HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-01-27 Info Packet/5S
COUNCIL BUDGET DISCUSSIONS
Policy Issues — FY88
i
- Fire Department ladder truck ($450,000)
t-
attached memo from Fire Chief
- Audio system for Council Chambers ($7,500)
- Use of special purpose rescue funds for operational purposes
- require repayment of funds - 5 year schedule
- to be used only in FY88
- Discussion of new revenue sources as identified in the Citizen's
Summary
- Discussion of Citizens' Committee to study City revenues
- committee members
r
- direction to the Committee
a
- timetable
Transit Budget
- increase in fares (attachments)
- discussion
(
- Project Hard rimes
s
- Aid to Agencies
- attached memo from Director of Finance
- future policy direction
- Increase in landfill charge from $7.75 to $8.00 per ton
- Increase in residential refuse collection fee from $4.30 to $4.50
`.
per month
i
- Tree replacement/new installation
±'
- 50/50 policy proposal
Human Service Coordinator funding
j!
- one-half CDBG and one-half General Fund - contrary to CCN
recommendation
- Hotel/Motel Tax
I
use of funds for operational expense (pools)
/5S
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Atkins, City Manager, p
FROM: Larry Donner, Fire Chief (-
DATE: January 21, 1987
RE: Reserve Aerial Ladder
Coralville's Fire Chief and I have discussed the idea of selling our 1971
Ladder Truck to Coralville when Iowa City buys its new truck. While Chief
Kinsinger is not interested in purchasing our ladder truck, there is potential
for cooperation in this area.
Coralville is planning to order a new ladder truck some time next year. When
they receive delivery of their unit Coralville can provide backup service for
Iowa City. We would of course provide the same service to Coralville. There
are benefits to both cities in such an agreement. Iowa City can sell its
reserve ladder and deposit the proceeds into an equipment replacement fund.
Coralville will gain a backup without purchasing additional equipment. In both
cases, the Cities will have a first line piece of equipment as a reserve ladder
truck. Chief Kinsinger and I believe that an agreement of this type can easily
be arranged under Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa. Arrangements of this
nature, while uncommon in Iowa, are widely used throughout the United States.
Delivery time is running 12 to 18 months for ladder trucks. This will allow
both Cities time to reach an agreement providing mutual backup for ladder truck
service. If an agreement is worked out, Iowa City has the potential to gain
not only the revenue from the sale of the 1971 truck, but it can avoid spending
the money that will be required to upgrade this older unit. The
overall savings to the City of Iowa City would be in the neighborhood of
$100,000 to $150,000. I will pursue this matter if Council has any interest.
cc: Chief Gary Kinsinger, Coralville Fire Department
IOWA TRANSIT FARES
Base Fares
MasonCity
............................. 504
Sioux City
............................. 504
FortDodge
............................. 504
Marshalltown
........................... 504
Waterloo
............................... 754
Dubuque................................
604
Bettendorf
............................. 504
Clinton
................................ 454
Davenport .....................
4
Muscatine
.............................. 504
Cedar Rapids
........................... 504
Coralville .............................
504
Ames...................................
604
iDes
Moines
............................. 604
Council Bluffs
.
......................... 754
fOttumwa
................................ 504
Burlington...........
f
.................. 504
n
4
d;
F
F
1
!1
I I;
V
SUMMARY
TRANSIT MANAGEMENT/EMPLOYEE PROPOSAL
- Hourly midday service during interim periods (when
University is not in session).
- Combine North Dubuque and Manville Heights routes.
- Reduce 7th Avenue route to hourly all day.
- Combine evening routes (from 7 buses to 5 buses).
- Eliminate Saturday evening service (new service from
6:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.).
- If necessary, increase monthly pass from $16 to $17;
increase Saturday fare from 404 to 504.
I
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 22, 1987
To: Stephen J. Atkins, City Manager
From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance(bV"_t�,`)`
Re: Additional Funding for Human Service Agencies
The funding of Human Service Agencies at the current year's level (FY87)
necessitates a readjustment of expenditures/revenues in the amount of
$71,111 in the FY88 Proposed Budget.
FY87 Total Aid to Agencies Budget $189,509
(Net of contingency amount)
Aid to Agencies per Proposed FY88 Budget $118,398
Additional Funding Needed $_711111
The following is recommended to provide the additional funding:
Reduction in budgeted expenditures:
City Manager's Budget - Labor Law Consultation $ 3,000
Non -operational Budget - Data Processing Equipment 5,000
Library Budget - Library Materials 2,500
Risk Management - Reserve Balance 10,000
General Fund Contingency 12,500
Subtotal $ 33,000
Additional Revenues:
Interest Income on Federal Revenue Sharing Monies 10,000
Additional Property Tax 28,111
Total $_71,111
The budget for Labor Law Consultation with Mr. Steve Rynecki can be re-
duced
bargainingthe
units. that
0ata Datahe has
and Library otiated tcapital outlayear contracts
arewith
two
areas in which the level of funding was maintained from the past year.
Since this was not the case throughout the budget, reductions in the two
/SS r
2
areas are justified. It should be noted that slightly over $600,000 in
capital outlay replacements requested by other departments were not ap-
proved for inclusion in the proposed budget.
The Tort Liability tax levy will be reduced by $10,000 with a correspond-
ing increase in the General tax levy. This will result in a $10,000
reduction in the projected year-end balance for Risk Management. The
contingency for General Fund expenditures in FY88 is proposed to be re-
duced by $12,500. This will leave a total contingency of $107,500.
The additional revenue comes from two sources. First, the proposed budget
r did not include interest income in the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund in
FY88. In actuality, the purchase of the fire truck will not occur until
mid -year due to a lengthy delivery time on this type of equipment. The
allocated Federal Revenue Sharing monies will continue to be invested
until the truck is actually paid for and will thus result in interest
income during that year. The second source, additional property tax
revenue, results from an update of assessed valuation amounts for utility
properties. These valuations are established annually by the State and
the County just this week received this information which will allow them
to complete the Taxable Valuation Reports.
It should be noted that the total amount being provided for the agencies
does not include a two percent contingency amount. If it is necessary to
allocate any additional funds to the agencies during FY88, that amount can
be taken from the contingency amount established for the entire General
Fund.
RV/sp
t
s=.
't
9
'n
h
c
t
`AY
J,
F
z
i
/5S
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 21, 1987
To: City Council nn
From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance o( -S' zM &--)
Re: Agencies Funding History
fundingaamountnbyragency sinceoFY77. Priorrto FY77, datawas �rnotpaae shows
vailable
for a breakdown by agency and page 2 shows the total annual funding amount
for all agencies from FY70 through FY76. Page 3 lists the first year of
operation for each agency and the first year of Iowa City funding for each.
Additional information is then provided on pages 4-7 regarding the funding
histories for each individual agency.
bj3/12
/sr
-7
■
CITY OF IOWA CITY
RIO -TO -AGENCIES FUNDING FY77-FY87
0
FYI?
FY78
FY79
FYBO
FY81
FY82
FYB]
FY81
FY85
FY86
AFMY0.000
TOTAL
$125,059_
$153,554
$172.619
$192.176
$110,615
$118,294
$134,212
$151,433
$165,2915
$171,6911
$194,225
Mayor's Youth Employment Program
15,687
20,067
21,271
23,133
20,000
21,000
23,000
25,000
29,076
29.000
30,000
United Action for Youth
24,560
25,800
27,327
30,000
30,000
30,000
32,000
35,500
37,592
38,592
40,000
Big Brothers/Blg Sisters
7,570
11,220
11,893
13,763
15,500
17,000
18,100
19,910
21,901
24,091
29,300
Rape Victim Advocacy Program
- .
5,000
6,081
9,515
9,515
8,013
8,154
8,969
10,628
9,905
10,350
Crisis Center -Intervention
- .
- -
3,000
5,000
5,000
6,000
6,600
7,220
8,281
8,460
8,796
Willow Creek Neighborhood Center
- .
. -
S,ODO
5,615
4,800
5,800
6,900
7,570
9,023
9,400
10,250
Crisis Center Food Bank
- .
..
- •
2,500
2,500
3,090
7,130
7,843
8,627
8,902
9,340
Elderly Services Agency
- .
..
• .
- .
20,000
22,581
23,828
25,850
27,159
27,836
28,671
Domestic Violence Project
- .
. •
..
..
- -
4,750
7,500
8,250
10,420
12,000
13,200
NACAP
_ .
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
1,000
2,000
2,000
2.277
2.600
American Red Cross
-
- -
- -
- .
_ .
_ _
_ _
3,000
_ _
- -
1.000
Free Bus Ticket Program)
_
321
SBB
1,235
4,7162
MECCA
--
•-
--
_ _
_ _
_
_ _
_ _
..
. _
10.000
Girls' Softball
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,284
1,100
•
•
•
•
•
_ .
Boys' Baseball
1,20D
1,200
1,200
1,284
1,100
•
•
•
•
•
. .
Babe Ruth Baseball
- -
1,200
1,200
1,284
1,100
Friends of the Children's Museum
- -
- -
2,000
2,110
•
•
•
•
•
..
1
. .
J.C. Regional Planning Comm.
62,067
62,067
65,891
75,195
• -
Council on Aging
10,000
17,500
18,550.
13,463
- -
Youth [lanes
- .
8,000
8,000
8,000
. -
J.C. Arts Council
300
300
Spirit That Moves Us
225
Explorer Scouts
2,000
Rape Prevention 6 Awareness
250
*Funded through Parks and Recreation
]Originally
Project Hard Times
2lncludes
$1,706 for tickets dispensed in FY86 but not
expensed
until FY87.
0
I
2
CITY OF IOWA
CITY
AID -TO -AGENCIES FUNDING PRIOR TO FY77
iBefore FY77, Aid -to -Agencies funding was entered as a
ngyfordbudget yeas priorather than r to FY77 roken down
s listed below:
y agency. Total single
A9deto Agencies tfund-
$135,610 in FY76 (July 1, 1975 to June 30, 1976)
(Cit of Iowa Cit Financial Report Fiscal Year Jul 1 1975 through
June 0, 19 6, p, 3.
$275,797 for the 18 month period from Januar
as Iowa City changed from calendar y 1' to fiscal
through June unt 1975,
(City of Iowa Cit Financial Report
to fiscal
Eiwed June po t for the to Myer accounting.
$109,460 in Calendar Year 1973
/rta.. _
"a 11, Annual Financial R
En a ecem er
$101,496 inCalendar Year 1972
(Cit of Iowa Cit A
Ennual Financial Re
i n a ecem er
p.. -
$92,147 in Calendar Year 1971
(CitY of Iowa City Operatin Budget 1973.)
ppp $88,486 in Calendar Year 1970
(City of Iowa City Municipal Bud et 1912.)
1
/sr
-f
111"ti
3
AGENCIES' FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION
1917 - American Red Cross, Johnson County Chapter
1964 - Johnson County Citizens' Committee on Alcoholism (now MECCA:
Mid -Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse)
1965 - Johnson County Community Action Program (now HACAP)
1968 - Mayor's Youth Council (now Mayor's Youth Employment Program)
1970 - Iowa City Crisis Intervention Center
- United Action for Youth Drop -In Center
1973 - Mark IV Drop -In Center (now Willow Creek Neighborhood Center)
1974 - Rape Crisis Line (now Rape Victim Advocacy Program)
1976 - PALS Program (now Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Johnson County)
1977 - Aid and Alternatives for Victims of Spouse Abuse (now Domestic vio-
lence Project)
1980 - Elderly Services Agency
AGENCIES' FIRST YEAR OF IOWA CITY FUNDING
Calendar
1968 - Mayor's Youth Employment Program
1973 - United action for Youth
Fiscal Year:
FY76 - Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Johnson County
FY78 - Rape Victim Advocacy Program
FY79 - Iowa City Crisis Intervention Center
- Willow Creek Neighborhood Center
FY80 - Crisis Center Emergency Assistance and Food Bank
FY81 - Elderly Services Agency
FY82 - Domestic Violence Project
FY83 - HACAP (Hawkeye Area Community Action Program)
FY84 - American Red Cross, Johnson County Chapter (funded for one year only;
funding resumed in FY87)
FY87 - MECCA (Mid -Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse)
III
AGENCY FUNDING HISTORIES
American Red Cross Johnson County Chapter
First year of operation -- 1917
First year of Iowa City Aid -to -Agencies funding -- FY84
The Johnson County Chapter of the American Red Cross supported its
activities through its own fund raising efforts from its founding
until the late 1950's when it became a United Way agency. When United
Way funding proved inadequate to support the Chapter's expanded
peogsa ing, anow dditionalmes from ces fundinns
were ssought, The Cha
and
nesses, and support from the City of Coralville, JohnsonsCountyuand
United Way. The City of Iowa City provided Red Cross with a one-time
$3,000
ccome nfrom in F speciatl revents,fsudchn uniasntheBChap Other
s sources
Swim -A -Cross, and from foundation grants sought for special
projects.
fI. Big Brothers/Bio Sisters of Johnson County
First year of operation -- 1976 as the PALS Program.
First year of Iowa City Aid -to -Agencies funding -- FY76.
Two separate programs, a "Big Sisters" program sponsored by the
Johnson County Extension Service of Iowa State University, and the
programin onsored ihe local
through te partment of ScalServeOpsts Club
eawere to babndoned
Program hadbeenthroughiattwo--year grantdwhichfor
expired Bo 19j6terlt
is unclear why the Optimists and DSS were discontinuing the volun-
teer -run "Uncles" roved a program. In January 1976, the Iowa City City
the nnewly -fo
-formed PALS �program,tcrea ed to eto fi l It t i ev co coordinator
for
the
discontinuation of both the "Big Sisters" and "Uncles" programs.
Crisis Intervention Center
First year of operation -- 1970.
First year of Iowa City Aid -to -Agencies funding -- FY79.
Early funding for the Crisis Center was through local churches, the
University of Iowa Student Senate, Johnson County Board of Supervi-
sors, and the United Way. In FY791 when its funding sources proved
fundingafromoseveralisources, and Programs,
funding from Centerrequested
citytof
the budget and
forfrom
the Transient Program asesepaThe
atedfollowing
thatrforYthe
Crisis Center. The City began funding the Transient program, now
know as the Food Bank and Emergency Assistance program of the Crisis
Center, in FY80,
/J o
I'.1
5
IV. Domestic Violence Project
First year of operation -- 1977 as Aid and Alternatives for Victims
of Spouse Abuse.
First year of Iowa City Aid -to -Agencies funding -- FY82.
In 1977 the newly -formed Aid and Alternatives for Victims of Spouse
Abuse was awarded a two-year CETA grant to hire a director. In
November 1979, the agency received CDBG funding to purchase its
shelter. Also in the fall of 1979, the United Way provided a
start-up grant. In July 1980 the agency began receiving State De-
partment of Human Services funding. The Domestic Violence Project
turned to the City for funding when the Domestic Violence Prevention
and Services Act, legislation to provide federal funding for domestic
violence shelters, was withdrawn in the U.S. Senate in late 1980.
V. Elderly Services Agency
First year of operation -- 1980.
First year of Iowa City Aid -to -Agencies funding -- FY81.
Elderly Services Agency, the successor agency to the Johnson County
Council on Aging which was terminated in 1980, received City funding
from its first year of existence.
V1. HACAP - Hawkeye Area Community Action Program
First year of operation -- 1965 as Johnson County Community Action
Program.
First year of Iowa City Aid -to -Agencies funding -- FY83.
HACAP was almost totally federally funded until September 1981, when
its core funding for administration and neighborhood centers was cut
by more than 45%. At that time, HACAP began requesting funding
assistance from counties and cities where HACAP facilities were
located, and increased funding requests from United Way. City of
Iowa City funding initially supported HACAP's Iowa City Neighborhood
Center and is now used for HACAP's Iowa City Head Start Program.
Mayor's Youth Employment Program
First year of operation -- 1968 as Mayor's Youth Council.
First year of Iowa City Aid -to -Agencies funding -- 1968.
The Mayor's Youth Employment Program was originally a City department
with principal funding from the Governor's Youth Opportunity Commis-
sion (now called the Iowa Youth Corps). The I.Y.C. provides a series
of state matching grants to localities; these grants fund approxi-
mately 70% of the Mayor's Youth Employment Program's entire Sumner
Component and 70% of enrollee wages and fringe benefits for the
In -School Component.
/sor
VIII. MECCA - Mid -Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse
First year of operation -- 1964 as the Johnson County Citizens'
Committee on Alcoholism.
First year of Iowa City Aid -to -Agencies funding -- FY87.
MECCA has evolved from its origin as a community resource dealing
with problems related to alcoholism into a comprehensive substance
abuse treatment agency. MECCA's services now include an outpatient
program, residential and half -way house services, and a non-medical
detoxification and mental health crisis stabilization unit. During
its existence, MECCA has received federal, state, county and city
funding in various proportions reflecting the changing commitments of
each funder to dealing with problems of substance abuse. In the
1980's, MECCA turned to Iowa City with funding requests in order to
meet a significant increase in the demand for its services. Iowa
City provided $57,930 in CDBG funding for the new MECCA facility
during 1985 and 1986, and began funding for MECCA's operations in
FY87.
IX. Rape Victim Advocacy Program
First year of operation -- 1974 as the Rape Crisis Line.
First year of Iowa City Aid -to -Agencies funding -- FY78.
The Rape Victim Advocacy Program was originally funded by the Univer-
sity of Iowa Student Senate for telephone, office supplies and pub-
licity. The University's Central Administration provided a part-time
salary for the Women's Resource and Action Center Coordinator who
supervised RVAP as one of many responsibilities. In July 1975, the
Johnson County Board of Supervisors funded a work-study position for
a Rape Crisis Line Coordinator, and in the spring of 1976, Johnson
County allocated a lump sum of $5,000 to subsidize the Coordinator's
salary for a six-month period from October 1976 to March 1977. RVAP
received Iowa City funding in FY78 to continue the Coordinator's
position; this support is matched by Johnson County.
X. United Action for Youth
First year of operation -- 1970.
First year of Iowa City Aid -to -Agencies funding -- 1973.
Citizen donations provided United Action for Youth's initial funding
and facility. Beginning in 1971, UAY received Law Enforcement Assis-
tance Commission (LEAC) grants (now LEAA grants). These grants were
matched by the Iowa City Community School District, and UAY began
administering an alternative school the following year. Also in
1972, UAY was admitted to the United Way. UAY first received City
funding to begin its Outreach Program.
AS
F
7
XI. Willow Creek Neighborhood Center
First year of operation -- 1973 as the Mark IV Drop-in Center.
First year of Iowa City Aid -to -Agencies funding -- FY79.
The Mark IV drop-in center began with an apartment and telephone
donated by Mark IV management. A federal mental health grant in 1973
allowed University of Iowa student volunteers to be paid with
work-study money through the School of Social Work. From 1975 to
1976 City Recreation Department employees and Mayor's Youth students
were utilized at Willow Creek's recreation program, and some modest
client fees were initiated. In 1974, the University of Iowa School
of Social Work set up a three-year demonstration project which cre-
ated many of Willow Creek's current programs. This demonstration
project was included in a two-year federal grant received by the
School of Social Work. At the end of the three years, Willow Creek
received United Way funding and some additional grants, but was
forced to approach the City for funding to ensure continuation of the
agency's many programs.
al
Parks & recreatio-n
department MEMO
to: City Council and City Manager from.
Dennis E. Showalter
Resolution --25% of Hotel/Motel
re: Tax Revenue for Recreation
Facilities date . February 17, 1984
There will be a resolution on the February 28 council meeting agenda
regarding setting aside 25% of the hotel/motel tax revenue for recreation
facilities. The Code of Iowa, Section 422A.2 (4a.) states: Each county
1 or city which levies the tax shall spend at least fifty per cent of the
revenues derived therefrom for the acquisition of sitesfor, or construet-
grecreation, convention, cultural' oreentertainmentafacilitiesa
intaining
ofincludinq
but not limited to memorial buildings, halls and monuments, civic center
1 convention buildings, auditoriums, coliseums, and parking areas or facil-
ities located at those recreation, convention, cultural, or entertainment
facilities or the payment of principal and interest when due, on bonds
or other evidence of indebtedness issued by the county or city for those
recreation, convention, cultural, or entertainment facilities; or for
the promotion and encouragement of tourist and convention business in
the city or county and surrounding areas.
that she haAt the informal council meeting of October 11, 1982, "The Mayor reported
bein
more specifictconcerning alked to oCounchn il's�allocation Chamber fof reeceiptsrfromdinq the proposed
i hotel/motel tax. As foot patrol benefits only the downtown, Council
decided to earmark 50% for police protection, and of the restricted amount,
i 25; for the Convention Bureau and 25% for recreation needs (with a swimming
op o hav ng a h g or or tv
On page 3 of the council activities minutes of October 26, 1982, "Mayor
Neuhauser
2nd ballot. xpShenexplainedthe
thatt25%mofethetax
taxwill
wouldpberusedtforhe liavconven-
tion and tourist bureau; 25% for a high
Possibly a swimming Pool; and the remaining yngo50%for cadditionalreationoPolice
protection."
The Parks and Recreation Commission has stated a strong preference that
25% of the hotel/motel tax revenue be set aside in a fund to replace the
City Park Pool.
DES/dh
city of iowa city
S
RESOLUTION MD. 84-45
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY FOR USE OF FUNDS DERIVED FROM HOTEL -MOTEL
TA 3.
as
at
November 2, 1982, the voters epofrlowaAof Citythe aPDrovedothe�impositin electof ion
on
percent (53) tax upon gross receipts for rental of hotel and motel rooms in the
City; and
WHEREAS, Code Section 422A.2 places certain limitations on the use of fifty
percent (503) of the funds derived from the hotel -motel tax; and
WHEREAS, the Council has informally allocated the proceeds from such tax, but has
not formally made such allocation; and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to formally establish a policy for use of proceeds
derived from the hotel -motel tax.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
That amounts received by the City from the hotel -motel tex shall be allocated as
follows:
a. Fifty percent (503) shall be allocated to police protection.
b. Twenty-five percent (253) shall be allocated to the Convention Bureau of the
Iowa City Chamber of Commerce for the promotion and encouragement
and convention business in the City, of tourists
C. Ten percent (103) shall be allocated for parkland acquisition.
d. Fifteen percent (153) shall be allocated for the constructing, improving,
enlarging or equipping of parks and recreational facilities.
It was moved by Dickson and seconded b
the Resolution beta opEe , an upon ro 1 call there wereT
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
AmbriBaker co
Baker
Dickson
�j:M Erdahl
'$— McDonald
�(-- Strait
tuber
Passed and approved this 28th day of Febtvary
—�,-_,_, 1984.
ATTEST:
Ll Fi CLE
Rao.h�.+ A Aromvad
Dy T: „ t •�1
/SJ
Increase in Transit Fares to 759
Impact of Hi her Fare
-I
1. A base fare increase would affect all users of the transit system. The
service reductions that are proposed in the FY88 Budget are overwhelm-
ingly directed at off-peak use. The rush hour transit user is the "bread
and butter" of the City transit system and the increase in the fare would
adversely affect those users.
2. Merchants may be reluctant to participate in a full fare bus and shop
program. The program now generates slightly less than $20,000 per year
at a full 50t fare. A dramatic increase is likely to reduce participati-
on.
3. While the City had at one time used a three coin fare, exact change is
g preferable. This is a judgment on the part of the staff and cannot be
?: substantiated by any evidence.
t
4 4. The downtown change machine is filled once a day by transit staff now
G provides for four quarters for a dollar change. If we were to provide
for any other type of fare (609), the time devoted to service of the
r machine would be increased.
S
A 5. Any -increase in fare would be inconsistent with the Coralville Transit
r fare.
6. It is likely that the bus system could become even less competitive with
current parking system. Two persons in an automobile driving downtown
and parking would pay a $2.40 parking rate for eight hours. The same two
people can ride to town and back on the bus for $2.00. An increase to
759 would raise that to $3.00. Again this is not a scientific analysis,
but representative what was felt to be the undesirability of increasing
rates.
7. The staff discussed with the Waterloo and Davenport transit systems their
experience with a 759 fare. Waterloo indicated that their ridership was
down significantly and the revenue remained unchanged at the new fare.
Davenport indicated that their revenue rose by 2% and ridership declined
by 24% and indicated that the City Council would be discussing returning
to the 509 fare.
8. The transit management staff felt strongly that the preferable alterna-
tive was service cuts before any substantial fare increase program.
9. The transit management staff was concerned about any program that. would
cause declining ridership. Ridershipis a
c which
determines the money that the City rceives from the Stateart of e o ndlaFederal
government.
i
10. The transit management staff felt that the increase in revenue may be
negligible at best and could likely have an overall adverse effect on the
system.
Y' -
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 19, 1967
To: Chairs, City Boards and Commissions
From: City Manager
Re: Budget Review Session
The City Council has scheduled for Monday, January 26 at approximately
7:30 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers, a meeting whereby Boards and
Commissions that are involved in City budgeting process may appear to
present to the Council their opinions, issues, and concerns with respect
to budgetary proposals. By now each member of a board or commission
should have received a copy of the Citizen's Summary.
It is not necessary that you or your members appear but the Council wishes
to afford you an opportunity to discuss with them any budget issues that
you feel are appropriate.
Any written and/or other information that you feel appropriate should be
brought with you at that time.
cc: City Council
Assistant City Manager
Director of Finance
News Media
tp5/9
/S6
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 21, 1967
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
r
j RE: Transit
E
Susan Horowitz dropped off the attached and asked that I distribute.
The underlining is mine.
s
9
1
((£5�
1'
1
i.i
1.
•portation Research Record 1078
RECEIVEp„A,� ,q
,deral Operating Assistance for Urban Mass 1987
Transit:
Assessing a Decade of Experience
IIU.V IL PICHRGLL
ABSTRACT
Reviewed are developments in the U.S. urban transit industry during the period
_ of federal government operating assistance (1975 to 1984). The financial and
operating performance of the nation's transit Industry during this period Ss
a fav
compared with that during the prior decade (1965 to 1974), when only local and
�! I; state governments provided operating assistance. In addition,
are reported of how the $7.6 billion in federal operating assistance disbursed
during this period has been utilized by U.S. transit Operators. Case studies of
transit operators serving 13 urban areas in the United States are also used to
�., explore variation in transit system operating and financial performance during
the period of the federal assistance program. Drawing on the findings from these
+ analyses, the paper concludes with an evaluation of the program's continued
)� desirability as a major element of federal urban trans
specific proposals for its reform are introduced. p°r to tion policy, and two
For more than two decades, local government agencie
across the United States have offered direct fi-
nancial
assistance to transit operators serving
their citizens, and some he
,obsidian for considerably Iva offered lean visible
. Most states also
assist public transit operators indirectly (by
exempting them from certain taxes and fees), and
several adopted direct subsidy programs beginning as
early as 1970. Between 1965 --when total fare revenues
collected by all U.S. urban transit operators first
failed to cover their aggregate operating expenses--
and 1975, State and local governments throughout the
nation provided nearly Sl billion to underwrite
transit operators' escalating deficits (1). The rapid
growth of government assistance during this period
was accompanied by widespread takeover of transit
system assets and operations by local government
agencies, thus, by the time the federal government
first offered operating assistance in 1975, cities
and public authorities already owned and operated 85
Percent of all urban transit vehicles and service in
the United States, and carried 90 percent of the
nations's transit passengers (1).
Compared with local and state
men t, c era government lnvolve-
[o c an [ansat operat ng aesia-
tance more recen
more r e , an ea a wa 9 ten
me era of Congress origi-
nal y a voeated federal operating assistance as an
emergency measure
erthat was necessary to support
transit opators temporarily, while they invested
In major capital improvements (which were already
eligible for federal funding) designed to reduce
operating cost, and bring increasing deficits under
control. (See, for example, Senator Williams' state-
ment reported by UMTA (3,p.I1-11).) Widespread pub-
lic reaction to the 1973 Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC) 011 embargo Swelled their
ranks with new advocates of long-term federal In-
volvement, who '$--fled that federal Subsidies to
finance additional t[AnsIC service and lover fares
Cenccr for Pransr rtetSon Studios, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, and Transportation Systems
1
Center, U.S. Department of Transportation, Cambridge,
Mans. 0141,
s would [educe energy consumption in urban transports -
tion by attracting new transit riders from those
currently commuting by automobiles. Unfortunately,
this was based on a misleadingly simple comparison
of energy consumption rates for singly occupied
automobiles and heavily loaded transit vehicles in
line -haul service, which dramatically overstated
Potential energy savings from increased use of tran-
sit under more realistic urban travel conditions
(4). There vas also little evidence that local and
state au a as a stemma the Sh 1(t [o automobile
rave in a nation a ur an areas.
wid
Another rationale Eor federal involvement was the
espread belief tsar ere IC 1 s
reduced po tl n to declining rldershio so that
e tits would nev tab y ncrease an t e absence of
government subsidies to stabilize fares. Still an-
other rationale was the widely assumed importance of
transit service In maintalnlna the vlt 31t
notion's downtown e C the
Mottle statement n 1974( U.S. (Congress examp]joint n
con-
ference committee hearings, p,1.) There is an Im-
plicit connotation that transit is an industry char-
acterized by substantial fixed costs, in which
declining levels of ridership Inevitably produce
Increasing deficits. Nevertheless, the number of
nationwide vehicle -miles of transit service was re-
duced nearly 40 percent between 1950 and 1970 (5,
P-58, Table 13). For a typical assertion of the
importance of transit Service to urban areas, see
the statement by Representative Rostenkowski (6,
P.32787). Unfortunately, this view failed to
recognize that the decline of U.S. central cities
was fostered by many of the same forces that
produced declining transit ridership, principally
rifling pernonal Incomes and the
tion of
employment from central city to suburban caareas as
production technologies and the composition of the
nation's economic output changed.
Despite their generally undocumented empirical
validity, theca arguments proved to be pivotal ap-
peals, Congress authorized operating assistance under
the UMTA Section 5 program beginning In 19751 citing
"...the need to provide public subsidies to cover
operating deficits In order to proaerve adequate
transit service at reanonable fares" Q,p,448).
/457
Assistance payments increased rapidly under the
new, program, but within 2 years both Congressional
advocates and recipients of federal assistance were
already decrying Its funding level as ..insuf-
ficient to permit responsible federal participation"
(9,p,15). Assistance payments had already reached
nearly $600 million in 1977, but their efforts raised
the level of subsidies to nearly $1.1 billion by
1980. Under intense pressure from the new adminis-
tration, Section 5 grants were reduced to about $900
million by 1983, beginning the next year, operating
assistance vas combined with formula capital grants
under the newly created UMTA Section 9 program, with
operating subsidies representing about $860 million
Of the $2.4 billion in total assistance distributed
during the first year of the new program (519-L3).
Thus, as reported In Table 1, cumulative federal
operating assistance payments through 1984 totaled
more than E7.5 billion, equivalent to about $9.7 Table 2 give a comparison of changes in several im-
billion In 1984 dollars after adjusting to reflect portant measures of transit industry performance for
thereater purchasing power of earlier years' pay- two recent periods: (a) the years from 1965, when
men
total fare revenues first failed to cover Its aggre-
gate operating expenses, to 1974, the year before
federal assistance began, and (b) 1975 to 1984, the
Period of federal participation. Changes In perfor-
mance during the latter period are subdivided into
those occurring while federal operating assistance
under the UMTA Section 5 program was increasing (1975
to 1980), and the subsequent period (1980 to 1984)
of decreasing federal support.
Between 1965 and 1974, local government agencies
in the nation's cities were the primary source of
transit operating assistance (many of them actually
took over ownership and operation of urban transit
companies during this time), although several states
began direct transit subsidy programs during this
period, scat financial assistance was provided at
the local level. Between 1975 and 1980, subsidy pay-
ments by all levels of government increased extremely
rapidly, but after 1900 assistance by state and local
governments continued to increase rapidly while fed-
eral Subsidies declined.
AS indicated by the data in Table 2, changes In
many measures of transit industry performance during
these two periods were closely comparable, Including
changes In two basic measures affecting transit labor
costs: compensation and service produced per worker.
Annual compensation per employee (which consists of
wages plus the estimated value of employer-provided
fringe benefits) increased 93 percent between 1965
and 1974s and by another 104 percent during the fed-
eral assistance period, as the data in the table
indicate.
However, these increases are very different when
expressed in constant dollars because of the major
Inflationary shock dealt the U.S. economy by the OPEC
oil price increase during the 1979 -to -1980 period.
Real compensation levels received by transit workers
even decreased from 1975 to 1980, although this oc-
curred throughout the U.S. economy, and their rapid
growth resumed during the 1980 -to -1984 period.
Clearly, the pattern of generous nominal wage and
fringe benefit increases established during the era
of predominantly local subsidy of the nation's tran-
sit industry continued throughout the era of federal
participation, as did the Industry's historical de-
cline in labor productivity. The major difference
between the two periods appears to be that the con-
tinuing gains in transit workers' compensation were
temporarily offset by the rapid inflation that pre-
vailed during the 1970 -to -1980 period.
The data in Table 2 also Indicate that the per-
cent Increases in actual expenses per vehicle -mile
of transit service operated were almost identical
for the periods 1965 to 1974 and 1975 to 1984. Again,
rapid price inflation during the latter period meant
Transportation Research Record 1078
The data in Table 1 indicate that combined state
and local operating assistance continued to increase
rapidly during the period of increasing federal In-
volvement --amounting to more than $26 billion since
1995, more than three times the federal contribu-
tlon--so there is no immediate suggestion that fed-
eral participation displaced assistance by lower
levels of government. Nevertheless, federal assis-
tance has been substantial, and the debate over its
future should include an assessment of how it has
affected transit operators, as well As how effec-
tively the program has accomplished Its original
objectives.
TRANSIT INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE BEFORE AND
DURING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
TABLE I Gorermncni Operaling Anislmlce Payment, to U.S.
Urban Transit Systema (1965-1984)(J..1.1))
Slam and Local
9,6
G ermaonlr
Fedoml G.'.nmen:
Aclual 1984
Mmol 1484
Dollars D91bn
Year
DalLrs O611m,
(000,000) (000,000)
(000,000) 1000,0001
1965
9,6
2911
-
1966
35.2
101.1
-
-
-
1967
63.2
174,6
-
1968
15:.0
413,4
-
190
208.0
535.0
-
_-
-
1970
:31.0
567,0
-
-
1971
310.0
724,4
-
1912
33J,8
748,4
1973
$36.8
1,139.3
-
1974
1.048.6
2.043.6
1975
1,146.6
2,046.4
301.$
$38.1,1776
1.:94.5
::03.6
4:: 4
117.1
1977
I.3V3.1
:,:3:.4
584,5
436.6
1978
1.610.9
:,402,4
6X4,5
1,0:8.5
1979
2,178.2
1490.5
853.9
1.175.0
1980
2,651.7
3.334.6
1.064.6
I.JJ9.D
1461
2;731.8
3,387,9
949.1
I,178: WS V
3.5:6.8
3.814.9
98..3
1983
, ,
,6.5
887,:
9:4,5
1494
4,895.2
4.895.:
860.1
860,1
CMUIA�l MA,
1965.1984
29,1:9,6
38.$31.9
1,588,4
9,663.6
19754984
26,201.4
3:,044,9
7.588.4
9,663,6
It is difficult to establish whether escalating
federal involvement displaced assistance that might
otherwise have been provided by state or local
governments during this period because the subsidy
levels they would have offered in the absence of
federal intervention cannot be reliably estimated.
After adjusting for inflation, Combined state and
local operating assistance increased by 260 percent
between 1970 and 1975, almost exactly twice the per-
centage growth in state and local assistance that
occurred during the period of increased federal sub-
sidies (1975 to 1984). However, this comparison does
not necessarily suggest that federal participation
displaced state and local Subsidy effort because tha
dollar increase in inflation-adjusted state and local
government operating assistance during the years
coinciding with the UMTA Section 5 program (almost
$2.7 billion when measured In 1984 dollars) was con-
siderably larger than its growth from 1970 to 1975
(about $1.5 billion in 1984 dollars).
/S /
al
Pickrell
TABLE V- Tran,it InduAry 1'rrfoenatlre Under Clun;e,g Alil,es of Operaling
.Wig[ Jere free, Local, Slat e. and Frdeml f:oaenenel,l
that the real increase in unit operatingabout ousts during
as
the federal subsidy era was only
large as that experienced during the previous decade;
however, this difference ie also largely attributable
to the wave of inflation caused by
th1979-180 p ices lel
e
price shock. The increase in Pe
eu
creased transit operating xpenses as well, but it
about
was resnsible pereenLpoincreaseof the
s in sexpenses per -tenth 32 vehicle -mile lof
service between 1975 and 1984 that was reported in
he
ta
in the table
with
Table
return 2. rto [more ,mot that
d st inflation rates sduring
the eriod ofng
deral
nce
1984), real expensesi pe[fevehicle-mile aactuallys in -
ere ... d
n-creased considerably faster than gthe previous
increased
years when federal operating subsidies
rapidly.
The data in Table 2 indicate that the number o
nsit See -
passengers carried per d ring- [hes yearsOf , preceding
vice declined sharply
federal operating subsidies but actually lncrcased,
subsidies
increased rapidly t Because athehen historicalf decline in
utilization was temporarily reversed, operating ex-
penses per passenger carried by the nation's transit
,y,tam, increased
much leas during the period of
federal assistance than during the previous decade,
particularly when measured in real terms for the
1975 -co -1980 period of rapid inflation. Again, how-
ever, the more recent period of declining federal
al
assistance indicate, a return to increasing wths in
operating expense, per passenger, _
vehicle opeimprovement ra in cost transitsumed and utilizationh proved t[o 9be
,hart -lived.
Finally, the data in Table 2 indicate that aggre-
gate transit service to the nation's cities .declined
slocal takeover and sub -
lowly during the decade Of
vice lneroasedtmodoaelytransit
during thedus
periodbut
ofthat
federal
see -
involvement, The pattern of changes in fare levels
thrghou
overed by
he table
that Some tofhtic period rapid sincrease int suggests
assistance levels
was used to avoid raising fares to match the rapid
pace of growth in operating expenses.
Much of the temporary improvement in transit
utilization during the 1975 -to -1980 period probably
represents traveler,' response to the sharp
decline
in inflation-adjusted fares (and the parallel rise
in gasoline prices), just as the 1965 -to -1974 and
1980 -to -1984 decreases in utilization no doubt OC -
n the
ve
rutted
y because e subsidies forfa[eboxfinancingsofi Substitution
operating costs
was eal
fare i levels. Thus,o alrthough federalevent some subsidies ease in [
subsidies had
little visible effect on the transit industry's
operating cost performance, the increasing federal
assistance levels of the 1975 -to -1980 period --in
combination with similarly rapid grouch in state arld
local operating subsidies --did temporarily
e, revershighee
the historical trends of declining service,
real feces, and declining transit ridership; however,
these developments proved both costly and Short'
lived.
WHAT HAS FEDERAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE ACCOMPLISHED7
Although there appears to be little evidence that
federal operating assistance aggravated the histori-
cal declines in transit operating and financial per-
formance, their persistence throughout the period of
federal
nes involvement clearly
advocates' originalits affec-
goals
of ex ss in promoting reducing fares, and
of expanding riansitdership-
Aga i, it is virtually impos-
inereasing ridership. (Again,
e been
spent from, then ways in s inwhich subsidiesral s
othergovernmentassis-
tance has been used, and the following analysis does
al
not attempt to identify separate effects of assis-
tance received from different levees ofgovernmfor ent-)
Most important, rising p
rovide
se[vlceand
heinputs
pod ced rapid escalation used to in expenses for
providing the same level of transit service that was
operated before the federal program began. Expenses
for labor and fuel together accounted for 84 percent
of the operating expenses incurred t Table 2.
Theran-
se
industry during 1987 (17, p.2-4,
These higher expenses absofEed much of the expansion
in transit operators' budgets that was made possible
by federal assistance Payments,
leaving
lables r risings
isingly
little of their growing total
new service or reduce fares. reductions
In addition, the types
of fi, fare
ew service implemented dbyh usings the remaining
wereassistance
produced disappointingly small gains In transit
ridership in many urban Groes.
Table l gives specific estimates of how opera Clog
assistance payments by all levels of government dur-
ing the period of federal involvement were utilized
matess were nati constructedon's urban [ by transitindustry.
the increased
expenditures by all U.B. transit operators between
1975 and 1984 that were financed by growing 9
=ant assistance along three categories, (a) increased
-7
ChaePe During VViMl
19e5•I V;4
1'I; Sd 964
1945.1060
19601x64
Performance 8leamrc
CumPunntion Per emPhSre
90
104
71
50
Actual du141s
54
14
-6
'4
0aao
Adjuwed for lnn
- 10
.7
_1I
5
Sen ie.' Pmdured Pa MPlayre
Erpenw Pen ehicicmar1J5
11.
58
47
Actual Jolters
67
J0
11
17
AdluseJ for Innat=e
5
8
5
1
vehicloma,, of wn'it,
Pmxnp, crtird PenxhWIVIG O
1
8
9
-1
of unite
Etpmw Pet PawaPa
115
4b
48
Actual dolhts
I'll
70
:p
g
17
Adluned for =Onion
Armare fam Paid
cl
5520
=9
An A doll]n
70
-Il
-15
0
Adjuncd for infhtion
that the real increase in unit operatingabout ousts during
as
the federal subsidy era was only
large as that experienced during the previous decade;
however, this difference ie also largely attributable
to the wave of inflation caused by
th1979-180 p ices lel
e
price shock. The increase in Pe
eu
creased transit operating xpenses as well, but it
about
was resnsible pereenLpoincreaseof the
s in sexpenses per -tenth 32 vehicle -mile lof
service between 1975 and 1984 that was reported in
he
ta
in the table
with
Table
return 2. rto [more ,mot that
d st inflation rates sduring
the eriod ofng
deral
nce
1984), real expensesi pe[fevehicle-mile aactuallys in -
ere ... d
n-creased considerably faster than gthe previous
increased
years when federal operating subsidies
rapidly.
The data in Table 2 indicate that the number o
nsit See -
passengers carried per d ring- [hes yearsOf , preceding
vice declined sharply
federal operating subsidies but actually lncrcased,
subsidies
increased rapidly t Because athehen historicalf decline in
utilization was temporarily reversed, operating ex-
penses per passenger carried by the nation's transit
,y,tam, increased
much leas during the period of
federal assistance than during the previous decade,
particularly when measured in real terms for the
1975 -co -1980 period of rapid inflation. Again, how-
ever, the more recent period of declining federal
al
assistance indicate, a return to increasing wths in
operating expense, per passenger, _
vehicle opeimprovement ra in cost transitsumed and utilizationh proved t[o 9be
,hart -lived.
Finally, the data in Table 2 indicate that aggre-
gate transit service to the nation's cities .declined
slocal takeover and sub -
lowly during the decade Of
vice lneroasedtmodoaelytransit
during thedus
periodbut
ofthat
federal
see -
involvement, The pattern of changes in fare levels
thrghou
overed by
he table
that Some tofhtic period rapid sincrease int suggests
assistance levels
was used to avoid raising fares to match the rapid
pace of growth in operating expenses.
Much of the temporary improvement in transit
utilization during the 1975 -to -1980 period probably
represents traveler,' response to the sharp
decline
in inflation-adjusted fares (and the parallel rise
in gasoline prices), just as the 1965 -to -1974 and
1980 -to -1984 decreases in utilization no doubt OC -
n the
ve
rutted
y because e subsidies forfa[eboxfinancingsofi Substitution
operating costs
was eal
fare i levels. Thus,o alrthough federalevent some subsidies ease in [
subsidies had
little visible effect on the transit industry's
operating cost performance, the increasing federal
assistance levels of the 1975 -to -1980 period --in
combination with similarly rapid grouch in state arld
local operating subsidies --did temporarily
e, revershighee
the historical trends of declining service,
real feces, and declining transit ridership; however,
these developments proved both costly and Short'
lived.
WHAT HAS FEDERAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE ACCOMPLISHED7
Although there appears to be little evidence that
federal operating assistance aggravated the histori-
cal declines in transit operating and financial per-
formance, their persistence throughout the period of
federal
nes involvement clearly
advocates' originalits affec-
goals
of ex ss in promoting reducing fares, and
of expanding riansitdership-
Aga i, it is virtually impos-
inereasing ridership. (Again,
e been
spent from, then ways in s inwhich subsidiesral s
othergovernmentassis-
tance has been used, and the following analysis does
al
not attempt to identify separate effects of assis-
tance received from different levees ofgovernmfor ent-)
Most important, rising p
rovide
se[vlceand
heinputs
pod ced rapid escalation used to in expenses for
providing the same level of transit service that was
operated before the federal program began. Expenses
for labor and fuel together accounted for 84 percent
of the operating expenses incurred t Table 2.
Theran-
se
industry during 1987 (17, p.2-4,
These higher expenses absofEed much of the expansion
in transit operators' budgets that was made possible
by federal assistance Payments,
leaving
lables r risings
isingly
little of their growing total
new service or reduce fares. reductions
In addition, the types
of fi, fare
ew service implemented dbyh usings the remaining
wereassistance
produced disappointingly small gains In transit
ridership in many urban Groes.
Table l gives specific estimates of how opera Clog
assistance payments by all levels of government dur-
ing the period of federal involvement were utilized
matess were nati constructedon's urban [ by transitindustry.
the increased
expenditures by all U.B. transit operators between
1975 and 1984 that were financed by growing 9
=ant assistance along three categories, (a) increased
-7
_J
TABLE 3 Sources and Uses of Increased
Go,ermnent Opera Iin.
Assistance Pa)mrnls Dining tire Period of Federal Pnnicipalion
(1973.198If
Cumuleive
Tout.
Percentof
1975-1964
1975-198
(billiensul
Cumulaliv
1984 dolhrsl
Total
Snalfes Of In ere a 4:d .,,,,,ln6 anlslam,-
Ftderalesistanac
9.7
46
-N1-v state and local assin,m,
11.6
54
Total spurns
Uses of lntteasrd operating unnaac,
21.3
100
Ilirher costs far existing welce:
La has upenses
6.6
JI
1
Encgy'cost,
1.5
Other ex p,nws
0.9
4
Total
9.0
4.
} E,,Pmrs., for new service
5.5
t Repb[an lost rc revenusb
5.1
I6
26
Remaininr fol[mute exp,.Rs
1.7
Total. all uses
8
100
1 Intens in ridtrsAiP lbilllons of Inps)
4.9
9
�rumunure not.. u, ,., pmwg annp
l+. p,menu anmrm,w tart[In 197.,
!i me rrw n,murmnu mm+�e, Ag,n.
p bier or fire mm u, ran11bme4 n, pv.n4so.
costs for operating the 11111 of service that existed
before the federal assistance program, (b) expenses
for operating new service added during the period of
federal Involvement; and (c) outlays necessary to
compensate for reduced farebox coverage of operating
expenses, For a detailed description of the methods
used to construct these Intimates, see Pickrell (16,
pp,282-285). Increased costs for operating the orig-
inal service level were further apportioned among
additional expenses for labor, energy, and miscel-
laneous other inputs.
The outlays necessary to compensate for reduced
farebox effort are equal to the decline in revenue
from continuing riders -hen fares were reduced, less
any new revenue generated by ridership increases
that occurred in response to such fare cuts. The
revenue loss [rimming from ridership declines that
occurred In response to changes in market demand for
transit service during this period was also Included
in this category of increased outlays, although the
amount was small, Finally, any new government Seels-
tance during this period that was not matched by
increased expenditures for one of these purposes (or
required to meet previous years' unfunded expenses)
-as classified as remaining available for future
expenses.
The data in Table 3 indicate that since 1975, 46
percent of the new transit assistance hag been con-
tributed by the federal program, with the remaining
54 percent representing payments by local and state
agencies above the combined level they Provided be-
fore the federal program begin. Of this total, 42
percent --or about 89 billion In 1984 dollars --was
used to Most higher costs for providing the same
level of service that was operated before the pro-
gram began. In turn, nearly three-quarters of this
amount (86.6 billion) was used to meet increased
labor expenses for supplying transit service. A
relatively small proportion of the increase in
government assistance I7 percent, or about 91.5 oil -
lion) was necessary to compensate for higher energy
costs, despite the scratch assertion that rising
energy prices were a major source of increasing
transit expense, during this period, higher payments
for maintenance supplies, Insurance, and various
Transportation Research Record 1078
Other inputs were responsible for the remaining in-
crease (less than 81 billion) in expenses.
Because these escalating costs absorbed so much
Of the increased government assistance offered after
1974, only about one-half remained to further the
goals of the federal subsidyg
Table 3 Indicate, one program. As the data in
e Y about 26 Sateen[ of new
government assistance received by U.S. transit sys-
tems between 1975 and 1984 (85.5 billion) was ac-
tually used to meet expenses for operating the modest
amount of new transit service that was added after
federal operating subsidies were first offered. An-
other 24 percent (85.1 billion) of the increase in
operating assistance during this period was used to
allow farebox coverage of operating expenditures to
be reduced. Most of this in effect compensated for
the fact that while per -passenger expenses more than
doubled during the period of the federal program,
typical transit fares were raised by only about one-
half (as the data in Table 2 indicated). This number
also includes the effect on farebox revenue of de-
clining demand for transit service in the nation's
urban areas, which continued to reduce the number of
transit trips that would be made at any specific
fare level during this period.
Thus during the entire period of federal partici-
pation In transit operating assistance, only about
$10.7 billion of the 821.3 billion in Increased
government assistance (that is, subsidies above the
level already provided by states and localities be-
fore federal participation began) was actually used
to further the goals of adequate transit service at
reasonable fares. The remaining a percent of the
increased assistance payments made during this pe-
riod (nearly 81.7 billion in 1984 dollars) was not
matched by either previous unmet obligations or new
expenditures by transit operators, and was thus ap-
parently retained by its recipients to meet future
expenses. However, this aggregate figure no doubt
obscures considerable variation In the situations
confronting individual transit operators, some were
Probably unable to meet all of their current expenses
during certain years, whereas others may have ac-
cumulated significant amounts that remain available
to meet future expenses.
As the data In Table 3 indicate, the effect. on
nationwide transit ridership of the service increases
and fare reductions that were financed by increased
government operating support were apparently modest.
About 4,9 billion more transit trips were made during
the period from 1975 to 1984 than would have been
made If ridership remained at its level before the
advent of the federal operating assistance program,
representing only about a 9 percent increase in
transit usage. This ridership gain wan estimated by
assuming that In the absence of an Increase in
government Subsidies after 1974, ridership In each
Of the years between 1975 and 1984 would have re-
mained at its (lower) 1974 level, rather than con-
tinuing on the slight upward trend that began in
1973. If the 1972 -to -1974 upward trend Is used to
estimate ridership from 1975 to 1984 in the absence
of Increasing subsidy levels, the resulting cumula-
tive increase in ridership from 1975 to 1984 is
reduced to about 1.3 billion trips, or about 2 per-
cent. Thus the amount of now assistance actually used
to improve service and reduce fares to 89.00 per new
rider (measured in 1984 dollars) is increased, of
which 83.60 represents federal assistance.
Even this relatively modest increase cannot be
attributed entirely to the federal operating assis-
tance program because transit subsidies offered by
state and local government also Increased rapidly
during this period, and rapid escalation In the costfl
of automobile ownership and travel in the nation's
urban areas probably eauned some drivers to owltch
157
Pickcell
to transit for certain trips. Still, even assuming
that growth in public subsidies was responsible for
all of the additional transit ridership during this
period and allocating only the fraction of new sub-
sidies (50 percent in total) that actually financed
new service and lower faces, increased government
operating assistance payments totaled nearly $2.20
(when measured in 1984 dollars) for each new transit
trip that resulted. Slightly more than 45 percent of
this amount (or almost exactly 51.00) represents
federal operating assistance, and the remainder con-
sists of additional subsidies 'by state and local
governments above the combined level they offered
before the advent of the federal operating assistance
program.
Because the growth in transit ridership accom-
panying federal involvement in operating assistance
has been so small, the program's contributions to
the various other goals originally sought by its
supporters --such as reducing energy consumption and
air pollution, or revitalizing downtown areas --must
aIso have been modest. This is because achieving
these indirect objectives requires that operating
subsidies induce substantial numbers of automobile
commuters to switch to transit travel, although there
is still controversy about whether carrying urban
commuters by conventional mass transit rather than
other modes actually does save energy or reduce air
pollution. Regardless of any uncertainty about the
theoretical effectiveness of transit in promoting
these goals, the modest ridership gains that accom-
panied the federal operating subsidy program cer-
tainly mean that it has contributed little toward
[educing these undesirable by-products of current
urban travel patterns.
WHY WAS OPERATING ASSISTANCE SO INEFFECTIVE?
There are several reasons Why government operating
assistance failed to significantly advance its
advocates' original goals, and many of these reasons
should have been foreseeable by transportation
policymakers and transit operators. Rising labor
expenee_absorbed such a large part of government
assistance because ransit vo[ ers compensation
ev¢ anet a ¢ tap[ Y as assistance levels were_
expa—�eo, PhI t e prodeetiyity of transit Workers
continueto neciin.. As the data in Table 2 I=
Cate, annual compensation per transit employee has
more than doubled since the federal assistance pro-
gram began in 1975, while the number of vehicle -miles
of service operated per full-time transit employee
has declined nearly 7 percent (despite some recent
improvement). The costs of living in the nation's
urban areas escalated rapidly during this period, as
did workers' compensation levels throughout much of
the U.S. economy (particularly those received by
other unionized workers employed in providing local
government services). Nevertheless, transit workers'
pay levels increased significantly during the eta of
federal assistance even after adjusting for infla-
tion --increasing 14 percent, as the data in Table 2
indicated --while average real earnings throughout
the private sector of the U.S. economy actually de-
clinea during most of this period. Further, labor
productivity in many of the nation's other transpor-
tation industries, including some faced with the
same scheduling, maintenance, and administrative
complexities confronting urban transit operators,
continued to increased during this period (171 Table
R-38).
As the data in Table 2 also indicates utilization
of transit service by urban residents improved only
slightly during the period of federal support for
transit operating costs. Although this did represent
a reversal of its prolonged postwar decline, it was
partly caused by the decline in inflation-adjusted
transit fares that accompanied it. Further, its
magnitude was disappointingly small considering that
this period was marked by various developments that
were widely expected to slow --and by some observers,
even to reverse --the historical decline in demand
for transit travel, Including sharply rising costs
for owning and operating automobiles, a slower pace
of population and employment suburban iza tion, and
decreasing real incomes for many urban households.
The failure of transit utilization to improve
significantly appears partly attributable to the
particular pattern of new transit service that was
financed by growing operating assistance. Because
total route mileage over which transit vehicles
operated increased much more rapidly than did total
vehicle -miles of service, the average number of
vehicle -miles of transit service operated per mile
of route deceased almost 25 percent between 1975 and
1984. (For more extensive discussion and documenta-
tion of these developments, see Pickrell 118).) Thus
what is probably the most important dimension of
public transit's usefulness as a means of urban
transportation --the frequency of service it pro-
vides --declined significantly during this period.
This occurred partly because schedules within the
densely developed central areas of many U.S. cities,
the traditional strongholds of transit service and
ridership, were curtailed.
At the same time, much of the vehicle mileage
added during this period represented bus service on
routes that were newly extended into the expanding
suburban areas of large cities, or operated by newly
established public transit systems serving many of
the natior's smaller urban areas. In both of these
situations, travel patterns tend to be diffuse,
whereas automobile ownership is generally widespread;
thus the resulting demand for transit travel supports
only infrequent service, moat often with very low
accompanying ridership (18). Because the improvement
in transit utilization was so modest, increases in
operating costa per unit of service were translated
into similar growth in costs per passenger carried
by the nation's transit systems, which more than
doubled between 1975 and 1963.
At the same time, the average fare paid by transit
passengers increased by only about one-half during
this period, as the data in Table 2 indicate, so
that the fraction of transit operators' expenses
that was covered by passenger fares decreased
sharplyt the average face actually paid for a tran-
sit trip declined from almost 55 percent of the ex-
penses imposed by a typical rider during 1975 to
only 39 percent of those costs by 1984. Combined
state and local government subsidies increased from
$0.20 to $0.71 per transit passenger between 1975
and 1984, reaching 50 percent of the U.S. Industry's
total revenues during 1904, while federal subsidies
contributed an additional $0.15 per passenger --the
remaining 11 percent of the industry's revenues --by
1984.
Yet even this substantial transfer of the burden
of paying for transit service from users to tax-
payers attracted surprisingly few now riders because
it consisted mainly of widespread conversion to flat
face systema and marketing of unlimited -use passes
to regular cortmutere. During the first several years
of the federal subsidy program, many of the nation's
largest transit operators eliminated premium fares
or surcharges for trips covering long distances,
travel during peak commuting hours, and trips re-
quiring transfers --all of which were particularly
costly to carry --in favor of uniform fares and free
transfers (18, p.117, Table 6.2). More than three-
quarters of U.S. transit systems currently offer
,9/
wkly or monthly passes that entitle their holders
cc unlimited free rides, but are commonly priced
below the equivalent of one round trip per weekday
(1g). The primary recipients of these substantial
fare discounts, regular peak -hour cnmunuters travel-
ing long distances, are often those attracted to
transit by Its favorable travel time and service
level for such trips, which they value particularly
h lghly.
Thus these changes in fare structures usually
offered particularly large reductions to riders whose
travel behavior was least sensitive to fare levels,
who imposed the largest share of transit systems'
operating expenses, and on whom transit operators'
resulting loss in farebox revenue was greatest. How-
ever, at the same time they often resulted in higher
fares for many price -stns itive riders because large
increases in basic fare levels were often necessary
to maintain minimal farebox coverage of expenses by
transit operators that eliminated premium fares and
introduced discount passes. As a consequence, this
widespread restructuring of fares produced dlsap-
Pointingly small ridership gains in most urban areas,
whereas much of both federal and expanded state and
local assistance was used simply to fill the growing
gap between the costs of carrying transit passengers
and the fare revenues they contributed.
COMPARING TRANSIT PERFORMANCE AMONG URBAN AREAS
A number of case studies focusing on transitoper-
ators serving individual urban areas were conducted
to supplement the analysis of industrywide develop-
ments in urban transit during the era of federal
operating assistance. The basic criterion for select-
ing case studies was the availability of financial
and operating data for the transit system (or, in a
few cases, multiple systems) serving an urban area
during both 1975 and 1983. Because virtually all
U.S.urban transit systems reported these data to
UMTA under it, Section 15 reporting requirement dur-
ing 1903, this meant that any urban area served by
on operator (or operators) that voluntarily reported
these data to a APIA for 1975 Could be selected.
Urban areas with transit systems that did so were
classified by population and geographic region of
the nation, from which a5
of 13 --representing
Populations from 150,000 to several million, as well
Transportation Research Record 1078
as all of the nation's major geographic regions --vas
selected for detailed study. The urbanized areas
selected include (in alphabetical order) Buffalo,
New York; Charleston, West Virginia; Chicago, Illi-
nois; Dayton, Ohio; Madison, Wisconsin; Miani,
Florida; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Minneapolis -St. Paul,
Minnesota; New York, New York; northern New Jersey;
POrtlaner Oregon; San Diego, California; and
Syracuse, New York.
The main reason for conducting these studies was
to document variation in deficit growth and its
sources among transit operators serving different
urban areas. Generally, these case studies revealed
that the nationwide aggregate estimates of transit
industry performance and the uses of operating as-
sistance reported previously conceal wide variation
in cost, service, and fare changes, as well as In
their contributions to rising deficits. In addition,
the case studies were intended to examine whether
differences among transit systems in the contribu-
tions of specific factors to rising operating def-
icits were associated with differences in their
dependence on federal operating assistance. Table 4
gives a comparison of changes In unit operating ex-
penses, service levels, transit utilization, and
average -fares during the period of federal operating
assistance for 13 U.S. urban areas. As the data In
the table indicate, transit operating expenses in-
creased significantly in most urban areas, but the
range of increases was wide and the distribution of
individual cases across this range uniform. There
was some tendency for cost increases to be more
modest in larger areas (notably New York City, Chi-
cago, and the northern New Jersey urbanized area),
whereas the most rapid Increases occurred in cities
of diverse sizes and locations, including Miami,
Minneapolis -St. Paul, Portland, and Syracuse.
There was also no obvious pattern of service in-
creases among the 13 cases studied, three cities
actually experienced significant reductions in tran-
sit service, two of which (Chicago and New York)
were those where the natural market for transit sar-
viee remains strong and cost Increases were rela-
tively modest. There was some tendency for service
Increases to be related to the pace of population
growth, for example, Miami, Portland, and San Diego --
all rapidly growing areas --showed rapid service in-
creases; however some areas with declining popula-
tion, such as Charleston and Milwaukee, also showed
\
TABLE.1 Glmparisnn n( Cbml,es in Transit Performance
Ihuin;, Ire Prrind of Federal 0P ralfng Assistance
in 13 U.S.
Urban :\rrar
(1775.1903)
i'n cenl Champs lrom 197b1g671n:
Esrrmr Prr VehidnAl lin
Ur Nn
Porrenpms
Pn
A,rratr Pom
.pre V041C. lilra of Srrvlr,
Vrhirl,dlilr
err
Pasuntrra
nuffrIn 36 2
Charlalon, W. Va, +7
-II
B
-371l-
=rNeapo 13
-0
-IU
U
6
j OJ)'Icn
Wn, 3 y ib
-JItbJmn,
-n
7umJO .x
-.4
•I9
mSliwk'e
3lmnr3poli1.51. Paul 31 -J-6
I30
-33
New York Lily 12
11
-13
70
Nonhrrn Nrx l,,y _y
n
-6
10
Poli,ad, Orr. i7
-6
-IB
San Dirto 46
36
17
-I6
,. $c uru,e g7
-=4
0
47
,,,rape far 17 urhm urn" Ix ,w
-17
-37
•I
.wnn: Ilan xerr taNunwJ hl IM1e sumo, Irnm J,w wMnrJ m APTA l.•01 anJ L'lli.\ I1 J1.
' al•.¢mr
rM1anrcunn aJrvnmr fnr mnnlnn.
"L'nwrnLl,J
yeast nl InJn W utl ylun lo, U urNn afev Inrn m nMe.
Af
Pickrell
rapid service increases, In any event, Population
alone is a poor indicator of demand for transit ser-
vice, and the largest reductions in service occurred
where other more important factors remained conducly
to strong demand for conventional transit service,
Finally, the data in Table 4 indicate that an
extremely wide range of fare policies was pursued by
transit operators serving different urban areas, and
that fare reductions were not generally accompanied
by the intended increases in transit utilization.
Transit operators serving 7 of the 13 urban areas
studied reduced average fares (measured after ad-
justing for inflation; during the period of federal
involvement --three of them by a third or more--
whe[eas the Of
6 increased average fare
levels, again often by as much as 30 percent or
more. Fare reductions were accompanied b
in the utilization of transit service in byincreases three
Of the seven cities that implemented them; 1n the
remaining four where fares were cut, as well as In
all six where average Inflation-adjusted face levels
were Increased during this period, utilization of
transit servlet decreased, often substantially. These
cases thus provide a few examples of Improved tran-
sit utilization in response to reduced fares, but for
the most part they reveal a continuing decline In
urban residents' use of transit service excpt where
fares are kept extremely low, while highways capacity
remains limited, automobile parking is costly, and
Jobs remain highly eentrali-ad. These conditions are
obviously beyond the Influence of transit subsidy
policyr and remain present in relatively few U.S.
urban areas.
USES OF OPERATING ASSISTANCE IN
INDIVIDUAL URBAN AREAS
Table 5 gives estimates of the uses of increased
operating assistance received between 1975 and
83
by transit systems nerving the 13 urban areas, gas
calculated by the author. As the data in the table
Indicate, In all but 2 of the 13 urban areas Studied,
meeting the Increased expenses for operating the
level Of transit service supplied before 1975 con-
sumed a substantial share of new operating Sulfa -
TABLES F,nlirnaled Ctrs of Oorernmew Aisutanre
110dered by Tran711 Operators in 13 U.S. Urban area,;
(�: (17T3.17D3)
p
Prrcem o1 Nor Operahns
Arernnce UwJ To:
Slenuu,
1�
1974 Add
fur
Urban Ain
Semce Rex-
Lnel Sen'iee
Fu.•ha,
rfrnrt
Ou161o. N,Y.
a
Chmlrnon lv,Vi
44 J
r.
Chloro, III
17
L`1
3`
3!
Daylon, Ohm
-v1
IB
,AIN,on, Ives
4a
At
34
• Alis ml, Fla
40
63
—e
.M u.w ukrr, N'Iw
3i
AlmnaPnlifSl. Paul, Ann.
pn IS
I3
New fork Ci0'. S, 1
1'9
'
-x
Nnnhrm New 1, wy
'• -45
73
PortbnJ. OrrR
41
69
5s
Sm Dirro, CJIif.
41
-u
Syarux. S.1'
a 71
IS
A,rnte for t3 urhn mns
-p
57
31
AH U.S. urhn wad
4a ;7
-5
6
7M1
a''nrrn lrnf army... aem.IF malaaN Oen grenJnoin; ylLn lmm
`•�•• w1 as
nm
nw•unr, .,. nw4 f.n ....n
tante. (In Chicago, the increase in costs to operate
even the reduced service level after 1975 amounted
d to 125 percent of new assistance received; this was
e financed partly by savings from eliminating some
service during this period.) Thus In nearly all of
the cases reviewed, the effectiveness of rising as-
sistance levels In financing transit service im-
provements and fare reductions was severely com-
promised by their use to meet higher costs to operate
existing services.
The data in the table also indicate that the use
of Increased operating assistance to finance new
service varied widely among the 13 urban areas
studied. rn three cases, service levels were cur-
tailed (as the data In Table 4 indicated), and the
resultresulting Savings were transferred to other cate-
spendin. In all
the remaining 10 of
cases examined,b at significantone(Buffalo)
of new operating assistance made available to tran-
sit systems during this period was actually used to
increase service levels; most commonly, 20 to 50
Percent of lnereaaed eubffid
vice, but In one case y levels funded new see.
quarters of (San Diego), more than three -
new assistance was used for this purpose.
The fraction of new assistance remaining to sub-
stitute for farebox effort also varied extremely
widely among the titles examined. In a few cases
(Madison, Minneapolis -St. Paul, and Portland), fare
revenuesSh'aced even after adjusting for Influ-
tfan,
and the resulting
proceeds were used to finance
higher
Pres carrel
nc is or added service. In Miami, only
about 2 percent of new operating assistance was used
to replace farebox coverage of transit costs, and In
San Diego as little as 15 percent was apparently
used for that purpose. However, in some other urban
areas as much as 30 to 50 percent of Increased as-
sistance levels was used to compensate for revenue
reductions stenming from the combination of fare
cuts and ridership declines caused by external market
forceboth New York City and Chicago, amounts
s. In
equal to large p
discussed previoroportlons of new operating assls-
discussed
were used to replace farebox revenues, but as
usly these were partly financed by
cost savings that tea lted from service reduction,.
EVALUATING FEDERAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE
The demise of privately profitable, large-scale con-
ventional mass transit service in the U.S, cannot
reasonably be attributed to federal transit subsidy
Policies, and particularly cannot be blamed on the
federal operating assistance program, as some of Its
harsher critics have suggested. Federal capital as-
sistance did help finance some public takeovers of
unprofitable nr bankrupt transit operators by local
government agencies between the time it was first
offered In 1964 and the 1975 advent of the Section 5
operating assistance program, while federal highway
investment policies may have contributed to the
changing patterns of transit ridership that made
privateMany
Public ownership yInd moperation unprofitable,
tithe nationesatran-
sit industry was firmly entrenched before the advent
Of the federal operating assistance program.
Further, comparing changes in transit industry
performance during various periodS does not reveal
any pronounced difference between the effects on
transit performance of support for transit from fed-
eral versus lover levels of government. The modest
differences in basic cost, productivity, and other
Performance trends In the Industry between the years
before federal assistance began and the decade for
which it has been available vete largely confined to
the start-up years of the Section 5 program (1975 to
1980) and were at moat only partly attributable to
/57
federal assistance itself. This history reveals that
simultaneous rapid growth in operating ass is [shad
from every level of government, as occurred from
1975 to 1980 when federal, state, and local support
all expanded rapidly, was able to reverse temporarily
and i
the historical patterns of to
transit service
ncreasing fares. However, it also reveals that
the new service and lower fares financed by rapidly
growing government support produced only modest
growth in mass transit ridership, which was also
confined to the brief Period of simultaneously ex-
panding support by all levels of government. Even
this modest Increase In transit ridership was not
entirely attributable to growing government assis-
tance; actually, the federal assistance programwas
Probably responsible for relatively little of it.
Federal operating assistance was ineffective in
promoting Increased ridership and the other objec-
tives sought by Its advocates partly because much of
It simply financed escalating expenses for operating
existing service. Some of the increase in transit
labor coats --although probably very little, judging
from the sluggish pace of wage growth In other in-
dustries during this time --may have been necessary
to match pay rates in other sectors of the economy,
whereas some probably resulted from labor Practices
and administrative procedures mandated by Congress
as conditions for receiving operatingassSseanee;
certainly the major Increase In energy prices was
our of the control of transit operators. Neverthe-
less, transit management practices and service
Polices must also have contributed significantly to
the rapid escalation in the industry's operating
expenses because growth In expenses per unit of ser-
vice outpaced even the Increases in prices the in-
dustry pard for its major operating inputs.
Subsidies were also tneffec[Sve because transit
ridership proved surprisingly tndensf Glue to the
service Increases and fare reductions that the re-
maining government assistance actually financed.
Cersion of
it
ly-
ingtainly the suburb nareas and d smaller scitiesvreflected ice to t the
changing dlstrlbutions of Population and
In U.employment
S. cities and among regions of the country, but
transit utilization at the urban densities
characterized these newlthat
y ae[ved areas was foresee-
ably low. A[ the same time, widespread conversion to
flat fare systems and the introduction of commuter
Passes targeted are reductions on travelers who
were pre d lcta6ly least responsive to them, and who
were mos[ expensive for transit operators to serve.
Finally, axpInding government assistance was in- 1
effective In promoting transit use because the nat- m
ural market for conventional mase transit service In a
U.S. urban areas continued to decline, as It has w
dining throughoutvirtually
for mass htransltrtravel h is the product o
of rising incomes of urban residents, continuing [
decentralization of population and employment within at the nation's urban or as, and [hang -s !n the demo- a
is IIc structure of U.S, households. None of these Co
la likely to be elgnIII aptly altered by federal so
transportation policies, end it may be undesirable ti
to attempt to modify them using available policies.
At the same time, the real costs of tailor Ing pr
conventional Maes transit scrvfecs to Mee[ the tr
evolving spa [!al and temporal patterns of urban mo
[revel demand produced by these forces are unavold- su
ably lncregain 9. Geograph lc dispersion and extreme tat
Peskin g !n travel patterns necessarily reduce labor cu
productivity !n transit operations, while requiring Cha
higher Pay rates to compensate workers for accepting par
undesirable work schedules, thus compounding the out
problems already faced by operators of a labor- aim
intensive service in an economy characterized by res
rising wage costs. Togethdr, these complications
aha
Transportation Research Record 1078
seriously undermined the effectiveness of government
subsidies in promoting increased ridership and the
variety of related objectives originally sought by
the advocates of federal assistance. Federal operat-
Ing assistance was probably no more ineffective than
subsidies offered by local or state governments.
Some evidence even suggests that assistance financed
by dedicated state and local tax sources is even
more likely to be absorbed by increasing labor com-
pensation or other expenses than are subsidies ap-
propriated from general government revenues such as
federal assistance under the Section 5 and Section 9
Programs (_18,PP.8e-S9;21,PP.32-35).
Thus the basic problem with rhe federal operating
assistance program was neither that it hastened the
demise of a viable Private industry, nor that it
compromised the U.S. urban transit industry's oyer_
ating performance. Sather, the problem with federal
transit assistance continues to be that It is a
costly and predictably ineffective means by which to
Promote a catalog of poorly articulated,, empirically
unrealistic, and perhaps even undesirable goals.
8ecause of ost of
creased mass h transit e high Crider hip cis got nada inby l itself
necessarily a desirable objective. There remains
considerable doubt whether promoting conventional
transit actually can save energy or reduce air
lotion; and there is no evidence that P
Sub-
sidized mass transit service is sufficient Cor even
necessary for the continued viability of urban
areas. A program that attempts to achieve these ob-
jectives indirectly by subsidizing operators of con-
ventional mass transit service appears destined to
remain not only unnecessarily costly, but also a
disappointingly Ineffective element of federal
transportation policy.
REFORMING FEDERAL TRANSIT POLICY
Two possibilities for increasing the effectiveness
Of federal transit policies appear particularly
promising, but both require a major departure from
the traditional attitudes toward and functioning of
current federal transit assistance programs, and
will thus no doubt be politically difficult to im-
plement.
First, deelanatlnl� g�-1e t r r a
In daBl C e b d
I the [A
7 transit mr l— a �omrslno
weY o 'traduce nan
;
[ation p anners and managers tyyveluaroct1 trelatty-
mportance of alternative service provision arrange-
ents and fare structures, as well as to adapt the
divides they provide to different transit markets
lthln individual urban areas. The regional trans-
ortation commisslona that already exist In a number
[ metropolitan areas are logical candidates for
his role, and some of them (such as the Detroit
ga's Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority
an Virginia's Tidewater Transportation District
amissicn) have already assumed It with apparently
dreadful results, This strategy is advocated par-
cularly forcefully In Lave (22, Chapter 1).
These agencies have responded to the polltical
assures to maintain' geographically widespread
anslt services that Inevitably arise in large
tropolitan areas by using their federal (end other)
sub to finance services that are more carefully
lored to localized travel patterns and cost cir-
mstances in different parts of their districts
n 1s typically the case. In doing so, they have
tly avoided the tendency shown by most transit
hrltles that receive subsidy funds directly
Ply to extend conventional bus service to all
[hes of the urban area, usually at the same fare
rged 11
e other riders In their service areas.
/S 1
Pickr ell
They have done so partly by contracting out various
activities --including the actual operation of some
services --to suppliers other than the dominant local
transit authority, doubtless an unpopular strategy
with these often politically powerful agencies. How-
ever, this has almost certainly been to the benefit
of both service recipients and those local taxpayers
who are recurringly called on to finance the bulk of
the transit authority's deficits Isee J.C. Echols's
Use of Private Companies To Provide Public Transpor-
tation Services in Tidewater, Virginia, in Lave (22,
Chapter 4)1.
Designating recipients of federal assistance other
than transit authorities is also a promising way to
introduce an important new element into local tran-
sit service planning and operating decisions: compe-
tition among potential suppliers of transit services
to these different markets. This could take the form
of competitive bidding among suppliers for renewable
but perhaps exclusive franchises to serve particular
routes or areas, which would encourage not only ef-
forts to improve productivity and control costs, but
also to introduce higher quality transit services
and various other adaptations to localized cir-
cumstances. Even under such a system, the large
public transit authorities that currently operate In
most metropolitan areas would probably continue to
provide much of the nation's conventional transit
service: however, they would face heightened com-
petition from prospective private operators for their
right to do so.
Although the recent public debate has focused
almost exclusively on methods to privatize the pro-
vision of urban transit services, it is this presence
of competition --even in its indirect form of com-
petitive bidding for renewable franchises --that will
encourage both public and private operators to oper-
ate efficiently and tailor their services to urban
residents' travel needs. Without such competition,
there is no inherent reason that private operators
would deliver the current pattern of transit service
any more productively than Is currently done by
public authorities. However, in its presence efforts
to develop new services, including some that might
not utilize conventional transit vehicles running on
fixed timetables, would no doubt also increase as
long as the subaldy-receiving agency remained willing
to consider seriously authorizing their introduction.
The advantage of a more competitive system of
providing urban transit services --an increased
emphasis on meeting urban residents' demands for
varied transportation services --should not be dis-
missed lightly because the public authorities that
dominate the current system engage in so astonish-
ingly little of it. For example, 18 of the nation's
largest transit authorities together spent lean than
one-half of one percent of their total budgets on
market research and service planning during 1983. It
is difficult to determine how this comperes with
other transportation or service industries, but it
does appear to be very low (see paper by Booth else-
where in this Record).
A second change that would help rationalize cur-
rent federal transit policy would be to combine the
currently separate capital and operating assistance
programs into a single transit block grant to be
distributed among urban areae according to some
agreed -on formula. The recent combination of operat-
ing assistance payments With formula -based grants
for capital projects (under the UMTA Section 9 pro-
gram) represents a fledgling but potentially signif-
icant step in this direction. Unfortunately, however,
the new arrangement retains the basic distinction
between assistance for capital investments and oper-
ating expenses that in responsible for many of the
Program's current problems.
Removing this distinction entirely will be neces-
sary to neutralize the powerful incentive to over-
capitalize but undermaintain the nation's transit
systems that is now offered by the independent
treatment of capital and operating assistance. Local
political officials and transit planners respond to
these incentives in a predictable but wasteful effort
to substitute capital, which is made artificially
cheap by the generous federal matching shares (up to
80 percent) on transit construction projects and
vehicle purchases, for labor that has been made
artificially expensive by a decade of unrestricted
subsidies for operating expenses, moon of which has
found its way into escalated labor costs.
An even farther -reaching rationalization of cur-
rent federal transportation policies --and, over the
longer term, the shapes of local transportation sys-
tems they foster --would result from combining federal
transit and highway assistance programs into a single
transportation grant, to be spent largely at the
discretion of local planners and political officials.
Although this is a laudable longer-term policy ob-
jective, the overdue step of consolidating current
federal transit assistance into a single unified
program doubtless provides a sufficient political
challenge to occupy federal policymakers for the
foreseeable future, and in any event is probably a
prerequisite to the more ambitious step of integrat-
ing urban highway and transit aid. Together with
redesignating as recipients of such unified grants
local agencies that view the improvement of region -
wide transportation services as their mandate --rather
than simply the extension or preservation of publicly
operated, conventional transit service at uniformly
low fares --this Would represent a valuable first
step toward a federal policy that fosters more pro-
ductive, diverse, and useful transit service.
REFERENCES
1. J. Pucher. Transit Financing Trends in Large
U.S. Metropolitan Areas: 1977-78. In Transpor-
tation Research Record 7591 TRD, National Re-
search Council, Washington, D.C., 1980, pp.
6-12.
2. Transit Fact Book. American Public Transit As-
sociation, Washington, D.C., 1978,
3. Feasibility of Federal Assistance for Urban
Mass Transportation Operating Costs. UMTA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Nov. 1971.
4. U.S. Congressional Budget Office. Urban Trans-
portation and Energy, The Potential Savings of
Different Mades. U.S. Government Printing Of-
fice, Washington, D.C., 1977.
5. Transit Fact Book. American Public Transit As-
sociation, Washington, D.C., 1980.
6. Congressional Record. Washington, D.C., Vol.
119, 1973.
7. U.S. Congress. House. Urban Mass Transportation
Act of 1970. Report 91-1264. June 30, 1970, 24
pp.
B. U.S. Congress. Senate. Federal -Aid Highway Act
of 1978. Report 95-833. May 15, 1978, 75 pp.
9. Transit Fact Book. American Public Transit As-
sociation, Washington, D.C., 1985.
10. National Urban Mass Transportation Statistics:
1980 Section 15 Annual Report, UMTA, U.S. De-
partment of Transportation, 1981.
11. National Urban Mass Transportation Statistics:
1981 Section 15 Annual Report. Report UMTA-MA-
06-0107-83-1, UMTA, U.S. Department of Trans-
portation, Nov. 1982.
12. National Urban Mass Transportation Statistics:
1982 Section 15 Annual Report. Report LMTA-Mir
/S
10
Transportation Research Record 1078
06-0107-84-1. UMTA, U.S: Department of Trans-
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Univer-
portation, Nov. 1983.
city, Cambridge, Mass., July 1983.
13.
National Urban Mass Transportation Statistics;
19. Transit Fare Surmary: Fare Structures in Effect
1983 Section 15 Annual Report. Report UNTA-MA-
on January 1, 1984. American Public Transit
06-1007-85-1. UMTA, U.S. Department of Trans-
Association, Washington, D.C., 1984.
portation, Dec. 1984.
20. 1975 Transit Operating Report. American Public
14.
Transit Fact Book. American Public Transit As-
Transit Association, Washington, D.C., n.d.
SOciation, Washington, D.C., 1974.
21. J. Pucher et al. Redesigning Federal Transit
15.
U.S. Council of Economic Advisors. Economic
Subsidies To Control Costs To Increase the Ef-
Report of the President. U.S. Government Print-
fectiveness of the Transit Program. Report NJ.
Ing Office, Washington, D.C., 1985.
11-0011. UMTA, U.S. Department of Transports.
16.
O.N. Pickrell. Rising Deficits and the Uses of
tion, Dec. 1982.
Transit Subsidies in the United States. Journal
22. C.A. Lave (ed.(. Urban Transit: The Private
Of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 19, No.
Challenge to Public Transportation. Ballinger
30 Sept. 1985.
Publishing Company, Cambridge, Mass., 1984.
17.
U.S. Council of Economic Advisors. Economic
Report of the President. U.S. Government Print-
ing Office, Washington, D.C., Feb. 18, 1983.
18.
D.N. Pickrell. The Causes of Rising Transit
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on
Operating Deficits. Report MA -11-0037. John F.
Transit Management and Performance.
Esq
ILA
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CHIC CEN(ER 410 E. WASHNGTON Si. IOWA CV, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5000
January 15, 1987
Mr. William Blough
Heritage Cablevision
546 Southgate Ave.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Blough:
Recent newspaper articles have reported plans by Heritage Cablevision to
provide cable TV service to the University of Iowa for the operation of
a cable TV system by the University for its dormitory residents.
The City of Iowa City has concerns about whether the installation and
operation of such a system by the University is permitted within the
regulatory framework of Iowa City's "Broadband Telecommunications Fran-
chise Enabling Ordinance" (Chapter 14, Article IV of the City Code), and
the City is attempting to initiate discussions with the University to
address these concerns.
At the least, the City believes that revenues received by Heritage as
the result of the provision of any such cable service to the University
are a part of the annual gross revenues" as defined in 514-61 of the
City Code and would, therefore, be subject to the franchise fee, as
provided in 914-73 of the City Code. Please notify us in writing
promptly if your company disagrees with our position regarding this
matter.
Sincerely yours,
ep en qyAZK1_nV, City Manager
cc: City Council
Terry Timmins
John Hayek
Dale Helling
bj2/7
/✓8
d»
CITY OF
CHIC CENTER 410 IOWA CE•WASHWGTONST.
IOWA CtiY, IOWA
52240 (319) 356-50)o
January 14, 1987
Mr. George Ruppert
823 Webster Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Ruppert:
Regarding your November 17, 1986, letter to the Iowa City City Council, I asked
the Department of Public Works staff to review your concerns regarding the Iowa
Interstate Railroad's planned development.
The storm sewer pipe plans, prepared by the railroad's engineering consultant,
have been designed to carry a ten-year storm. This plan exceeds the City's design
standards suggesting a five-year storm design. The drainage area considered as
part of the design extends from Summit Street to Gilbert Street and includes the
Page Street cul-de-sac 12" stom sewer, the duplex downspouts, the 18" storm sewer
from Page Street and South Dodge Street and all of the rest of the storm water
Q
runoff sources within this area.
The plan does include an area beehive intake at Webster Street, as well as two
intakes within the actual development area and four intakes located along the
Planned storm sewer extension.
In addition to the neighborhood benefit of increased storm sewer capacity, the
plans include an upgrade of the 2"
and relocation of the hydrant to the a6ermainnfor fiSretreet main
As currently designed
Gilbert Court will be, open ditch lgrad d95 feetto at h0 the storm sewerapfeet west of Vn ipe.
Street to
The current approved plans are for the office building only, and the round house
addition is not a part of this development plan.
K' We appreciate your comments and suggestions
d
You
have any
or questions, please feel free to contact Frank Fa merat 356 5143further comments
Sincerely yours,
c,/tep
City is ger k
cc: City Council
Frank Farmer
Chuck Schmadeke
bj3/3
is9
823 Webster Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
November 17, 1986
Iowa City City Council
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Council Members:
I have several concerns regarding the current and future
plans that Iowa Interstate Railroad has for their property
that runs West of the Dodge Street Bridge towards Gilbert Court.
One of the projects is the installation of a storm sewer.
I don't think a 21" storm sewer will be big enough to carry
the water away. After the railroad builds their office building
and paved parking area, the more water runoff you will have.
I have lived on Webster Street for 55 years. Several times
during that period the three lots next to the open water
ditch were under water. When Page street was paved between
Dodge and Lucas Street, the City of Iowa City installed a
storm sever across the old Railroad stockyards which ran
into this open ditch. Eight dew duplexes also have their
downspouts drain into this open ditch. The Railroad will
also have to drain Webster Street and the hill into this
21" storm sewer. The Railroad owns land on the south
side of this open water ditch between Webster dnd Van Buren
Streets. When they cover this 21" storm sewer, I would like
them to use this area for their driveway. If they did this,
they would not have to come up Webster with mud, tar and oil
on their tires and dumping it on Webster, Page and Van Buren
Streets. The Railroad would benefit from this they would be
able to save time going from the East side of the roundhouse
to the West side and in return the property owners would not
have to put up with the dust blowing in their houses.
I want the City Council to know that Webster Street was a
dead end street until the railroad put in an access to the East
side of their roundhouse. They also installed a new track
and a big overhead door so they can run diesel engines in one
end and out the other. They spray paint in the roundhouse and
I think this ought to stop because houses are 30'-40' from the
roundhouse. We property owners get odor from the locomotives
running 24 hour's a day, 7 days a week in addition to the noise.
LAt,C rz%
/57
I have strong objections to ever enlarging the roundhouse,
I am sure this will come up sometime next year before the
building is completed. With the new office building , the office
railroad will not have enough property to expand the roundhouse
and put parking space -in for the employees. I don't want
to see the railroad using Webster Street for employee
Parking is allowed on the east side of Webster now, parking•
j for this area is for single family and duplex onl The zoning
f has taken over the dead end of Webster Street. Y' The railroad
parking Flatbed semis in front of the drivewa s They have been
difficult to leave and be late for work , Y , making it
heavy equipment and block the street for hourssuntilemis athehauling
unloaded. The weight of these semis will eventually break up
the Webster Street Y are
north of Page is nopavement. The dead end of Webster Street
four households that havet a itote dive getrout,for the railroad; there are
i The continued expansion of the railroad will lower
values, I think it would be better for the neighborhood and the
!F park if the railroad would locate their roundhouse in an property
Industrial zone where they would have more
their operations. The railroad has been expanding
property to expand
operations in leaps and bounds during the Pastyear. If you
their
t don't stop the railroad from enlarging the roundhouse now
yea
next move they will make will be to acquire more property
and will be back for zoning changes, the
t I want the city council to take a hard look at the
21" storm sewer; I feel it will be too small. Listed below are
six reasons why I think it should be larger; Proposed
1. Be sure the railroad
for Webster Street and its hills in a drain into the storm sewer
2. Runoff from the of
Park. fice building, parking lot and Oak Grove
3. Page Street�8' torm sewer between Dodge and Lucas.
4• The duplexes with downspouts
water ditch. draining into the open
5. Ten inch storm sewers drain both sides of Dodge
Street%and the bridge.
6• I am sure there is other water draining into the
ditch that we don't know about.
Also, I feel there should be a clear out for the storm sewer
so that mud and debris can be cleaned out of it.
Sincerely,
�� r
George Ruppert '
/S9
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 22, 1987
To: City Council
From: Barry Beagle, Associate Planner
Re: Iowa Interstate Railroad Final LSNRD Plan
Earlier this month, the Council received a copy of the letter dated January
14, 1987, from the City Manager to Mr, George Ruppert of 823 Webster Street
(attached) The letter addressed storm water management improvements as
with the construction of the proposed Iowa Interstate
ThelCouncilcated at requestedD to be ter Street, immediately
Railroad office
concerns expressed at the timeptof nformed regarding north of Oak Grove Park.
Based upon the Cit passage of g storm water management
liminar Y Managers letter and gcompliance pwithmtherapproved Ppre-
Y LSNRD plan, the Department of
administratively approved the final LSNRD plena on Januar and Program Development
Council will recall, the newly amended LSNRD ordinance Pment
approval of final LSNRD plans if found to be r 16, 1min administrative the
an approved preliminar in substantial al comml�ianceatith
y LSNRD plan, P with
If the Council has any questions regarding this matter,
tate to contact me.
Please do not hesi-
Enc.
bj3/15
/Go
alb
M
City of Iowa Ch,
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 16, 1987
TO: Karin Franklin
FROM: Joyce J. DeLong
RE: LSNRD Final Plan Approval
The site address for the office building is 800 Webster.
Council's storm water runoff question is covered in the attached
copy of the letter sent to Mr. Ruppert
Attachment
C
/� O
� �PN2219�'T
IOWA CITY
[ii
Frcc /44ed ileal Citinic
P.O. BOX 1170 IOWA CIN, IOWA 52244 (319) 337-0459
January 20, 1987
Mayor Ambrisco/City Council
Civic Center
410 East Washington
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mayor Ambrisco and City Council Members,
The Iowa City Free Medical Clinic would like to withdraw our request for
1987 Community Development Block Grant funds. We were requesting these funds
for the purchase of laboratory equipment.
We have been able to locate other sources for equipment which are currently
being pursued. We feel we will be able to obtain the needed equipment without
using CDBG funds.
We thank you for your support of the Free Medical Clinic.
Sincerely,
Com. Bre
Colette Brodersen
Co -Director
Free Medical Clinic
A United Way Agency Office Hours: Money -Friday, 8.00 a.m..1:00 p.m. Clinic Hours; Monday and Thursday; Sign up at 6.00 p.m. /V/
01
VICTOR & LAFAYETTE R E C E I V E D Jr.id 21 1987
ALEX J. VICTOR
GERALD W. LAFAYETTE LAWYERS
TELEPHONE 965-045a
120 NORTH
CHURCH STREET
ROCKFORD. ILLINOIS 61101 AREA CODE 813
January 20, 1987
The Honorable Mayor of
Iowa City
Iowa City, Iowa
Dear Mayor:
I would like to commend your Chief of Police,whose name I
cannot remember at this point in time,for his prompt, courteous,
and sincere attention to a minor problem that my daughter
experienced while she was a student at the University of Iowa.
I was very pleased with the demeanor and attitude that was
expressed by your Chief of Police and his time and effort in
resolving the minor parking problem that my daughter had
experienced at her apartment building. The matter has now
been resolved to all parties satisfaction.
It is very often, having been in public life myself for
several years, that the public is so ready to criticize and
condemn their public servants, but they seldom take the time
to take pen in hand and send a letter of appreciation and
commendation.
I would merely like to state that from my brief contact with
you Chief of Police, I believe you have a very good man in office
Sincerely,
Gerald W. LaFa ettp�
GWL:rfh y
i
6'
i.
r�
Johnson County A E C E I V G D J;.'; 15 1987
ACCAN
(Area Council on Child Abuse & Neglect)
P.O. Box 1043
Iowa City, Iowa 52244
T0: Individuals and organizations concerned about child
abuse and neglect in our community
FROM: Christy Scheetz, for Johnson County ACCAN
RE: JC-ACCAN public meeting
You are invited to attend a public meeting of the Johnson County
Area Council on Child Abuse and Neglect. The meeting will be held
Wednesday, January 21, 1987, at 12:00 noon at the Iowa City Public
Library, Meeting Room A. Please feel free to come late or leave
early as your schedule requires.
At this meeting we will be hearing reports on current programs
being sponsored by ACCAN, and discuss possibilities for 1987.
We will also be forming new committees, and considering the form-
ation of a newletter to increase communication with the community
and other ACCANs around the state.
Please make every effort to attend this meeting. We would like
to hear your ideas. For more information call Christy Scheetz at
354-4007 or Linda Nelson at 338-7518. We hope to see you on the
21st!
/�3
Stephen J. Atkins, City 'tanager
410 }. Kashington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Atkins:
Pursuant to our discussion, I arm., providing an update on Youth ;;ones' CDllC
Project. Currently we are in negotiations with both of our current land-
lords, 3.ila Haug and Johnson County. I think the majority of the Doard
of Superivsors will support our offer to purchase the Ronald Street pros
arty for one dollar. A written offer will be submitted in the near fu-
ture for the Supervisor's formal consideration. ?is. Hau&'s interest in
selling the Cashington Street property is contingent upon whether or not
s`,e and her employer will be relocating out of town. She has had the
Property appraised and I will be meeting with her later this ::ceY, to Cis-
ulss price and terms, should she decide to sell,
In the meantime, I have reviewed the local real estate market and looked
at several promising properties. Asking prices have been in the ;30,000
to 5115,1:00 price ranges. Several of these properties will meet our
space needs and require minimal remodeling and restoration. A couple
offer Cood isolation from neighbors and sizeable yard space. At least
two offer favorable contract terns. In all cases, we Lave not onlv
staved within proper znning, but also restricted ourselves to nciChbor-
hoods that are predominantly multi-fa:aily rentals, trying to stay away
iron locations that are still heavily single-family owner -occupied.
Finally, we arF doing shat we can to bring the Ronald Street property up
to the "ilding CO". however, we will not meet the January 30th dead-
li,v' sct by the Cit' 9uilding Department. Ke are rapairin,; the less
costl3 items but tLa major iteps in our violation notice will Dave to
wait until title to the property has been transferred to us and
financing arrrn;;erents have been made.
/
RECE IVEDipi 22
X087
YOUTH HOMES,
INC. 0 Box 324 ue
A United Way Agency
William McCarty, Executive
Iowa City, Iowa 32344
Phone: 319/3374323
Director Youth Fmerleuey Shelter
Phone: 319/337 -SM
Girt Group Home
Phone: 319/337-7538
indepeadent Uying
Phone: 319/3374523
January
20, 1997
Stephen J. Atkins, City 'tanager
410 }. Kashington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Atkins:
Pursuant to our discussion, I arm., providing an update on Youth ;;ones' CDllC
Project. Currently we are in negotiations with both of our current land-
lords, 3.ila Haug and Johnson County. I think the majority of the Doard
of Superivsors will support our offer to purchase the Ronald Street pros
arty for one dollar. A written offer will be submitted in the near fu-
ture for the Supervisor's formal consideration. ?is. Hau&'s interest in
selling the Cashington Street property is contingent upon whether or not
s`,e and her employer will be relocating out of town. She has had the
Property appraised and I will be meeting with her later this ::ceY, to Cis-
ulss price and terms, should she decide to sell,
In the meantime, I have reviewed the local real estate market and looked
at several promising properties. Asking prices have been in the ;30,000
to 5115,1:00 price ranges. Several of these properties will meet our
space needs and require minimal remodeling and restoration. A couple
offer Cood isolation from neighbors and sizeable yard space. At least
two offer favorable contract terns. In all cases, we Lave not onlv
staved within proper znning, but also restricted ourselves to nciChbor-
hoods that are predominantly multi-fa:aily rentals, trying to stay away
iron locations that are still heavily single-family owner -occupied.
Finally, we arF doing shat we can to bring the Ronald Street property up
to the "ilding CO". however, we will not meet the January 30th dead-
li,v' sct by the Cit' 9uilding Department. Ke are rapairin,; the less
costl3 items but tLa major iteps in our violation notice will Dave to
wait until title to the property has been transferred to us and
financing arrrn;;erents have been made.
/
L
That about covers the past sixty days' activities on the pro's
be able to lap out our alternatives norea activities
O as soon as
negotiations with our landlords are Project. i will
continuing interest and assistance, completed. Thank you for
your
Sincerely, ��
!:illias, CCarty, :!SC,AS!i,LSB
Executive Director
CO: Marianne :!ilknan !
Mot
YOUTH HOMES, INC.
A United Way Agency
Willlam McCarty, Executive Director
C W 0 JtR''AnY 2n, 1987
=avij L. ::alone, !lousing Inspector
Department of Housing, and Inspection Services
410 C Nashin -ton Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear :!r. Y.alone:
12D N. Dub m
P.O.9oa I7A
Iowa Q13. Iowa 32244
Phone 319/3374s29
Pho719/73 Sbetter
Ginis GroaY How
Phone: 319/337.7538
IndeMdest Lvial
Phone: 319/337-4523
'.his is to update you on our progress in bringing the property at 524
%onald Street up to code. Using your October 30tn, 1966 violationnotice
as a -nide, we have been making many of the smaller repairs. ;!owever,
the larger items must wait for adequate financing.
T
e property owner, Johnson County, has not been willing to provide money
for repairs; however, the Board of Supervisors has expressed an interest
in selling the property to us for a nominal price, enabling us to use the
property as collateral on a loan.
I expect it will take another 60-90 days to transfer title of the proper-
ty and arrange financing. In the meantime, I hope the Building Depart-
ment will bear with us, and give us the time we need to make the neces-
sary repairs. I want you to know that Youth Homes is making a good faith
effort to bring the property up to code, within our present financial
limitations. Whir the cooperation and support of both the County and the
City, the rest of these items will be taken care of as quickly as
possible. Thank you for Your patience.
Sincerely: /
Gillian NcCarty, YSId,ACSR,LSi; Executive Director
cc: Steve Atkins
Dick ?!yers
Marianne Silkman
1W
DAN L HUOSON.ASSESSOR
DENNIS J. BALDRIDGE DEPUTY
CAROLYN R. BURKE DEPUTY
OFFICE OF
.roma cite
(fitp Razor
Johnson County Administration Bldg.
P.O. Box 1350
January 16, 1987 Iowa City, Iowa 52244
Dear Conference Board Member:
The annual meeting of the Iowa City Conference Board for the consideration of the
Iowa City Assessor's FY 1988 budget is scheduled for Monday, January 26, 1987, at
7:00 P.M. at the Iowa City Civic Center. Enclosed, so you may review the infor-
mation before the meeting are:
1. The agenda.
n� 2. The proposed budget.
3. The 1986 Annual Report which includes the program
division statement.
4. A copy of February 10, 1986 minutes.
;i Please note that the amount to be raised by taxation is $29,150 less than required
9+` last year, almost a 16% decrease. The decrease consists mostly of:
a. $ 4,500 for assessment rolls and postage for same.
b. $ 7,000 for a car which was Purchased from current budget.
c. $41,000 which was budgeted for court cases, most of which
were dismissed at the end of 1986.
$52,500 Total decrease
4 This decrease is partly offset by the following increases:
d. $ 2,000 for computer fees to Johnson County.
e. $ 1,900 for insurance, most was increase in health last spring.
yF f. $ 1,320 for FICA, the Board of Reveiw FICA was not included in
this line before.
g• $ 6,770 for a 5% increase in salaries.
E! h. $11,390 less in the unencumbered balance.
z?
$23,380 Total increase
%j The levy rate will be going down from .17616 to .14597, a reduction of approx. 17%.
The new construction that will be taxed for the first time in FY 88 will produce
approx. $2,370.
If you have any specific questions or wish to look at any of the suppng
orti
documents for this budget, feel free to call me at work at 356-6066 or ti my
home at 338-6176.
,Sincerely,
Dan L. Hudson
Iowa City Assessor
January 16,1987
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Iowa City Conference Board will meet at 7:00 P.M.
January 26, 1987 at the Iowa City Civic on Monday,
Center. The purpose
budget
dget fthe meeting is to discuss the Iowa City Assessors' proposed
or fiscal year 1988.
AGENDA:
2. Call meeting to order by the Chairperson.
2• Roll Call by taxing body.
3. Act on minutes of February 10, 1986 Conference
Board meeting.
4. Assessor presents proposed budget.
S. Discuss proposed budget.
6• Conference Board acts on proposed budget.
7• Set date for public hearing.
a. Other business.
9. Adjourn.
Dan L. Hudson
Clerk, Conference Board
ASO
ITEMIZED BUDGET - ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND
ITEM NO. EXPENDITURE
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
OTHER EXPENDITURES
Board of Review
Employer Share: FICA
Employer Share: IPERS
Mileage & Auto
Office Supplies, Post. & Tele.
Publications, Subscr. & Dues
Bonds & Workman's Comp.
Equipment Maintenance
Appraisal Service
Insurance
Continuing Education
Appeals to Court
Schools & Conferences
Legal
Unemployment
Conference Board
Examining Board
Computer Charge
Total Other Expenditures
TOTAL BUDGET
UNENCUMBERED BALANCE
TRANSFER FROM SPEC. APPR. FUND
TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION
FY 87
$ 36,250
29,000
25,380
21,680
15.670
$127,980
$ 9,000
9,000
6,000
8,500
13,000
750
1,100
200
400
13,300
3,000
56,500
1,500
2,000
2,000
0
30
6.000
$132,280
$260,260
- 68,741
4.739
$186,780
FY 88
$ 38,050
30,450
26,650
22,750
16.850
$134,750
$ 9,000
10,320
6,320
500
8,800
1,000
1,200
200
400
15,200
3,500
15,000
1,500
2,000
2,000
0
30
8.000
$ 84,970
$219,720
- 62,090
0
$157,630
/0
SALARIES
31
City Assessor
32
First Deputy
32
Second Deputy
35
Plat Supervisor
35
Clerk
Total Salaries
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
OTHER EXPENDITURES
Board of Review
Employer Share: FICA
Employer Share: IPERS
Mileage & Auto
Office Supplies, Post. & Tele.
Publications, Subscr. & Dues
Bonds & Workman's Comp.
Equipment Maintenance
Appraisal Service
Insurance
Continuing Education
Appeals to Court
Schools & Conferences
Legal
Unemployment
Conference Board
Examining Board
Computer Charge
Total Other Expenditures
TOTAL BUDGET
UNENCUMBERED BALANCE
TRANSFER FROM SPEC. APPR. FUND
TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION
FY 87
$ 36,250
29,000
25,380
21,680
15.670
$127,980
$ 9,000
9,000
6,000
8,500
13,000
750
1,100
200
400
13,300
3,000
56,500
1,500
2,000
2,000
0
30
6.000
$132,280
$260,260
- 68,741
4.739
$186,780
FY 88
$ 38,050
30,450
26,650
22,750
16.850
$134,750
$ 9,000
10,320
6,320
500
8,800
1,000
1,200
200
400
15,200
3,500
15,000
1,500
2,000
2,000
0
30
8.000
$ 84,970
$219,720
- 62,090
0
$157,630
/0
Y
BUDGET - SPECIAL APPRAISERS FUND
FY 87 FY 88
Mapping $ 0 $ 50,000
TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION $ 0 $ 50,000
GRAND TOTAL TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION $186,780 $207,630
MAXIMUM LEVY ALLOWED
Maximum assessment expense fund 1,079,844,192 x .00027 = $ 291,560
IPERS & FICA Funds = 16,640
Unemployment Compensation & Tort Liability 4,000
Maximum for assessment expense fund = $ 312,200
Maximum special appraisers fund 1,079,844,192 x .000405= $ 437,340
Maximum allowed without State approval = $ 749,540
Maximum emergency fund 1,079,844,192 x .00027 = $ 291,560
(Which requires State Appeal Board Approval)
Maximum that could be raised by taxation for FY 188 = $1,041,100
LEVIES AND RATES SINCE 1980
Assessment Expense Fund Special Appraiser's Fund
Fiscal Year Amount Levied Levy Rate
1979-80
$ 146,050
.26746
1980-81
175,930
.29593
1981-82
184,145
.30081
1982-83
192,960
.28004
1983-84
201,186
.27000
1984-85
200,278
.22454
1985-86
181,958
.18905
1986-87
186,780
.17616
1987-88
157,630
.14597
Amount Levied Levy Rate
$ 61,000
.09592
15,000
.02177
98,868
.13000
73,890
-------------
.08284
---------
-------------
50,000
---------
.04630
/`0
-1
s«
CITY CONFERENCE BOARD
FEBRUARY 10, 1986
Cit Conference Board: February 10, 1986, 6:30 P.M.
Mm ers a e.
'Ambrisco
in the Council
v c Center. Mayor Billpresiding.
Iowa Citiv Council Members Present: Ambrisco, Baker, Courtney,
'E' ono , tra t, u er.
Dickson,
i
Johnson Count Su erv[sors Present: Langenberg, Myers.
Iowa Ctt School Board Members Present:
Gjerde, Wooldrick.
Others resent: Hudson, Berlin
Karr Hellin 9' Timmins.
Tape Recorded Reel
d:
3j
86- C12, Side 2, 188-236.
Mayor Ambrisc0 stated that a
quorum was present.
The County
(;I 4
moved to accept the minutes of the last Conference Board
meeting, January 27, 1986, City seconded,
and it was passed, 3/0.
Mayor Ambrisco declared
U,-.l
the public hearing open. There being no
comment from the public, the public hearing was
� V
declared closed.
The City moved to adopt the
City Press Citizen on January 30, as secondeddbyntheeSIowa
a or
Mayor
Y Ambrisco
u
chool.
declared the motion carried, 2/0. The County vote 1
countesplit one to one, rendering
the vote a tie which can not be
There being no further business, it was moved by the Count
by the City, to adjourn at 6:35 i'
P.M. seconded
Motion carried unanimously, 3/0. I
l�
DaAkudsofn�/�V��
Clerk, Conference Board
s
i
i
I
.10�
IOWA CITY
CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
1986 ANNUAL REPORT
41
i
1986 REPORT
OFFICE OF IOWA CITY ASSESSOR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Iowa City Conference Board
Staff of City Aseessor's Office, Members oP
Board of Review and Examining Board
Report of CitY Assessor
Abstract for 1986 Iowa City Assessments
Exempt PropertY as of July 1, 1986
Comparison of Values with Rollback Applied
Comparison of Residential,
Values Commercial and Industrial
3
4-6
7
7
8-9
Top Taxpayers for Iowa cit 10-11
Y
comparative Millage Rates 12
Iowa City Assessors
13
Program Division Statement Fy X88
14-17
1
Apir
2
IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD
IOWA CITY - CITY COUNCIL
William Ambrisco, Mayor
Larry Baker
Darrel Courtney
Kate Dickson
John McDonald
George Strait
Ernest Zuber
IOWA CITY SCHOOL BOARD
Randy Jordison, President
Lynne Cannon
Craig Gjerde
Kathryn Penningroth
Orville Townsend
Ellen Widiss
David Wooldrick
JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Richard Myers, Chairperson
Harold Donnelly
Dennis Langenberg
Betty Ockenfels
Donald Sehr
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FINANCE
Gerald D. Bair - Director, Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance
Gene Eich - Administrator, Local Government Services -Division
Brian Bruner - Ass't Administrator & Supervisor, Assistance Sec.
STAFF OF CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
MEMBERS OF BOARD OF REVIEW AND EXAMINING BOARD
IOWA CITY, IOWA
1986
Dan L. Hudson
City Assessor
Dennis J. Baldridge
First Deputy
Carolyn R. Burke
Second Deputy
Jerry L. Denison
Plat Supervisor
Dorothy F. Gerdes
Clerk
IOWA CITY BOARD OF REVIEW
Gregory J. Downes, Chairman
William J. Doherty
Charles A. McComas, Jr.
Keith A. Wymore
Jack L. Yanaush
William F. White, Clerk
IOWA CITY EXAMINING BOARD
Alan R. Bohanan
D. Keith Borchert
Patricia Sueppel
LEGAL COUNSEL
Terrence L. Timmins - City Attorney
3
Appt. 1983 through 1988
Appt. 1985 through 1990
Appt. 1984 through 1989
Appt. 1986 through 1991
Appt. 1982 through 1987
Appt.
1982
through
1987
Appt.
1982
through
1987
Appt.
1986
through
1991
TO: Members of the Iowa City Conference Board
FROM: Dan L. Hudson, Iowa City Assessor
SUBJECT: 1986 Annual Report - Issued Dec. 29, 1986
The following report covers the activities of this office
from January 1, 1986 to date of issue.
VALUATIONS
Since 1986 was not a real estate revaluation year, the real
estate assessed values remained the same as 1985. There was
approximately 8 million dollars of new residential
construction, 7.5 million dollars of new commercial
construction and 2.5 million dollars of new industrial
construction added to the rolls for 1986. The 445
residential deed sales for the first 9 months of 1986 gives
us a median ratio (assessed value vs sales price) of 95.68
as compared to 96.28 for the whole year of 1985. This shows
that the selling prices of homes have increased very little
since last year.
1986 was the first year that we did not have to assess
;i personal property, therefore the total value for Iowa City
has decreased slightly. The state will reimburse local
jurisdictions for most of this lost value.
COURT CASES
There was 1 new appeal to District Court filed in 1986
involving 1 commercial property. Of the 16 appeals
j involving 22 parcels filed in 1985, 12 appeals involving 16
parcels were refiled in 1986. one appeal consisting of 2
residential parcels and one appeal for 1 commercial parcel
were heard during FY 186. The residential appeal resulted
in the courts upholding the Board of Review's and assessor's
value on one property and reducing the value on the other
property. The results of the commercial case is currently
being appealed due to the District Court's reduction in the
Board of Review's value.
The Board of Review was in session from May 1 through June 2,
the day of adjournment. The Board had 41 protests filed
with 19 being upheld and 22 denied. The total value of real
estate being protested was $18,150,523 with a total
requested reduction of $5,320,653. The Board allowed a
total reduction of $461,453. Included in this reduction was
a reduction of $112,853 to the agricultural land in Iowa
City to equalize it with the agricultural land in Johnson
County.
,r
i
CONTINUING EDUCATION
Continuing education is a requirement for the assessor and
deputies for their reappointment to their positions. I feel
it is also good for the other employees to attend some
classes so they can adequately respond to inquiries and
questions.
The Assessor attended the following courses and conferences
during 1986:
NCRAAO Conference
7.5
C.E.
hrs.
ISAA School of Instruction
10.5
C.E.
hrs.
IAAO Conference
---------
Iowa Legal Descriptions &
Boundary Law
5.0
C.E.
hrs.
IAAO Course 3- Written Appraisals
30.0
C.E.
hrs. T
The First Deputy attended the following courses and conferences
during 1986:
NCRAAO Conference 7.5 C.E. hrs.
ISAA Annual School of Instruction 10.5 C.E. hrs.
IAAO Course 3 -Written Appraisals 30.0 C.E. hrs. T
The Second Deputy attended the following courses and conferences
during 1986:
NCRAAO Conference 7.5 C.E. hrs.
ISAA Annual School of Instruction 10.5 C.E. hrs.
The Plat Supervisor attended the following course during 1986:
IDR Basic Assessment School 21.0 C.E. hrs.
5
/&F
NEW LEGISLATION
HF 497
-
724
- Bills dealing with procedures and technical
2229
- changes in tax laws and exemptions.
2471
-
HF 714 -
Allows the board of review to correct clerical
or mathmatical errors for previous years if the
taxes have not been paid.
r.
HF 2481 -
Allows the conference board to appoint two
additional temporary members to the board of
[
review if needed.
ti
SF 178 -
Allows the assessor to print assessment roll
xi
information on computer stock paper in years when
no changes in value have been made.
NN
s.
SF 557 -
Allows the Homestead Tax Credit to be signed
cc�
year-round instead of just from January 1 to July
1.
4f
�i
APPRECIATION
ai
}
My staff and I would like to thank the Conference Board, the
Board of Review, the City Attorney
and his assistants, and the
City Staff for their assistance, cooperation and confidence i
i;
during the
past year. I would also like to recognize and thank
MY staff
taining the
at this time for their part in establishing and main-
professional standards of the office.
i
6
TOTAL $ 454,407,598
7
/r
b�
1986 ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENT FOR IOWA CITY
Value of Agricultural land and structures
$
3,289,203
Value of Residential Dwellings on
Agricultural Realty
1,208,010
Value of Residential Lots & Buildings
734,394,558
Value of Commercial Lots & Buildings
376,014,043
Value of Industrial Lots & Buildings
31,458,600
is
Value of Industrial Machinery & Commercial
Equipment
as Real Estate
32,720,338
r
*Actual Value Of all Real Estate
XI
$1,179,084,752
* All the above values are based on the 1986
reported to the Iowa State
abstract as i
Department of Revenue July 1, 1986.
The 1986 values for Railroad and Utility Property
to the
are supplied
Auditor by the Iowa State Department of Revenue
not available
at this time. The value of
railroads in Iowa City for
and are
utilities and
1985 was $60,689,887.
EXEMPT PROPERTY IN IOWA CITY FOR 1986
Religious Institutions
25,433,980
Charitable and Benevolent Societies
%!
31, 367, 580
Educational Institutions
?-
Low Rent Housing
88,780
3,927,420
�i
Associations of War Veterans
Pollution Control
168,990
P
Forest and Fruit
56,250
Partial Industrial
239,201
University of Iowa (As
1,075,070
reported by SUI)
392,050,327
TOTAL $ 454,407,598
7
/r
b�
VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED
STATE STATE
YEAR ORDERS TYPE VALUE ROLLBACK
1978*
1979 - 8%
8%
+34%
+ 9%
1980
1981* +27$
1982
Agricultural
$ 2,168,341
Ag Dwellings
766,750
Residential
362,260,123
Commercial
174,322,260
Industrial
13,864,630
M. & E.
16,112,131
------------
TOTAL
$569,494,235
Agricultural
2,033,486
Ag Dwellings
707,627
Residential
500,939,124
Commercial
197,369,090
Industrial
14,286,490
M. & E.
20,434,123
TOTAL $735,769,940
Agricultural
1,951,348
Ag Dwellings
676,859
Residential
517,484,797
Commercial
203,280,646
Industrial
14,557,630
M. & E.
23,844,555
TOTAL
$761,795,835
Agricultural
2,709,516
Ag Dwellings
1,282,450
Residential
567,708,490
Commercial
241,461,259
Industrial
18,061,000
M. & E.
23,896,352
TOTAL
$855,119,067
Agricultural
2,715,327
Ag Dwellings
1,273,010
Residential
578,185,848
Commercial
248,471,689
Industrial
19,037,660
M. & E.
33,688,245
TOTAL $883,371,779
0
.962480
.962480
.782516
1.0
1.0
1.0
.946706
.946706
.643801
.889872
1.0
1.0
.990951
.990951
.667355
.931854
1.0
1.0
.957039
.647793
.647793
.878423
.969619
1.0
.995711
.672223
.672223
.916331
1.0
1.0
AW.
VALUE
$ 2,086,985
737,982
283,474,342
174,322,260
13,864,630
16,112,131
$490,598,330
1,925,113
669,915
322,505,109
175,633,227
14,286,490
20,434,123
$535,453,977
1,933,690
670,734
345,346,067
189,427,883
14,557,630
23,844,555
$575,780,559
2,593,112
830,762
367,757,586
212,105,124
17,512,289
23,896,352
$624,695,225
2,703,681
855,747
388,669,825
227,682,311
19,037,660
33,688,245
$672,637,469
%f
VALUE COMPARISONS CONT.
STATE
YEAR ORDER TYPE VALUE
STATE
ROLLBACK
AAT.
VALUE
1983* +36$ Agricultural 3,687,530
.865024
3,189,802
Ag Dwellings 1,458,620
Residential
.698754
1,019,217
665,822,880
Commercial 309,092,490
.698754
.917230
465,246401 j
,
283,508,905
Industrial 27,788,340
.974567
27,081,599
**M. & E. 31,053,824
1.0
31,053,824
TOTAL $1,038,903,684
$
811,099,748
1984 Agricultural 3,585,908
.900058
3,227,525
Ag Dwellings 1,480,660
.724832
1,073,244
Residential 686,797,678
.724832
497,812,935
Nj
Commercial 334,805,992
.954242
319,485,939
Industrial 28,430,500
1.0
28,430,500
**M. & E. 28,913,025
1.0
28,913,025
TOTAL $1,084,013,783
$
878,943,168
r.
1985* Agricultural 3,503,787
.935922
3,279,271
Ag Dwellings 1,269,610
.756481
960 436
Residential 724,508 730
,
,089
-
Commercial 369,476,553
Industrial
.987948
365,023,621
29,145,510
**M. & E.
1.0
29,145,510
29,306,071
1.0
29,306,071
TOTAL $1,157,210,261
$
975,791,998
i
_!
1986 Agricultural 3,289,203
1.0
3,289,2 03
Ag Dwelling 1,208,010
Residential
.773604
93 521
r,
734,394,558
Commercial 376,014,043
.773604
1.0
568,130,568
Industrial 31,458,600
1.0
376,014,043
31,458,600
**M. & E. 32,720,338
1.0
32,720,338
__-
TOTAL $1,179,084,752
$1,012,547,273
i.
The adj. values given are not exact but are
meant to give
a representation of the growth of Iowa City's
tax base.
* Reassessment year
**New acquisitions of computers and industrial machinery
assessed
at 30% of cost beginning in 1983.
9
;�w
COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL
ASSESSED VALUES
APT
OTHER
YEAR
RESIDENTIAL
_
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
&
1978
362,260,123
60.3
1979
500,939,124
65.3
i
1980
517,484,797
65.3
5'
I
1981
567,708,490
64.1
E".
1982
578,185,848
63.2
99,388,876
10.9
149,082,813
16.3
1983
665,822,880
62.2
125,352,040
11.7
183,740,450
17.2
1984
686,797,678
61.0
141,599,710
12.6
193,206,282
17.2
is
1985
724,508,730
60.2
62,129,009
13.5
207,347,544
17.2
1986
734,394,558
61.4
165,055,059
13.8
210,958,986
17.6
TAXABLE
VALUES
i'
1978
283,474,342
54.3
1979
322,505,109
56.9
1980
345,346,067
56.9
1981
367,757,586
56.1
v.
1982
388,669,825
55.2
91,073,108
12.9
136,609,203
19.4
1983
465,246,401
55.2
114,976,652
13.7
168,532,253
20.0
1984
497,812,935
54.1
135,120,390
14.7
184,365,549
20.0
1985
548,077,089
53.6
160,175,030
15.7
204,848,591
20.0
1986
568,130,568
55.2
165,055,059
16.0
210,958,986
20.5
* Prior
to 1982 the
breakdown of commercial
apt.
& commercial
other
** Personal Property
is no
longer included
in this
total.
10
AND INDUSTRIAL VALUES
TOTAL
%
COMMERCIAL_
-_
25,863,855
174,322,260
29.0
197,369,090
25.8
203,280,646
25.6
241,461,259
27.2
248,471,689
27.2
309,092,490
28.9
334,805,992
29.8
369,476,553
30.7
376,014,043
31.4
174,322,260 33.4
175,633,227 31.0
189,427,883 31.2
212,105,124 32.3
227,682,311 32.3
283,508,905 33.7
319,485,939 34.7
365,023,621 35.7
376,014,043 36.5
INDUSTRIAL
%
OTHER
-_
25,863,855
4.3
38,176,534
6.4
29,942,864
3.9
38,647,401
5.0
31,514,293
4.0
40,644,636
5.1
33,244,551
3.8
43,861,768
4.9
42,764,895
4.7
45,128,282
4.9
51,406,480
4.8
43,709,714
4.1
60,793,394
5.4
42,534,924
3.8
67,615,591
5.6
41,954,152
3.5
74,181,825
6.2
11,443,811
1.0 **
25,863,855 5.0
29,942,864 5.3
31,514,293 5.2
32,695,840 5.0
42,764,895 6.1
50,699,739 6.0
60,793,394 6.6
67,615,591 6.6
74,181,825 7.2
38,066,410
7.3
38,501,316
6.8
401620,853
6.7
43,293,676
6.6
441699,373
6.4
42,772,586
5.1
42,176,541
4.6
41,420,462
4.1
11,170,322
1.1 **
is not available, total commercial value is shown.
11
1986 TOP TAXPAYERS
EXCLUDING UTILITIES ASSESSED BY
THE STATE
RANK
NAMETAXABLE
1
James & Loreettta Clark
2
$14,956,694 �
Procter & Gamble
3
14,242,497
Old Capitol Center Mall
4
11,792,250 i
Owens Brush
x
5
9,951,507
American Co llege Testing
i
6
9,923,894
�!
H.P. Smith
7
8,426,745
Holiday Inn
:.
8
7,903,730
Seville Corp.
9
7,062,012
?-'
Sycamore Mall
10
6,752,640
N.C.S. Learning Corp.
11
6,495,707
^?
Sheller -Globe
12
6,350,026
Southgate Development
13
6,094,965
Thomas & Betts
l�
14
Moore
5,9671948
Business Forms
15
5,952,088
H.J. Heinz
16
5,108,056
Lakeside Apartments
r
17
4,649,630 ;!I
Mark IV Investors
18
4,502,31-
'
Bon -Aire & Tom Alberhasky
19
4,467,468
Hawkeye Real Estate Investment
4,232,995
20
Iowa state Bank
21
4,088,480
HyVee
22
3,809,520
Edwin & Ethel Barker
23
3,429,980
Towncrest Investment Assoc.
24
3,382,912
Ken, Shirley & Kurt Ranshaw
3,334,267
25
Highlander Partnership
3,275,300
12
w
Mr
COMPARISON OF TAX RATE PER THOUSAND AS COMPILED BY THE CITY
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, DES MOINES, IOWA.
CITY TAX RATE PAYABLE IN:
13
w�
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
I
I
I
AMES
25.88125
26.91170
26.76482 �
f
BOONE
38.22322
35.25653
34.83126
CEDAR RAPIDS
32.13690
31.43024
31.46124
CLINTON
31.54276
31.14527
30.41426
1
DAVENPORT
34.05818
34.00984
34.76404
DES MOINES
36.86194
37.60348
38.78640
i
DUBUQUE
33.77372
33.74401
33.09961
yr„
FT. DODGE
32.26694
31.95539
32.28426
FT. MADISON
28.40058
28.91496
29.29671
IOWA CITY
27.64801
27.48065
27.35531
KEOKUE
33.64070
32.71196
33.96449 i
MARSHALLTOWN
32.89499
32.06193
31.09215
MASON CITY
28.01799
28.53992
27.94207
NEWTON
30.61077
30.06012
31.92587
i
SIOUX CITY
38.10312
37.85616
37.89929
WATERLOO
32.01984
32.18182
33.64113
i
13
w�
IOWA CITY ASSESSORS PROGRAM DIVISION STATEMENT FY 188
DIVISION PURPOSE:
The Purpose Of the Iowa City Assessors Office is to find, list
and value for tax purposes, all real and personal property in
Iowa city and maintain records for all parcels in Iowa City.
DIVISION GOALS:
To establish values on all commercial industrial, agricultural
and residential property within the Ci
equitable manner based on actual physi 'y Of Iowa City in the most
cal aspects of the property
and all the pertinent sales data available; to improve the
efficiency by which these assessments are made; to Provide prompt
and courteous response to all inquiries for information.
GENERAL DIVISION OBJECTIVES:
1. Receive calls and inquiries and dispense information
efficiently and on a timely basis.
2. Complete all daily record changes and related duties as
received.
3. On a quarterly basis
review in the field all new con-
struction and demolitions and by January 1, 1988 make
final review of said construction and demolition'
4.
Prepare forms and get signatures for all new homestead
and military credits by July 1, 1988.
5. Remove all homestead and military credits from the
Permanent file for those who are no longer to receive
the credit by July 1, 1988.
6. Prepare and got signatures On all other new annua
making sure forms,
they are in compliance with all lawls and
rules, by their statutory dates.
7. Receive and review tentative equalization orders from
the State Department of Revenue in August, 1987.
14
AW
-I
GENERAL DIVISION OBJECTIVES CONT
8•
Receive final equalization orders October
1, , 1987.
Accept formal written protests for the
Special
Board of Review
Session from October 15 to October 25,
coordinate the Board 1987
of Review s and
pecial Session from
October 15 to November
15, 1987.
10.
Accept formal written Protests for the Board of Review
from April 16 to May
of Review meetings durin19y and coordinate the Board
May y 1988.
11.
Hold preliminary meetings and
the annual budget b Public hearings to adopt
9 March
y 15, 1988.
ei 12•
prepare and submit annual abstract by July 1,
13.
1988.
Prepare and distribute to
Conference Board members the
annual report by December 31, 1987.
NEW DIVISION
OBJECTIVES:
1•
Continue the Program started in 1985 in which
we are
wassunable tosinspect ithe terties
onVanguard
onthe Interior.
2•
Input property record card data on the new valuation
program so that in the
future our residential
computations can be computer
generated.
3•
Design and implement
computer. programs on the office micro-
4•
hs
Review sales as they occur to keep our values at the
mandated level.
5.
Look into acquiring new mapping to replace our antiquated
and deteriorating mapping. This
would be a joint effort
With the Johnson County Assessor
be
and the mapping would
used by the Johnson County Auditor along with the
staff of Iowa City
and Johnson County.
4<
15
,w
1
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS:
The median sales ratio (median) is the middle sales ratio and a
measure of the % of our assessment to the actual sales prices.
The coefficient of dispersion (C.O.D.) is a measure of assessment
uniformity based on the degree to which individual sales ratios
vary from the median sales ratio.
The goal of the Iowa City Assessor is to keep this C.O.D.
below 10. A C.O.D. Of 10 is considered excellent and
attained each year by only 3 to 5% of the 113 assessing
Jurisdictions in Iowa.
The following table shows the median, C.O.D., and the number of
deed sales for Iowa City residential property since the
assessments went to the 100% level in 1975.
*Data based on 1st 9 months only.
16
/r
I=
MEDIAN
C.O.D.
NO, OF SALES
Assessment year
1975
87.10
10.36
682
1976
76.30
11.38
681
1977
65.10
12.10
840
Assessment year
1978
74.70
9.83
639
State orders
1979
91.80
9.40
551
1980
87.85
8.69
394
Assessment year
1981
88.90
8.74
393
1982
87.30
9.38
299
Assessment year
1983
94.00
7.19
544
1984
92.65
7.97
447
Assessment year
1985
96.15
8.27
448
*1986
95.57
8.78
445
*Data based on 1st 9 months only.
16
/r
The fallowing is a tabulation of the commercial properties
for the same period.
i
Because of the small number of sales, one or two bad sales
can greatly influence the performance measurements,
therefore creating more fluctuation in the measurements.
DIVISION ANALYSIS:
While the program division statement is on the fiscal year, the
remainder of the annual report is based on the assessment year
which is the calendar year. The annual report has more meaning
when based on the assessment year, since the state equalization
orders come in a different fiscal year than the biennial
reappraisal which the orders are to equalize.
17
'0
YEAR
MEDIAN
C.O.D.
N0. OF SALES
Assessment year
1975
84.30
19.75
14
1976
72.30
13.19
18
1977
62.90
28.20
27
I�
Assessment year
1978
84.60
13.49
12 ,
State orders
1979
78.00
16.66
15
1980
80.85
22.69
12
Assessment year
1981
87.55
10.07
14
1982
78.00
10.25
8
Assessment year
1983
87.85
10.58
26
1984
80.32
18.16
14
Assessment year
1985
82.00
12.63
16
*1986
94.28
9.21
13
*First 9 months
only.
i
i
Because of the small number of sales, one or two bad sales
can greatly influence the performance measurements,
therefore creating more fluctuation in the measurements.
DIVISION ANALYSIS:
While the program division statement is on the fiscal year, the
remainder of the annual report is based on the assessment year
which is the calendar year. The annual report has more meaning
when based on the assessment year, since the state equalization
orders come in a different fiscal year than the biennial
reappraisal which the orders are to equalize.
17
'0
FY88 BUDGET DISCUSSION/ INFORMAL COUNCIL MEETING
January 19, 1987
FY88 Dud et Discussion/Informal Council Meeting: 5:30 P.M. at the Highlander
T ayor Ambrisco press mai g
Council Present: Ambrisco, Strait, Zuber, Dickson, McDonald, Courtney,
Baker.
Staff Present: Atkins, Melling, Karr, Vitosh, O'Malley, Kimble, Moen.
Tape-recording: Reel 87-C1, Side 2, 1 -End; 87-C3, Side 1, 1 -End, Side 2,
1-59.
Ambrisco stated the purpose of this meeting was for all Councilmembers to
discuss the City Manager's proposed FY88 budget.
City Manager Atkins presented a summary of the critical issues associated
with the budget and with long-term financial planning. Atkins noted over 300
copies of the Citizens' Summary - 1987-88 Proposed Budget City of Iowa City.
Atkins used the following overhead projection transparencies as a basis for
discussion:
F.
FY88 BUDGET ISSUES
LACK OF UMBRELLA LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE. Atkins said this year's
budget will have $1 million of coverage and a $400,000 reserve fund to pro-
tect the City against any liabilities.
USE OF SPECIAL RESERVE FUNDS TO MEET THE MAINTENANCE/OPERATIONAL NEEDS.
Atkins referred to Councilmembers to page 10 of the Citizens' Summary. Atkins
said the use of the Parkland Acquisition Fund, Recreational Facilities Fund
and Perpetual Care Trust Fund will not place the City in any significant
financial jeopardy. In response to Strait, Atkins stated that the Parkland
Acquisition Fund will have a balance of an estimated $300,000 at the end of
the current fiscal year. Atkins proposed monies used from the special re-
serve funds be repaid over an estimated five year period.
PURCHASE OF MAJOR, EQUIPMENT IN FIRE DEPARTMENT FROM CURRENT REVENUES -
$450,000. Atkins referred Councilmembers to page 8, Citizens' Summary.
Atkins said about $40,000 for the purchase of the fire equipment, will come
out of current revenues and approximately $450,000 is available from the
Federal revenue sharing balance for the fire truck. Atkins proposed the City
begin a depreciation reserve in FY89 for fire apparatus.
NO BUILDINGS/FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PLANNED DUE TO AN INABILITY TO FUND.
Atkins stated the City cannot afford any building/facility improvements.
ADDITIONAL VOTED EXPENDITURES (POOLS) WHILE EXPERIENCING DECLINING REVENUE
CAPACITY. Atkins explained $37,000 of General fund monies is currently
budgeted for pool operating expenses in FY88 and $80,000 in FY89.
GENERAL FUND RESERVES TOO LOW, JEOPARDIZE OUR ABILITY TO RESPOND TO A CRISIS
OR OPPORTUNITY. Atkins said the City's General Fund position is too low.
r-,
-7
MINUTES
FY88 BUDGET DISCUSSION/INFORMAL COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 19, 1987
PAGE 2
SEVERE REDUCTIONS IN TRANSIT SERVICE AND FINANCIAL AID TO SOCIAL SERVICE
AGENCIES - SERVICE REDUCTION IN LIBRARY HOURS. Atkins referred Council -
members to pages 13 and 14, Citizens' Summary. Atkins said estimated reduc-
tions are $400,000 for Transit, $65-$70,000 for social service agencies, and
$56,000 for Library services.
REDUCE CAPITAL BOND INSURANCE CAPABILITY. Atkins said a $1.3 million bond
issue is anticipated for the FY88 budget and debt service is 22% of the
City's total levy (the limit is 25% of the total levy).
NO TAX CAPACITY TO FUND SERVICE INCREASED PROPOSALS. Atkins said the City's
current General tax rate is 7.1%; State law imposes an 8.1% limit. Atkins
noted the City had capital outlay at $1.3 million and service cuts of
$550,000 and no new capital programs are planned.
ADDITIONAL LOSSES IN STATE AND FEDERAL SUPPORT. Atkins said the City re-
ceived $170,000 in Federal transit operating assistance, $300,000 from the
Federal government for the capital assistance program, $700,000 in COBB
funds, and $340,000 from the State Municipal Assistance Program. Atkins
stated that all of those programs could be jeopardized by Congressional
and/or legislative changes. Atkins noted a higher degree of State regulation
is anticipated regarding the City's landfill operations.
Strait asked Ambrisco for comments regarding the City's insurance coverage.
Ambrisco said the City's implementation of risk management practices and
internal safety measures have been beneficial to the City. Ambrisco said the
City's liability limits are too low but there are ways to handle large ^,
losses. Ambrisco said the City's bonding capacity could be jeopardized if
liability limits are not sufficient. Ambrisco noted the lack of liability
coverage is cyclical and things are being done to mitigate the problems.
In response to Strait, Atkins said it would be policy that money borrowed
from the Parkland Acquisition Fund would be repaid under a five year repay-
ment schedule.
Strait asked Council if there could be a discussion about increase in transit
fares to 75 cents. Atkins said staff can prepare information about the
impact of raising transit fares to 75 cents. Ambrisco stated ridership on
City buses declined by 15% two months ago and 19% last month. McDonald said
the possibility of increasing transit fares should be discussed before final
decisions about the transit systems are made.
ASSESSED VALUATION
Atkins reviewed valuations on assessments 1980 through 1986 compared with
growth in the CPI for those same years. Atkins said the CPI grew at a
greater rate than the assessed valuation during many of the years. Atkins
raised concerns that with an increase in inflation, expenditures will out-
strip the City's ability to raise revenues.
S-2,
MINUTES
FY88 BUDGET DISCUSSION/INFORMAL COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 19, 1987
PAGE 3
WOULD MAXIMUM PROPERTY TAX LEVY PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO MEET ALL BUDGET
E S
Atkins stated if levies were increased to the maximum in FY88, residential
property tax would increase 32 percent and all budget requests would still
not be funded.
GENERAL FUND
Atkins presented an overview for the General Fund, including budgets, person-
nel, commodities, service charges, capital outlay, transfers and contingency.
Atkins explained the major increases in capital outlay is due to fire equip-
ment, park projects and police cars.
CITY EMPLOYEES
Atkins said City employees make major contributions to the area's economy.
PROPERTY TAX
Atkins said a homeowner would pay an additional $63 in property taxes in
FY88, based on an average residential home valued at ;68,450.
AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
Atkins used a comparison of assessed valuation and City taxes to demonstrate
taxes as a percentage of valuation/wealth. Atkins said that taxes as a
percentage of valuation has not changed dramatically over the years.
PORTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Atkins said the chart demonstrates the portion of a person's income that is
devoted to the purchase of City services has not dramatically changed over
the years. Zuber noted additional fees charged by the City such as for water
and sewer are additional burden on a household income. In response to
Strait, Atkins said the impact on a person living on a fixed income should
not have changed dramatically because the cost -of -living increases to social
security are nearly the same as the increases in the CPI over those years.
i. FY88 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Atkins presented a chart demonstrating FY88 project costs and FY88 GO bond
issues for the FY88 CIP.
AID TO AGENCIES
McDonald raised concerns about reducing the aid to agencies as proposed by
the City Manager. Zuber stated not all of the human service agencies should
be cut by 40 percent and agencies should not be treated equally. Atkins
stated an additional $70,000 would be needed to raise the aid to agencies
allocations to meet the FY87 funding level. Courtney noted that some of the
agencies received other funding contingent on the amount of funding received
-1
MINUTES
FY88 BUDGET DISCUSSION/INFORMAL COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 19, 1987
PAGE 4
from the City. McDonald stated joint human service funding hearings have
improved the process to determine funding levels by City, County and United
Hay. McDonald stated the aid to agencies should be at least maintained at
the same level of funding as last year. In response to Ambrisco, McDonald
stated the City has funded the majority of the agencies since 1977. Council
agreed the FY88 appropriation for the aid to agencies budget should be estab-
lished at the FY87 amount, $189,509.
Zuber referred to the FY88 Bud et Issues Chart and stated that "service
reduction in library hours sou not be included because Council did not
take any action on that issue.
i
Courtney inquired about the proposed recreation facilities capital programs
expenditure. Atkins said the items are capital expenditures. Courtney stated
items such as picnic tables and playground equipment will eventually need to
be replaced. In response to Courtney, Vitosh explained funds for those types
of expenditures have not been allocated on an annual basis. Courtney in-
quired about Council's policy regarding the use of the Parkland Acquisition
Fund. Courtney stated Council should discuss the use of that fund if changes
are saidi
made.
is staff discussed hehotel/motel
recommended thattheParklandAcquisitionFundprovide $90,000 for
park items and the Recreational Facilities Fund provide $58,500 for the
Recreation Center programs. In response to Courtney, Vitosh said that
$90,000 is not part of the 15 percent allocation from the hotel/motel tax.
Vitosh explained. the Parkland Acquisition Fund is larger than the Recrea-
tional Facilities Fund because the sales proceeds from Central Junior High
School land and Elm Grove Park was put in the Parkland Acquisition Fund.
Vitosh said a portion of the proceeds from the hotel/motel tax is put into
the Parkland Acquisition Fund. McDonald explained Council has decided to put
10% of the hotel/motel tax allocations into the Parkland Acquisition Fund.
Baker noted the proposed FY88 budget does not include a transfer of $10,000
from the General Fund to the Parkland Acquisition Fund.
In response to Baker, Atkins said a multi-year capital plan for parks and
recreation has not been developed and the proposed use of reserve funds for
capital expenditures is a one-time expenditure. Baker referred to page 20 of
the proposed CIP and stated it is proposed to use monies available in the
parkland acquisition reserve for the FY89 Scott Boulevard project. Vitosh
said Parks and Recreation Division has discussed using the Parkland Acquisi-
tion Fund for development of parkland. Baker said the Council needs to
discuss any changes in the parkland acquisition reserve policy. McDonald
said it is not a major shift in policy to use monies from the Parkland Acqui-
sition Fund for a one-time expenditure. Vitosh stated there needs to be an
ongoing program for maintenance and replacement of park and recreation equip-
ment.
In response to McDonald, Vitosh stated $20,000 of the hotel/motel tax annual
revenues are put into the Parkland Acquisition Fund. Melling said Council
had not intended to use the Recreational Facilities Fund for expenses in the
park, but to use the fund for construction of recreation facilities, espe-
cially a swimming pool. Council agreed to the City Manager's recommendation
to use the Parkland Acquisition Fund to provide $90,000 and the Recreational
MINUTES
FY88 BUDGET DISCUSSION/ INFORMAL COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 19, 1987
PAGE 5
Facilitis ous
ms on a
one-timeebasis dOnly. prAtkins ;stated a memorandum 58,500 to fund irelated itolbudgea
to budget policies
established by Council will be prepared upon adoption of the budget.
Baker inquired about the proposed purchase of fire equipment. Atkins stated
information regarding the purchase of fire equipment is located on page eight
of the Citizen's Summary. Strait asked what happens to appropriated monies
that are unspent because of the City's receiving lower than anticipated bids.
Vitosh stated it is being proposed to use Federal Revenue Sharing monies for
the purchase of fire equipment and unspent monies would be reallocated to the
Federal Revenue Sharing fund. Atkins said the money could then be reappro-
priated. Council discussed purchasing used fire equipment and renovating
existing fire equipment. In response to Baker, Atkins said there was
$450,000 in the Federal Revenue Sharing account. Atkins explained the Gen-
eral Fund will be used for the other $40,000 of fire equipment expenditures.
Baker asked what is meant by decertification. Atkins said the ladder trucks
must be annually certified, the 1948 truck is no longer able to pass'certifi-
cation requirements, and the 1971 truck needs a new drive train. Ambrisco
noted that if fire equipment is not certified to satisfy the Underwriter's
Laboratory, a change in the City's fire rate may occur. Baker suggested
asking Coralville to contribute to the cost of a new fire truck. Atkins
stated he will contact Coralville regarding future plans to purchase fire
equipment. Vitosh said a replacement schedule has been prepared for fire
equipment and the rehabilitation of the 1971 truck is scheduled for FY89.
Baker asked when the proposed changes in transit will be discussed. Atkins
said discussion with boards and commission is scheduled for Monday, January
26. Baker asked that a representative from the Airport Commission attend
Monday's meeting. In response to McDonald, Atkins stated information can be
prepared on the effect of 60 cents to 75 cents transit fare. Atkins explained
insurance costs were assigned to transit to show an accurate cost of the
expense of operating transit. Vitosh said insurance costs were assigned to
rprise Fund: parking, sewer, water, landfill and the
departments in the Entebeen
limit. McDonald yexpla explained C Council established has sixpercent
asked thie t raised
tax
increase. Atkins said there remains $60,000 worth of additional levying
capacity. Baker asked what savings have occurred by assigning maintenance
costs from the Equipment Division into the Transit Division. Atkins said the
equipment maintenance was reduced to $550,000 and a formal cost accounting
system will be established to accurately identify all costs. Vitosh said the
actual cost of maintaining buses would be billed to Transit. Vitosh said
et
ythis ear obtainTransit
three buses and elinext
m nate five edd three buses and gmore�buses.d of Atkins e old bsaid 27uses dbuses
are needed to maintain the transi�hssch dolesHel ma
ilinnance said ap ogr msm onnumber
of buses are needed to keep up preventive
buses.
the
Strait inquired about the reduction of Transit personnel.
osedtkins and thedCity
reduction of nine full-time equivalent positions is proposed
would meet with AFSCME representatives to determine how those positions would
re ion about
eliminated
Atkins stated that he will preai bers. �nZubertsuggested thatice if
reductions in programs proposedby Council mem
1_ 1;L1
r
MINUTES
FY88 BUDGET DISCUSSION/ INFORMAL COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 19, 1987
PAGE 6
a Council member wants to make an addition to the budget, that Council member
should also propose a way to fund that addition. Baker asked when Council
will discuss additional sources of revenue. Atkins said Council should seek
input from a citizens' advisory group regarding implementation of various
means to raise additional revenues. McDonald said a citizens' group should be
established now. Ambrisco asked Council members to submit names for the
citizens' group and stated Council will appoint the Committee. Zuber in-
quired about changes in fee schedules. Vitosh said the fee schedules will be
reviewed and recommendations will be made to Council before the start of the
next fiscal year. Baker suggested contacting area legislators to discuss
local tax options. Ambrisco stated he is meeting with area legislators tomor-
row at a legislative conference.
Courtney stated the City Clerk request for audio equipment should be given
consideration. Karr stated preliminary estimates of $7,500 for the audio
equipment have been received; the taping of Council meetings is required by
law; and better equipment would improve record-keeping.
Meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
rw
I
JOINT MEETING OF THE IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL
AND JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
January 21, 1987
Joint meeting of the Iowa C
and
Board
u ng, econd F1oor.y'Chairperson Ockenfelsapresidingnty Administration.
Council present: Ambrisco, Courtney, Dickson, McDonald, Strait, Zuber.
Absent: Baker.
Supervisors present: Ockenfels, Donnelly, Sehr, Myers. Absent: Burns.
Board of Supervisor Ockenfels called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
The following items were discussed:
SCOTT BOULEVARD/LOCAL ROAD UPDATE:
Myers stated the County and State still have disagreement regarding
$140,000 of funding for the project. Atkins said City staff is proceeding
with the planning of the project; negotiations are being held with three
property owners to obtain right-of-way; the City anticipates selling a
bond in the City's upcoming budget to fund the City's share of the pro-
ject; and BDI's serious financial problems may impact on the project.
Ambrisco said the Board and Council are in agreement on the project and it
is vital to economic development for the area. Myers noted the Board of
Supervisors has concerns that the original engineer's estimate for the
right-of-way purchase of the County's portion is under -estimated.
Ambrisco stated the City Council still wants to proceed with the project.
HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING:
McDonald said the joint hearings involving the City, County, and United
way have taken place and the subcommittee has scheduled a meeting on
Friday, January 30, at 7:00 a.m. to formulate recommendations.
HOSPICE FUNDING:
Ockenfels said this is the first year Hospice has requested funding from
the County, City, and United Way and duplication of services by Hospice
and VNA need to be addressed. Ockenfels suggested the City and County
adopt a policy to not fund Hospice and ask them to meet with VNA to coor-
dinate services. Ockenfels emphasized Hospice is a very good agency, but
proposed changes involving the Medicare Program and duplication of serv-
ices should be discussed. Penney noted the Hospice client load had in-
creased dramatically. Sehr noted the Hospice proposed use of the Medicare
Program could increase paperwork and staff requirements. Ockenfels sug-
gested the Joint Human Services Subcommittee study the Hospice funding
request. McDonald asked Penney to prepare information about Hospice's
proposed changes and the impact on other programs.
ml
MINUTES
JOINT MEETING OF THE
AND JOHNSON COUNTY
JANUARY 21, 1987
PAGE 2
IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
JOINT HUMAN SERVICE FACILITY:
McDonald distributed information regarding interest in a joint human
service facility. McDonald proposed that the County and City consider
purchasing St. Patrick's Elementary School for the use of a joint human
service facility. McDonald said long-term savings and a more efficient
delivery of service could result from the establishment of a joint facil-
ity.
Ambrisco asked if any of the five agencies listed as the most probable
prospects to benefit from a joint facility would require the use of the
building seven days a week. Penney said none of the agencies listed are
open and serving the public on weekends on a regular basis. In response
to Ambrisco, McDonald said St. Patrick's has not appraised the property.
McDonald guessed the property would cost an estimated $300,000, but there
would be additional costs associated with renovation and making the build-
ing handicapped accessible. In response to McDonald, Atkins said the City
staff could do a preliminary site review of the property. Myers suggested
involving United Way with the project. The City Council and Board of
Supervisors agreed to the concept of purchasing the St. Patrick's property
for the use as a joint human services facility.
SLOTHOWER ROAD:
Sehr stated the City Council has decided to not improve Slothower Road.
Ambrisco said the City decided to not improve Slothower Road because of
liability concerns and the $100,000 cost estimation by the City Engineer.
Myers stated the road is currently being used and liability exists for the
City of Iowa City. Sehr said it would cost $10,000 to make the road
adequate for traffic. Myers asked if the City could adopt rules relating
to limited liability roads. Schmeiser said the City distinguishes between
classes of roads by establishing load limits. Melling stated the City
Engineer developed minimum standards for road improvements for anticipated
traffic level of 250 to 450 vehicles per day and the $104,000 cost estima-
tion was based on those standards. Schmeiser explained that the City did
not want to incur the cost of several thousand dollars to improve the road
to the required minimum standards when expansion in that area of the city
is not needed. Schmeiser raised concerns about the City's liability by
accepting a road that is less than city standards. Councilmembers agreed
to look at the road.
ISSUANCE OF HOUSE MOVER PERMITS FOR BUILDING MOVED FROM IOWA CITY TO
Sehr asked Iowa City to inform the County when permits are issued to allow
house movers to move buildings from Iowa City to the County.
SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET TRAFFIC PATTERNS:
The Board of Supervisors requested the City allow two-way traffic to the
east of their building on South Dubuque Street. In response to Myers,
Atkins said he will direct the City Traffic Engineer to review the traffic
MINUTES
JOINT MEETING OF THE IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL
AND JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
JANUARY 21, 1987
PAGE 3
patterns on South Dubuque Street and prepare a report. The Board of
Supervisors and Councilmembers discussed current traffic patterns in the
area, the cement island at Benton and Dubuque streets, and the City's
construction plans to widen the Benton Street bridge.
The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
fJ
C7
N,1
1.4
yl
tf�
tZ.,f
T.�
:}1
�l
L`)
f)
r;t
P'1
Y(;
}t;ia
A