITION ELIPIINATIONS IN TIIE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED RIIDGF.T. PU _ ADDRESS / c U, fwe— Arr r cti_- -ZY 1ILa , �!.c�l�n gin. _... Tu�L4-�----- C P E T I T 1 n N -rlie City Manager's proposed Budget el. Iminates postclonS which are essential. to City services. The expertise of these taxpaying breadwinners is I.ndlspensabl.e. ';Ile 100 years or experience threatened in these positions cannot be replaced. THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERMCNEI), PETITION THE CTTY COUNCTI, TO REJECT THE POsr'riON EUNINATTONS TN1111. l.M MANACER'S PROPOSED BUIICET. NAI•lE _..�( 'U Ai)DRESS ✓etc - 1 13 N,--- t3o //off/ "TI/O�.-= — — r ZIL V a T 1 0 N The City Manager's proposed Budget eliminates positions which are essential to City services. The expertise of these taxpaying breadwinners is indispensable. The 1.00 years of experience threatened in these positions cannot be replaced. THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, PETITION 711E CITY COUNCTI, TO REJECT TIIE POSITION ELIMI.NVTONS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET. NAME �.�ii� - ADDRESS 2325�� _ s1LttL�` — c. , : Y L / — AN - - — — - --- I� P E T I T 1 0 N ,11le City Manager's proposed Budget eliminates positions which are essential to City services. The expertise of these taxpaying breadwinners is indispensable. The 100 years of experience threatened in these positions cannot be replaced. THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, PETITION THE CITY COUNCIL 1-0 REJECT TRE POSITION ELIMINATIONS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET. NAME ADDRESS --- - - - -- -- -- u 1' li 'I' I 'II 0 N The City Manager's proposed Budget eI IMInet L'S positions which are essential to City services. The expertise of these uixpa%inl; breadwinners is indispensable. Tho l0U ycarS of experionre threNtened In these positions cannot be rep.l.ared. 'THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED. PETITION THE CI'T'Y CIMMI, 'I'O RR.IECI THE POSITION ELIMINATIONS IN THE CI'T'Y MANAGER'S PROPOSED BIIDCI"I'. NAME- n n n ADDRESS 5o5�_yv�S�f��-r��J5 -t-ce��_l,__C,i�l��[�I�oln ._ �71� K�St✓�c(l__.�Y'_. .. _ 120Z? -5— .LO: AL ---------------- --------- ------ --- - - ------ __ ..____---__._...__..—_—...__._ Y T3 M P L•' 'r 1 'I' I O N The City Manager's proposed 11m.get eliminates positions which are essential to City services. The expertise of these taxpaying breadwinners is indispensable. 'rhe 100 years of experience threatened in these positions cannot be replaced. THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, PB'1TTION THE CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE POSITION ELIMINATIONS IN 'UIIE CM MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET. ADDRESS emLe% _ �CY,uacR�Z, �S,y,,. ¢r✓ -- ;� I. ' - -. / . - -- I' E. 'I• I. •I' I O N Ilse City Mmiager Is proposed BIdget e iln i Int os positions ON ith are essential to City services. The exp(-rti.Se If these taxpa:iiq; breadwinners is indispensable. Tho 1.00 years If erpericnce threru.med Ln these posit inns cannot be ren.lared. 'I'IIEREFOR1!, UT THE UNOUSIGNTi0, PETITION THE CI'T'Y COUNCII. I'll 1:1' EC" I'IUi I'USI'I'loN IMMINAT'I.ONS IN •T IJE CITY MANAGER'S 1111O11OSl:p ItllUla l'. XIIf AI)DR .SS t I!_;+ t AI•t��u L^� . �._ f `1// -CJ st_ t6 WAYN Q4w* It G(��L��.(_C✓,�Vcvv�r'.1.�'. .._ ��_Ii21Lv��.n_i�l,. LG IL - _ a,kos, aPd _.�_. ���,�, 3Y17-Gam.-aUA;&O..