HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-07 Info PacketCITY OF IOWA CITY
CHIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY. ICWL 32240 P419)356-5000
April 1, 1987
Mr. Pat Grady, Executive Vice President
Greater Iowa City Chamber of Conmerce
P.O.Box 2358
Iowa City, Iowa 52244
Dear Pat:
Enclosed is a memorandum which outlines some of our thinking with re-
spect to the upcoming laser technology application in our community.
Please feel free to distribute this memorandum as you see fit. It
had been my intent that the Chamber of Conmerce Committee on Economic
Development might be a mechanism to encourage community participation
in this policy proposal as well as other related issues associated
with laser technology.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen J. Atkins
City Manager
bj2/8
cc: City Council
Patt Cain
Jerald Barnard
_1
i
fjKt(;EDING.
DOCUMENT
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CNIC CENTER 410 E WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY. ICW.:-. 52240 (3 19) 356-5000
April I, 1987
Mr. Pat Grady, Executive Vice President
Greater Iowa City Chamber of Commerce
P.O.Box 2358
Iowa City, Iowa 52244
Dear Pat:
Enclosed is a memorandum which outlines some of our thinking with re-
spect to the upcoming laser technology application in our community.
Please feel free to distribute this memorandum as you see fit. It
had been my intent that the Chamber of Commerce Committee on Economic
Development might be a mechanism to encourage community participation
in this policy proposal as well as other related issues associated
with laser technology.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen J. Atkins
City Manager
bj2/8
cc: City Council
Patt Cain
Jerald Barnard
zu
_.I
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
_I
Date: April 1, 1987
To: Economic Development Committee, Greater Iowa City Area Chamber of
Commerce
From: Stephen Atkins, City Manager
Re: Job Opportunities Resulting from New Laser Facility
Recently, I requested Patt Cain, the City's Economic Development Coordinator,
to perform a cursory investigation into the types and qualifications of
possible spin-off job opportunities as a result of the new laser facility at
the University. I was particularly concerned about the possible influence
the laser facility might have on the City's economic development policies, as
well as the policies of other community organizations. Patt has reviewed the
methodology used by the University to estimate the number of jobs and while
we do not go into detail, the following represents the basic hypothesis:
1. At least 800,000 new jobs should be created in laser -based industries in
the United States during the period of 1991 through the year 2000; and
2. With the University laser center in operation, the State of Iowa would be
able to attract its fair share (based on population) of approximately
1.5% of these new jobs, i.e, around 12,000 jobs. Note: These "new jobs"
in laser -based industries are not net new jobs in the national economy.
Other jobs will become obsolete as the new technology is adopted.
Although the number of jobs created is highly speculative, we believe that it
is important for the community to identify both the types of jobs to be
created and the skills that might be necessary for such jobs. This is also
important to our comnunity's economic forecasting and other policy initia-
tives. Attached to this memorandum is a copy of a paper prepared by Profes-
sor Jerald Barnard, in which he estimates the economic impact of the new
laser center on Iowa's economy. To the best of our knowledge, these esti-
mates have not been widely quoted but represent an attempt to quantify the
economic effects of the laser center operation. We believe that a success-
ful economic policy involves job training and therefore would like to suggest
a two-pronged strategy.
1. In a rather pragmatic approach, that is, if lasers are to be used in any
field, someone must be trained to operate and maintain them. In a
Newsweek magazine article in 1982, the following two occupations were
estimated for 1990. They are: industrial laser processing - 600,000
jobs; and laser holographic and optical fiber maintenance -200,000 jobs.
A step toward a satisfactory job training policy as a part of overall
economic development would be to assure that training exists, locally, to
provide for the operation and maintenance of laser -based
Instruments/machines. We understand that Hawkeye Institute of Technology
(a community college in Waterloo) offers a course for "laser technicians"
F/,
2
__T
or operators. To the best of our knowledge, no such program exists in
the area and therefore it may now be important to consider such a pro-
gram.
2. There should be some mechanism
opportunities, .of assessing current and upcoming job
and then tailor training to these opportunities. In
Michigan, the Uownriver Community Conference canvasses businesses to
identify job opportunities and develops course offerings to fit antici-
pated needs. This program is particularly important in that it also
includes trainees who might not qualify, due to prior education, for a
community college entrance. Given the uncertainty of the specific laser
applications that may be established here in Iowa City, I believe that
this approach may have some merit.
This job training policy proposal is overly -broad but hopefully it will
initiate discussions so that our community can be better prepared for the new
technologies.
i
/sP
cc: City Council
Patt Cain
Jerald Barnard
4411
Estimated Economic Impact of the Proposed
New University of Iowa Laser Center
on the Iowa Economy
Jerald Barnard
Professor of Economics
A. Pur se
This report provides background information on the estimated economic
impact of the new University of Iowa Laser Center on the Iowa economy to the
year 2000. The estimated economic impact has two distinct parts that are
considered:
1. The Laser Center's operations impact which Includes the flow of
government, foundation, and corporate sector research grants and
contracts to The University of Iowa; and
2. The economic benefits that flow from the research findings In the
form of new technologies 'products, and services.
The economic impact of the Laser Center's operations can be estimated
using the methodology employed in a recent study of the impact of the
University of Iowa operations on the Iowa economyl. Laser -related
research has grown consistently since the establishment of the Iowa Laser
Center in 1979. The proposed plan for expansion of laser activities in the
Center in terms of physical facilities, additions of new scientific
Personnel, and expected levels of research funding are reasonable estimates
given the record of growth of the Laser Center to date, the record of
research grant funding generated by new scientists to be added to the
Center, and the growing interest and level of funding by government,
foundations, and the corporate sector for laser -related research.
Of
Appendix w
_I
2
The economic Impact of new developments that will flow from the research
findings In the form of new technologies, products, and services are more
difficult to quantify because of the very nature of the research and
discovery process. It is difficult to predict the rate of technological
developments that flow from research. In some cases, new technological
Inventions and applications flow forth In a succession of minor
improvements. The more spectacular case Is when research produces major
breakthroughs in the form of new products or services, or technologies that
revolutionize production processes.
8. Estimated Impact of Laser Center eratlons
This section outlines the estimated economic impact of the Laser
Center's operations on the Iowa economy to the year 2000. The multipliers
applied to Center operating budgets and employment are based on the
University of Iowa economic Impact study.
I
Construction of Laser Facility, 1988-90
Estimated output effect2
$25.1 million dollars x 3.54 , $89 million in output
Estimated emolovma�r .•e._.
2 100 000
$ 0,000/construction workers ' 628 workers x 3.54 0 2,221 workers
Appendix /11
3
B1. Laser Center Operations 1990-2000
The Laser Center operations are assumed to begin in 1990 with $3 million
in grants and contracts which will rapidly grow to $5 million in 1993 and
then continue to grow at a rate of 5 percent per year.
Estimated grants and contracts 1990-1993
1990 $3 million x 3.54 = $10.6 million in output
1993 growth of grants
$2 million x 3.54 = 7.1 million
Total $17.7 million
Estimated employment effect
Faculty and scientific staff 25
Technical staff, secretarial, 6 graduate students FTE 107
Total FTE 132
132 Laser center FTE x 3.54 = 467 workers
B2. Estimated Annual Growth in Center Operations
1993-2000 at 5 percent/year
Additional research grant funds
$5 million x 1.4071 = 7.04 - 5.00 = $2.04 million
Estimated output effect
$2.04 million x 3.54 = $7.22 million
Additional employment
132 x 1.4071 = 185.7 - 132 ■ 54 workers
54 workers x 3.54 = 191 workers
Total impact 1990-2000
Estimated output impact (from B1) $17.70 million
Estimated output Impact from growth (from B2) 7.22 million
Total $24.92 million
Estimated employment impact (from B1) 467 workers
Estimated employment impact from growth (from B2) 31 workers
Total 858 workers
i or
_..T
Appendix 111
4
C. Estimated Economic Im act from Research Findln s
Projections of employment by industry and occupation by the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics does not specifically tle increases in employment to
lasers and laser -related systems. Accordingly, it is difficult to access
the total extent that lasers and laser system type technologies will
increase employment
Clearly, lasers are central to the growth of many
Ind
ustries such as the medical services,
coeaeunications industries.
communications equipment, and
The following industries have been identified as fast-growing employment
Industries 1984.1995 by the Bureau of Labor Statistic3.3 Industries
with major current laser -related applications are Identified with an a.
Industry
Average Annual
'Medical services
RateRate o�n�
Business services
4.3
'Computers and peripheral equipment
'Materials
4.2
handling equipment
Transportation services
3.7
3.7
Professional services
3.5
'Scientific and controlling instruments
'Medical Instruments and
3.5
2.9
supplies
'Doctor and dentist services
2.8
'Plastio products
2.6
Credit agencies and financial brokers
Amusement
2.5
and recreation services
'Radio and communication equipment
2.5
2.5
'Complete guided missiles and space vehicles
'Electronic
2.3
components and accessories
'Communications
2.2
2.1
1.4
Projecting these average annual growth rates
over a period of ten
Illustrate the importance of the growth process.
years
For example, employment
Industries with an average annual rate of growth
in
of 2 percent will increase
v&
Appendix 111 5
by 21 percent over a period of 10 years. An average annual rate of
employment growth of 4 percent will increase employment by 48 percent over
10 years. It is expected that laser -related applications will generate a
significant number of new ,Jobs, both directly as in the case of increased
output of communications equipment and of comsunications services, and
indirectly in the form of increased output of information transfer services
for the financial services and data processing sectors.
We cannot make a specific forecast of the extent that lasers and
i
laser -technologies may generate increased employment in Iowa. One can
assume that the Bureau of Labor Statistics employment growth rates apply to
Iowa and that research and development efforts may generate similar rates of
growth in the same sectors in Iowa. For example, at a growth rate of 3
i
percent per year for 10 years it takes an employment base of only 25,000
workers to generate an increase of 8,500 additional workers.
i
Footnotes
IBarnard, J. R., and Boe, W. J., The Economic Contribution of a
Large University: A Study of the University or Iowa, The Institute for
Ecoraeic Research, The University of Iowa, January 1984.
2University of Iowa multiplier estimated by Barnard and Boa.
3Kutscher, R. E., and Personick, V. A, "Deindustrialization and the
Shift to Service," Monthly Labor Review, June, 1986. Personick, V. A., "A
Second Look at Industry Output and Employment Trends Through 1985," Monthly
I
Labor Review, November, 1985.
*88
i
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM =
Date: April 2, 1987
To: City Council
From: Assistant City Manager
Re: Reduction to Part-time - Broadband Telecommunications Specialist
The Broadband Telecommunications Specialist has proposed that he take a
voluntary temporary reduction to three-fifths time. In making this
posal, he cites thro-
e status of several
i of the pending litigation with Heritage Cablevision rojects which are on
inclu"hold" because
ther research and development of the INETS and interactive mediadin
systems.
The delay in the start-up of local access operations by a designated
i Non-profit Organization (NPO), as well as personal considerations, have
aISO prompted his decision to make this proposal. Furthermore
Gently vacant position of Production Coordinator was filled by ' the re -
Bailey who held that position previously. Therefore, extensive training
by the Broadband Telecommunications Specialist is not needed and Mr.
inins
prior performance attests to his high level of knowledge and ability in
this area.
I
I have reviewed this proposal and conclude that the temporary reduction is
quite feasible and that it will not have any adverse impact on the City's
Cable T.V. operations. Drew Shaffer has agreed that he will be available
to return no to full-time status at any time the City determines it is desir-
able,
of operations atter athaSeptember 1, 1987, pending our review of the
Position of Broadband TelecommunicationSincs Specialthis reduction
st tmay remaienpauthorithe
zed
as a full-time
without pay, Position with Drew on a partial (40%) leave -of -absence
If Council has any questions or if you see any
posal, please raise these at your informal meetng onlApril�6,i 1987, prIn
the absence of any objections by Council, this reduction will be initiated
Immediately.
DH/Sp
cc: City Manager
Personnel Administrator
Finance Director
Broadband Telecommunications Specialist
off
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 27, 1981
To: Mayor Ambrisco and City Council
From: Flo Beth Ehninper, Broadband Telecommunications Commission (BTC)
Chairperson
Re: Available tble o the City Heritage Cablevision Ownership and Options
The BTC in its meeting on March 17, 1987, addressed the matter of the
Possible change of ownership of our cable TV system in Iowa City, The BTC
would like to advise the City Council that the City Code states in Section
unicah): "The City shall have a right to purchase the Broadband Telecom-
munications Commission network..." in the event of a change of ownership.
In the BTC s February 17, 1987, meeting the BTC requested that Dave Brown,
Assistant City Attorney, research this statement in the Code so that you
may have his legal opinion regarding whether the possible change of owner -
option. ship currently under consideration would in fact give Iowa City this
The BTC wanted to advise you that if legal staff determines the City does
so.have
the uchTCnoffersnia ailableeneeuin afulj nt to seriously consider itIf,
Your information municipal ownership has beenyichosensbalternativha For
Communities in the United states, some of which may
what they have learned from their experiences, including balance sheet
information.
Y be willing to share
ta
Please feel free to let me or Mr. Drew Shaffer
assistance to you.
/sp
know if we can be of any
090
a
City of Iowa City
MEMpRANDUM
DATE March 30, 1987
10; Iowa City City Council
FROM: City Clerk
RE: Beer/Liquor License/Conditional Approval
FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Conditional approval was given to:
All American Deli, 269 Old Capitol Mall
Saigon Restaurant, 209 N. Linn Street
for Sunday sales/Liquor License. They have submitted after
the 90 -day period, the required information which allows
them to retain their license.
*9/
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 2, 1987
TO: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
RE: Meeting Schedule
On your April 7 agenda are four resolutions initiating the
FY87 Alley Paving Assessment Project. One resolution sets
a public hearing for May 5 and requires action on the
resolution of necessity that evening. The adoption of the
resolution of necessity must receive an affirmative vote for
passage equal to three-fourths of the full membership of the
Council (6). If objections are filed by property owners
subject to 75% of the assessments, a unanimous vote would be
necessary. The Mayor will be out of town for the May 5 meeting.
Please review your calendars and let me know Monday evening
at your informal session if any one of you plan to be out of
town during May or any upcoming months.
cc: Joyce DeLong, Engr.
AY -9z
_I
N
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 31, 1987
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Frank Farmer, City Engineer (�)G%- 9
Re: FY88 Asphalt Resurfacing Project
_.T
The City's asphalt overlay programs began in 1970. Every year since that
time, the Engineering Division has recommended that certain streets be
overlayed. This recommendation is based on a structural and functional
rating of each street considered. Through visual observation by staff,
City streets are rated each year to determine which should be considered
for the overlay program. The structural ratings takes into account the
quantity, severity, cause, and type of pavement distress on each street.
Pavement distress includes such things as cracks, dips, displaced joints,
and surface wear. The functional rating classifies each street as an
arterial, bus route, collector, or local. Arterials are given the highest
priority, while local streets are given the lowest.
In general, a concrete street will last 20 years before requiring an
asphalt overlay. In some cases, concrete streets develop severe cracks
and displaced joints before the end of their 20 year life. This indicates
that there is a sub -base problem that cannot be corrected with an asphalt
overlay. If properly repaired and stabilized, these streets can provide
many more years of service before requiring an overlay.
An asphalt overlay is expected to last for about 10-15 years. In some
cases, the surface of an asphalt pavement wears out before the actual
pavement structure wears out. In these cases, chip sealing is an effec-
tive method of extending a pavement's life.
The asphalt overlay program should be continued on a yearly basis to
insure that the current high quality street surface is maintained.
The Council has allocated $250,000 in the FY88 Streets Department budget
for the asphalt resurfacing program. This program will include asphalt
overlay, curb and gutter repair, and possibly chip seal if favorable bids
are received, An asphalt overlay consists of placing two to three inches
of asphalt concrete over existing streets to improve rideability and
correct some
structural defects. sealing
bituminousbinderand aggregateon existiingasphalconsists
tpavement to rejuvenate
its surface and extend the life of the pavement. The cost of the curb and
gutter repair is included in the prices listed below and will be performed
by the contractor awarded the project.
It is best not to overlay a street until absolutely necessary because of
additional maintenance problems due to a reduction in curb height, The
streets recommended by Engineering are as follows:
0'13
2
Areas to be Owed
Clinton Street - Iowa Avenue to Church
*treet
College Street - Linn Street
90,993
to GilbertStreet$
*Court Street - Muscatine Avenue to Summit Street
Teeters
7,222
Court - North of Rider
Hutchinson Avenue - 190 ft.
44,915
9.735
North of River to
North end
Broadway Street - Highland Avenue to Euclid Avenue
Pine Street - Highland Avenue
6.105
12.500
to DeForest Street
8.244
)179,114
Areas to be Chip Sealed
Lexington Avenue - River Street to Park Road
Magowan Avenue - River Street
) 4,322
to South end
Fairchild Street - Dodge Street to Center Street
Governor Street - Bowery Street
1,868
6,80000
to Burlington Street
Lucas Street - Bowery Street to Burlington Street
Bowery Street
4,5968
- Gilbert Street to Summit Street
Lowell Street Morningside Drive
4,576
76
9,501
to. Wilson Street
Morningside Drive - Seventh Avenue to Court Street
Seventh Avenue
2,189
- Glendale Road to Rochester Avenue
Yewell Street.- Cottonwood Avenue
636
3,636
to Ginter Avenue
!Jade Street - Muscatine Avenue to Wayne Avenue
Wayne Street
6,06465
- Arthur Street to First Avenue
First Avenue - H Street to Bradford
3,215
4,215
Drive
56
"
TTh,,
Total
$239'723
__7
Engineering plans to bid this project so that work may begin in May or
June.
*Portions of the existing asphalt surface will be ground off before over-
laying to maintain curb height.
bdw2li
City of Iowa City
= MEMORANDUM
&4�e,&c
Date: April 2, 1987
To: Chuck Schmadeke, Director of Public Works
From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer
Re: Request by LASA for Additional Street Lighting
Recently the City Council has received a request from the Liberal Arts
Student Association's (LASA) Street Lighting Committee to install addi-
tional street lights in certain residential locations in Iowa City. The
City Council has requested a review and recommendation for each proposed
location. Two criteria were used in evaluating these locations. The
first criteria used was the City's residential street light policy which
would place a street light:
1. At the intersection of two streets;
2. At the midpoint of blocks longer than 600 feet and
3. At the end of cul-de-sacs.
In reviewing the locations proposed by the LASA it was found that at no
location was the distance between adjoining street lights or the intersec-
tion of two streets greater than 600 feet. In all instances but one the
distance between two adjacent intersections or two adjacent street lights
was approximately 400 feet. If this criteria is selected as the instal-
lation criteria then none of these 13 proposed sites would be added to the
City's lighted locations.
A second criteria to be used in evaluating the proposed light would be the
North Side Street Lighting Study (NSSLS). The majority of streets in the
North Side are in a grid pattern based on 400 foot spacing centerline to
centerline. The NSSLS added street lights at the midpoint of the block
faces in the 400 foot grid pattern. All 13 locations proposed by the LASA
would fall into this general criteria and be candidates for lighting. A
field review of the 13 locations with representatives for Iowa -Illinois
Gas R Electric would suggest four groupings for the 13 lights. The four
groups are discussed below.
Group R1
Four locations comprise the group dl. These locations are:
700
block
of
East
Fairchild Street
(Location
83)
800
block
of
East
Fairchild Street
(Location
R4)
300
block
of
East
Ronalds Street
(Location
N9)
600
block
of
East
Ronalds Street
(Location
H8)
Ov
These four locations are in the area of the original NSSLS. It is be-
lieved that severe conflict with exist
these were Ing mature trees was the reason that
deleted from the original installation in the NSSLS. The
mature trees are still in existence today. Based upon this history and
the presence of mature trees which would require pruning it is recommended
that these four locations not be added.
Group A2
There is a single location in group 92. It is
900 block of North Gilbert Street (Location 95)
The Traffic Engineering Division received a request in 1985 to install a
street light in this location. A postcard survey was conducted of the
residents which would be adjacent to this street light. It was the consen-
sus of the neighborhood at that time to not install a street light. Based
upon this postcard survey it is recommended that location 95 not be added.
Group N3
Group 93 is comprised of the following locations:
500 South Linn Street (Location 91 )
800 North Gilbert Street (Location 92 )
1100 North Governor Street (Location M6 j
300 South Lucas Street (Location 910)
500 South Lucas Street (Location 911)
400 North Center Street (Location 912)
1100 River Street (Location 913)
These locations have curbside poles presently in place. Installation at
these locations would be consistent with the criteria of the NSSLS. If
the Council wishes to expand the criteria of the NSSLS to include these
residential areas Traffic Engineering will direct Iowa -Illinois to make
the installations.
Group A4
There is one location in group 94. It is
400 Block of East Brown Street (Location 97)
This location is in the original boundaries of the NSSLS. There are sig-
nificant trees in this block of Brown Street. Since the original NSSLS
installations, Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric has been required to adjust a
service on the face of the 400 block of Brown Street. A street light
could be added to this block without requiring additional pruning or
trimming of trees. If the Council wishes this location to be added to the
list of lighted midblocks, Traffic Engineering will direct that Iowa -
Illinois Gas & Electric proceed with installation at this location.
I/tO
-I
3
Comment:
As noted above the addition of any of the lights would be in excess of the
Council's residential street lighting policy. In every instance the
lighting locations would be consistent with the NSSLS. As noted above
lighting groups 1 and 2 would require significant tree trimming and in one
instance would be against the wishes of the abutting property residents.
The eight lights listed in groups three and four would be consistent with
the criteria of the NSSLS and can be effected with no trimming of trees.
The locations listed in groups 3 and 4 will be ordered from Iowa -Illinois
Gas & Electric if the City Council feels that this is appropriate.
tp3/1
I
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 3, 1987
TO: City Council
FROM: Karin Franklin, Senior Planne
RE: Historic District Brochure ��I1��1JJJJJJ
Enclosed is a copy of the informational brochure sent to property owners
on the North Side. The brochure was mailed to 389 individuals representing
381 properties. Brochures and cards were sent to all contract purchasers
and to the deedholders of those properties when the deedholder's address
could be identified.
A review of the mailing list -reveals that approximately 52% of the properties
notified are owner -occupied, 44% are rental properties (one-fifth of which
are owned by residents of the North Side), and 4% are institutions (churches,
fraternaties, or social service agencies).
As cards are returned with questions and comments, the cards will be
photocopied and forwarded to the City Council and the Historic Preservation
and Planning and Zoning Commissions.
cc Historic Preservation Commission
Planning and Zoning Commission
#fs-
If ny propaiy is in an historic district, will I have to fix it up or restore it?
No. You are always encouraged to maintain your property in a safe and neat condition. If you rent
the property, you mut keep the structure in compliance with the Housing Code whether you are in an
historic district or not. If you are in a district and you choose to add onto your building or do
work on the exterior of the building which nonmally requires—a-b requires -a - i ding permit, when you apply for
that permit, your application will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Will the City tell rte Neat color to paint try house and that I can't use aluninun siding?
No. Painting, the installation of combination storm wirdows and aluninm siding, reshingling a
roof, and repairing a porch deck are sone of the maintenance items which do not require a permit
from the City and will not be reviewed.
I cm an old horse Nhich +vas mnated br a rnadry hrisJralti-f_-O-.y tuildi 7 yz;rs
ago. The horse is 11D y®s old and requires a lot of mate, Can I plan on ting the house dam
some day and replacing it with a new aparban,t building?
Before you tear the house down you will need a damlition permit and 'to build you will need a
building permit. Both of these permits are required even if you are hot in an historic district.
Because permits are required and because demolition and construction would be seen from the street,
the Historic Preservation Commission world review both the demolition permit and the building
permit. If the house has historical or architectural merit, the Commission could 1) attempt to
persuade you not to tear it dawn, 2) try to find a buyer for the house to move it, 3) deny the
demolition permit, or 4) approve the demolition permit based on your arguments. If 2 or 4 are the
decision, the Commission would reviev the building plans for the new structure to ensure that the
building was compatible with surrounding structures in terns of such things as height, bulk, set-
backs and general apearance. You will not be required to build a Victorian or other type of archi-
tecturally historical building.
Will placeert of my pqn ty in an historic district dwww or increase the dasity of use, or
dictate how I can use my preperW
No. The zoning which is currently in place on your property determines the use of the property,
the density of use, the required parking, the yard requirerents, etc. This is trim whether you
have vacant land or an existing use.
If my prgnaty is in an hisbo ie district, do I hate any special privileges with ny In qnLy that I
wouldn't have Wmwise?-
Yes. If you, have a non -conforming structure, that is, the building is too big for the lot or not
set back the required distance from the lot line, and the building is destroyed by natural causes,
you may reconstruct the building on the original foundation or the site of the original foundation
as long as the new structure is constructed as near as possible to the original exterior design.
In older parts of town, small lots are not uncommon as the original 80450 foot lots have been
split up over tirre, Reconstruction on these lots to meet current zoning setback and parking re-
quirements can be difficult. The provision noted above attenpts to permit redevelopment of these
lots and encourage the "visual' replacarent of older buildings.
Will the value of my property decrease or increase with historic district designrtimn?
Property values are determined by a variety of factors which are independent of historic district
designation. It is difficult to say absolutely that district designation will decrease or increase
your property's value. Because your property tax is directly related to the value of your prop-
erty, it is also difficult to predict the exact effect district designation will have on your
taxes, if there is an effect at all.
I um my mo hme. The horse was built in the '30s and is rot particularly distinctive. The pmdr
corers the front of the hose and is rotting; I will nand to replace it. What will I have to do if
ny p go by is in a district?
Mien you apply for a building permit, the project will be reviewed try the Historic Preservation
Commission. This will require a sketch drawing of the front of the house with the porch you pro-
pose sham; this sketch is in addition to the construction, plans nonrelly required for a:bgilding
permit. An expedited process has been set up so that small projects can be reviewed quickly and
certified by the Comnission Chairperson that the project has no material effect on the district. A
building permit is then issued in three to seven days from the date of submittal.
If I don't like the decision of the Historic Preservation Cmdssim, vlat car I do?
The decision of the Commission can be appealed to the City Council.
We are the Historic Preservation Commission?
The seven Commission nembers are citizen volunteers from Iona City who have been appointed by the
City Council because they are residents of a district or they have some expertise or experience in
history, building construction, design or archaeology. As a resident of an historic district, you
can be a member of the Historic Preservation Commission as vacancies arise.
#W9uor
The City Council, the Iowa City Planning and
Zoning Carmission and the Iowa City Historic
Preservation Commission have recently been
considering the designation of an historic
district called the North Side Residential
Historic District. The pressed boundaries are
depicted on the right. dererhas been a great
deal of controversy and atotion surrounding
this district designation. Under these circum-
stances it is not unusual that considerable
misinformation is circulating. The purpose of
this (tailing is to answer some basic questions
that you may have as a property owner about
what it nears to be in an historic district.
After you have read the information inside, if
you still have questions or wish to make a
cament, please jot your question or torment
down on the enclosed postcard. The cards will
be forwarded to the Commissions and the City
Council. You They also call the Iowa City
Planning Department - Barry Beagle, 356-5240 or
Karin Franklin, 356-5243 with any questions you
may have.
Please mwt your calendar for April 8. The
Historic Preservation Cannissicn and the Plan-
ning and Zoning Comdssion will have an infor-
mational meeting that evening at 7:30 p.m. at
Horace Mann School. If you are interested in
the historic district issue, plan to attend.
Proposed North Side Residential Historic 6IS"'0 t
1.111: G 1 • �� III Ili • ■�■i . u
� Ili Illi IIIIA EIIIC null •
.� CJIi i■17 •:1111 •• 511111 - CIIIL 11
t. • ■111 Ell::IIIB �,1 EIIDI :1
■ .111 11111: 1:116 1 .m
ITMM ■II■ CITE E11115 !II11_ 1
III■ Mlw' ■1111: X111::11 ..:111
511■ :IIII::IIIIJi .1 G .1
.1115 ellil� u1111::I1i7 •u.l: 1� ill
1 :Ill:11119 Illi 5111- ::� A■I? Mll
:I 11: 111111E III1=.:Illi 11111: ■III CII
■ 1111MIM11 :111
■11■ IIIIL ■■I 1111® �I: ll
m� v� �■ ��1u � uW WI
District Boundary
8 IlJdy BulleeVq pooyjog461eN
SSfT6N Uwlad
VA101'AlI�tlMOI Ob22S VI 'Allo VM01
RIZ '1S NOIDNIHSVM 1SV3 DIV
30tl3S®'A71 1N3WdOl3A30 MOM
LL18 YIBQ I ONINNVId d0 '1d30
ALIO VMOI d0 AIIO
Mat boeo it mean?
JIE
Or
NO
I II
POSTAGE
II I
L
7CL!ASSSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRSMAILPERMIT NO, 775 IOWA CITY. IA
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE:
CRY OF IOWA CITY
DEPT. PLANNING i PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
CIVIC CENTER - 410 E. WASHINGTON
IOWA CITY, IOWA SnQ
ECESSARY
F MAILED
IN THE
TED STATES
CITY OF
CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST
March 31, 1987
Boyd Crosby, President
Home Builders Association
1154 Oakes Drive
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Crosby:
OWA CITY
101NA CITY. IGNi C--'_40 (019) 3 C-1QCCj
The City planning staff is in the process of drafting amendments to the
Iowa City Subdivision Regulations. As a representative of the building
trades industry, you are invited to provide us with suggestions of areas
of the subdivision regulations which you feel should be changed. I
understand that a committee of builders has been formed to deal with
this question. We would find it very helpful to have your input at this
formative stage of developing amended regulations.
The staff intends to finalize a draft of the amended regulations by July
1, 1987, to take to the Planning and Zoning Commission this summer.
Your input now, when we are putting together ideas for the draft, would
be most productive. I would be glad to discuss this with you at any
time.
Sin,
Karin Franklin
Senior Planner
356-5243
bj2/7
X96
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 10, 1987
To: City Council
From: Richard J. Boyle, First Assistant City Attorney W1
Re: Lyn -Den Heights Subdivision/John Oaks and Marie Fuhrmeister,
Subdividers
Lyn -Den Heights is an eleven lot rural subdivision located within the area
of the City's two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the plat was
approved by the City Council in December, 1978. At that time, the City
required installation of stormwater management basins in rural subdivi-
sions, so the Subdividers' Agreement with respect to that subdivision
called for installation of the stormwater management facilities. A stan-
din ard provision stated that no building permit would be issued for any lot
t
the Subdiviiders(Oaks Land Fuhrm ister)e5establishedtancesscwere 'rowxaccountawith
the Ci`y to cover the estimated cost of said construction, building per-
mits could be issued. (The County's Subdividers' Agreement for Lyn -Den
Heights contains a substantially similar provision relating to building
permits and the escrow with the City for stormwater management.) It is my
understanding that one of the two required basins was constructed, al-
Subdivider'shaAgreements s not e were n accrecordedy inh the te City.
JohnsonlnCounty eRecordthe
er's
Office at the time the plat was filed, so all lots in the Subdivision are
subject to their provisions.
City policy now is that stormwater management facilities for rural subdi-
visions will be constructed only at such time as review by the City indi-
cates that they are needed, such review to occur at the earliest of the
following:
1. Resubdivision of any lot.
f
2. Fifteen years from plat approval.
3. Annexation of the area by the City.
The form of subdivider's agreement now in use provides that if City review
finds that the facility is needed, and it is not constructed by the lot
j owners, the City will build the basin and the cost will be charged against
all lots in the subdivision.
In order to obtain building permits for Lyn -Den Heights before stormwater
management facilities were constructed, the subdividers established an
escrow account with the City, but they did not complete the facilities.
Oaks now wishes to have the funds returned, and it is my understanding
that Council has informally agreed.
I
i
X97
PAGE 2
__7
We are working to accommodate your wishes by amending the Subdivider's
Agreement to incorporate the current provisions relating to stormwater
management facilities (i.e., allowing review upon resubdivision, etc.).
However, there may be more work for the developer than was initially
evident. Subdivider's Agreements are recorded at the time of plat ap-
proval, and thus become encumbrances on all lots within the subdivision.
Purchasers of lots take ownership subject to those provisions, and
mortgagees' liens are subordinate to those provisions. That is, those
parties are subject to and benefit from the Subdividers' obligation to
construct stormwater detention facilities.
In order to amend the Subdividers' Agreement, while at the same time
preserving the City's position, it will be necessary for all lot owners to
sign the amendment, and for all mortgagees to consent to the amendment. It
is my feeling that obtaining those signatures and consents may involve
more work than was expected from the seemingly simple request. I have
drafted a document to accomplish the amendment, but wanted you to be aware
of what Mr. Oaks must do.
The proposed amendment would treat Lyn -Den Heights the same as other rural
subdivisions approved under current policies. Simply releasing the
Subdividers' from their obligation to construct the basins raises Equal
Protection questions. Further, purchasers and mortgagees are entitled to
rely on the provisions of the Subdividers' Agreement, and they are not
bound to any release to which they do not consent. If those consents are
not forthcoming, and if it is required to actually construct the facili-
ties, the City would not be able to impose a lien on lot owners who do not
consent.
A draft amendment has been sent to Mr. Oaks' attorney, and I expect little
problem agreeing on language for that document, but the burden will be on
Mr. Oaks to obtain the appropriate signatures and acknowledgements.
DB/sp
IA97
MAR 23 1987
:CITY CLERK
605 Brookland Park Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240
March 16, 1987
Mr. James Brachtel
Traffic Engineer
Civic Center
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Mr. Brachtel:
The island at the intersection of Myrtle Avenue and Greenwood Drive was installed
after many months of discussion and controversy. The reasons for installing the
i island were:
1. There were more than six thousand cars per day on a street that is only eighteen
feet at its widest point. This grossly exceeds its safe capacity.
2. Thousands of pedestrians walk along the street every day. The peak pedestrian
traffic exceeds the capacity of the rather narrow sidewalk, and as a consequence
many pedestrians walk in the street. This occurs most often when the motor
traffic is also at its peak.
3. Many of the students at Roosevelt Grade School wally along Melrose Court.
The pre-schools on Melrose Avenue take groups of pre-school children along
Melrose Court to use the playground equipment in Brookland Park.
4. Before the stop sign and island were installed, there were occasions when speed-
ing cars could not negotiate the turn at the south end of Melrose Ct. As a
consequence they went into the Park or into the front yard of the adjacent
house. Fortunately there were no serious injuries in these accidents. On other
occasions cars would jump the curb and damage fences and shrubs in the front
yards of homes on Melrose Ct.
The installation of the island and the stop sign were considered to be the best
compromise solution to a very difficult problem. It has worked reasonably well, in
our opinion, and we would like to see the island remain in place. What has been
_I
requested is to "unsolve" a problem without suggesting an alternate solution.
Sincerely yours.
"V
John and Darlyne Neff
«: City Manager
City Council
i
i
2
Of
HONORARY TRUSTEES
.m..l ktr f) Aa
k aAA Ol,lkan
I
oa +, .x1al •.
A'A1 fl141
fNµ Ll i.
Of it l,fI r•
1..1111.•...,.,,
kulAc .\ l,kU
DR r ul [it
hemm...
RIAAMk (HR15,1\}!%
f•r.lru•r•\'',r W"rb,
4oar u. A , Inn+n«
Iltll (UT\I%C.HA%t
rne•n.rn 1m;n,lLUM•
IRMfl.CMr US. IMrvu.r %
C✓u,.vrr.M\f A D41DSDn
1 Nrrl.1k 4rnr.nAlrr nr
1 IAAlIS(AO\
US naM
Will, CA %I'll R
uuM
urn s.un u»1•st 11
IAf I. NI 11 ,
lfl("^e., ICII A
I NI(Iq[I 4CIfNAI1
I.rYyr�.r' D.nr rr,.
Sqn, (Inl.
N,An1 .S,r, Iron:. IOMKA0,
rM.n,.rM wr.�ml
(h)\,ID%A,0
A \llRlll
R1,Mn.r
xurlr..klnn \rnxrrn IMrMnum
HmIS( OIS(1\
I Su+ImR nuwln
Mm
k %1111sANNI\
1•Mm.re lltr NnMml
111111,\rD ,(N)11[1
ISe,.Mnr. ,r...IIMWpr.
1 "1 MAmrrNi
RI lID'RIk\Ik
Ir., ra,�
loan,x,r,domnkv
I Aw
AL kl\rt n xuA%
rvr..a-M
A.•...1m Intra uroaa
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
011lllft10%
"'a"
SI:SA\ 51 ACRI51
S.rr I1..,nk.M
(HAkIISrIHQ
l"t.,.
US INIb rI HA\II I\
Yw
Dw flxu
,[%I 11 lkt A,11\I A4.:1\
Dk xoOf l N1\6116.
knxlkt 11'11. 11
Ilk GAkl HrYq\NADIR
\v+.n.tl A,.rx...bue M Sknr lurr+rr..
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
if A%11kklll
a.I a 6141.
llk\ All, ll 11
,[Il �a.11al •r
RE CEI,E.'" _: 3i98%
The National Arbor Day Foundation
100 Arbor Avenue. Nebraska City, Nebraska 68410
February 17, 1987
I011% R( ISI\OSY
6numrf.":
[Aslll,Sol,
.111
The Honorable William Ambrisco 1lnrul^. n,.n,.,,kA xxinx
Mayor of the City of Iowa City 14021474.;035
410 E. Washington
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Mayor Ambrisco:
Congratulations! Iowa City has been named
as a 1986 Tree City USA.
Thanks to dedicated community leaders like you,
millions of trees both great and small stand along
streets; shelter and shade homes; and grace parks and
playgrounds in villages, towns, and cities across
America. Those trees are part of the majestic forest
in which most of us wake up each morning, in which we
live our lives, and which we leave to generations yet
unborn.
The future of America's urban forests depends upon
our commitment to their care. Providing that special
kind of care is what Tree City USA is all about.
Obviously, you and the citizens of your community take
Your tree -care responsibilities seriously.
State Foresters are responsible for the
presentation of the Tree City USA flag and other
materials. The Foundation will forward your awards to
William A. Farris in your State Forester's office.
They will be coordinating the presentation with you.
It would be especially appropriate to make the Tree
City USA award a part of your Arbor Day ceremony.
Congratulations once again on receiving this
national recognition for your community forestry
program.
JR/lkc
cc: William A. Farris
Terry Robinson
Best regards
John Rosenow
Executive Director
Of
_I
LI�A
EASTIOWA
NICIPALGU SOUTHEAST IOWA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
BOX 578 • CENTERVILLE, IOWA 52544
' PRESIDENT
MICHAEL KATTCHEE ATTENTION:
A
Afayora/Coralvillr LL CITY OFFICALS IN
' NICE PRESIDENT • SOUTHEAST IOWA
DICK WALTMAN The April 1987 meeting
Mavor ofMwraline Municipal League will beg of the Southeast Iowa
•DIRECTORS• Wednesday, April IS held in Mount Pleasant
LEROY PETERSON Previously annou— nc5 1��iNote the change of then
Coundkember ofOskolowa meeting date) '
JERRY RIGDON WHERE: Iris Restraunt (Hi hw
Counrilmember of aurlinglon g ay #34
- west edge o
SOCIAL HOUR S f town)
JOAN MATTINGLY REGISTRATION: 5 :30
Counrilmember ofCenlovill, P• M.
THOMAS HART
DINNER; 6:30 P.M. (Cost - $8,50)
Afayor ofDavenpor,
• IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT • PROGRAM: 0:15 P.M.
C. A. WILLIAMS, JR. With many important issues now being
MayorofNew London Iowa Legislature, the meeting
meaningful for Municipal Considered by the I
'SECRETARY•TREASDRER• g is most timely and I
MARTIN E. GAMES League of Iowa Municipalities A staff the
ctrrko/crmrrvnr gislaOf I Munici will member of
issues relating give an update of
g to Iowa cities.
John Reno of the Prouty Company will discuss
Insurance service avaiable to Iowa cities
(Employee Adv a new
Advisory Resource Program), called E.A.R.
Additional items may be 'i
STAY INFORMED - Possibly added to the
O.RGINIZATION - PLAN TO ATTEND. ALTHOUGH YOUR CITY IS agenda.
CITY OFFTCALS YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE p MEMBER TO URGED TO JOIN OUR
FEW HOURS, ' ELECTED OR APPOINTED, TO COME AND SHARE
WE WELCOME ALL
SHARE AN INFORMATIVE
Sincerely,
Maz F.
Martin E. Games
Secretary/Treasurer
To facilitate planning, please fill out
April 13th your reservations to and mail or
help provide a meal hone by
Send Reservations To: City of Mount count Pleasant
City. Hall
220 W. Monroe Street
Mount Pleasant, Iowa 52641 Telephone:319-986-5225
Name of City or associate member
Number Of Reservation
Soo
0
8
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 20, 1987
To: Citizens' Committee on City Revenue
From: City Manager
Re: Meeting Date
The first meeting of the Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, April 8, at
7:00 p.m. at the Iowa City Recreation Center, Room B. Attached is a pre-
liminary agenda as well as the Report on City Revenues. Hopefully, we
will begin a review of the report and receive guidance from the Committee.
This will be an open meeting so therefore it is likely that there will be
press coverage.
bj5/1
cc: City Council
Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance
Dale Melling, Assistant City Manager
:ij I W011
So/
IOWA
CITY OF CITY
CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)356-500D
CITIZENS' COMMITTEE ON CITY REVENUES
7:00 P.M. - Wednesday, April 8, 1987
Iowa City Recreation Center, Room B
i
- Call to order
- Name chair and vice -chair
- Consider committee rules, as necessary
a
- Suggest - 2 hour meeting limit
- Set weekly meeting
- Review charge to Committee by City Council
i.
- Review Report on City Revenues
Adjournment
_.f
__7
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM.-
Date:
EMORANDUM=
Date: March 23, 1987
To: Boards & Commissions
From: City Manager
Re: Citizens' Summary
During the recent budget review, over 600 copies of the Citizens' Summary
were distributed. During the review process, I met with 12 citizen
groups/service clubs, etc. and presented more detailed budget information
as well as copies of the Citizens' Summary. During the discussions with
these various groups, questions arose about the City's budget process as
well as general questions concerning the Citizens' Summary. I would
appreciate any comments that you may have about the Citizens' Sumnary, so
that we may improve the quality of the document for future budget/public
information efforts. Please feel free to relay your comments through the
staff personnel assigned to work with your board/commission as well as any
written comments or concerns that you may have. Any constructive criti-
cism would be appreciated. Thank you.
tp5/1
cc: City Council
Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance
_I
City of Iowa City /
MEMORAIVE)UM _
Date: March 24, 1987
To: Citizens' Committee on City Revenues
From: City Manager and Director of Finance
Re: Report on City Revenues
The purpose of the attached report is to provide in a
discussion of the program of revenues utilized b
This report will ho summary fashion a
an agenda for the upcoming answer your initial s the and
government.
j g meeting. questions and can serve as
To assist the Committee, we felt it was important for
we make to thry e City
financial philosophies that affect recommendations
Com-
mittee should consider recommendations that may aware of
This is particularly important if the
ent, Any proposed policy recommendations and/or
� that require Y be substantially differ -
City Council Philosophical adjustments on the other related
tint that need to be discussed. parts the staff changes
you be fully aware of We believe it is steparticularly and the
i the City's financial management.our concerns/opinions as the impor-
y relate to
We believe provide Torr revenue program does not have sufficient long-term
capacity to
capability emerging from within the
of public services.
has been posed that the Cit the current revenue We d0 not see the
capability. However, it is our does have available increased The question
as a matter of polic Judgment that Certain tax capacity property tax
economic cycles occur and Our community be Preserved so that Y margins,
i expansion capability, Not r c mmunity must thereforeadjust,wehaveannual fiscal brinksmansN do so could simply chart a
P Policies and crisis ancial management. Curse toward
We believe our revenue program is severely over -regulated b
thereby allows little discretion for the City Council to shape a program
of service, the historyY the State and
tax policies and/or Stae oaid f he State Legislature demonstrates that many
become fair game during the anprograms that are made
discourage cities from undertaking long-range
S°nate legislative process land othcities
ereby
ping, Expenditure proposals that are held an etoinan financial
anementgram plan -
jeopardy jeopardy only causes program policy initiatives to be discouraged
because there is no means of of finan-
commitment to the expenditure, guaranteeing long-term tebe
We are further concerned community financial
Part of the State that there does not appear to be interest on the
icy• Cities are expected totbeothestablish a formal State-wide urban
asked to be a partner with the center
en tejn of pol-
revenue programs that are°b creating efforts and are
our ability made available to cit{es areososrest However, the
While the State respond to State economic policy initiatives
is government discusses the need to see new jobs created or
Sos
ECEr)iNr..
DOCUMENT
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 23, 1987
To: Boards & Commissions
From: City Manager
Re: Citizens' Summary
During the recent budget review, over 600 copies of the Citizens' Summary
were distributed. During the review process, I met with 12 citizen
groups/service clubs, etc. and presented more detailed budget information
as well as copies of the Citizens' Summary. During the discussions with
these various groups, questions arose about the City's budget process as
well as general questions concerning the Citizens' Summary. I would
appreciate any comments that you may have about the Citizens' Summary, so
that we may improvethe quality of the document for future budget/public
information efforts. Please feel free to relay your comments through the
staff personnel assigned to work with your board/commission as well as any
written comments or concerns that you may have. Any constructive criti-
cism would be appreciated. Thank you.
tp5/1
cc: City Council
Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance
SA.
1
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 24, 1987
To: Citizens' Committee on City Revenues
From: City Manager and Director of Finance
Re: Report on City Revenues
The purpose of the attached report is to provide in a summary fashion a
discussion of the program of revenues utilized by the City government.
This report will hopefully answer your initial questions and can serve as
an agenda for the upcoming meeting.
To assist the Committee, we felt it was important for you to be aware of
the budgetary and financial philosophies that affect recommendations that
we make to the City Council. This is particularly important if the Com-
mittee should consider recommendations that may be substantially differ-
ent. Any proposed policy recommendations and/or other related changes
that require philosophical adjustments on the part of the staff and the
City Council need to be discussed. We believe it is particularly impor-
tant that you be fully aware of our concerns/ opinions as they relate to
the City's financial management.
We believe the City's revenue program does not have sufficient long-term
capacity to provide for expansion of public services. We do not see the
capability emerging from within the current revenue program. The question
has been posed that the City does have available increased property tax
capability. However, it is our judgment that certain tax capacity margins,
as a matter of policy, must be preserved so that when the inevitable
economic expansionccapabicles lity. and
Notour
tocdo community
uldmust
simply therefore
chartjastcou sehave
toward
annual fiscal brinksmanship policies and crisis financial management.
We believe our revenue program is severely over—regulated by the State and
thereby allows little discretion for the City Council to shape a program
of service. The history of the State Legislature demonstrates that many
tax policies and/or State aid programs that are made available to cities
become fair game during the annual State legislative process and thereby
discourage cities from undertaking long-range financial and program plan-
ning. Expenditure proposals that are held up to such an element of finan-
cial jeopardy only causes program policy initiatives to be discouraged
because there is no means of guaranteeing long-term community financial
commitment to the expenditure.
We are further concerned that there does not appear to be interest on the
part of the State government to establish a formai State-wide urban pol-
icy. Cities are expected to be the center of job creating efforts and are
askthe
revenue programs pthat are eimade available to cth the State in ities are ese o so s restrictive that
our ability to respond to State economic policy initiatives is limited.
While the State government discusses the need to see new jobs created for
so3
PAGE 2
our citizens and encourages a decentralized policy-making process with
respect to economic development, the highly centralized economic/budget
controls that they have over municipal budgets seems to fly in the face of
their economic development desires. We believe that municipal governments
if given reasonable revenue flexibility, could make better and more long
lasting economic decisions.
Our citizens are unaware of the financial and private market constraints
that affect, not only their tax burden, but also the overall quality,
quantity and selection of services that is provided by City government.
The City, like any private business, must enter the private market to
Purchase goods and services in an economy driven by the pressures of the
Consumer price Index, inflation, economic cycles, etc. Our base source of
revenue - property tax - is, however, controlled by State action that not
regonly ulat onscaps ooftenilseity rveoasdatdisincentive oour ggrowthicies, but also these
We believe that a revenue program should represent the ability of a city
government to provide services for the health and welfare of its citizens.
Important issues to consider are growth, source, flexibility, and admini-
stration. Under ideal conditions, revenues should be growing at a rate
which is equal to or greater than the combined effects of inflation and
expenditure pressure. Revenues should be sufficiently flexible (free from
or with only minimal State and Federal regulations) to allow necessary
adjustments to changing community conditions. The mix of revenues should
be balanced between those that grow with the economic base and inflation
and those which remain relatively constant. Revenues should also be
diversified by source so as not to be overly dependent on a single funding
source, such as property tax, Federal grants, discretionary aid programs,
etc. User fees should be regularly evaluated to cover the cost of serv-
ices to the extent desired by the
process. City Council in their policy-making
We look forward to the upcoming discussions and appreciate your interest
and desire to help chart a healthy financial future for our community.
Stephe ki r '
City H ager
cc:
City Council
Terry Kimble
Dale Helling
SA/sp
Attachment
Royw,,,�_ h�a�,(J
Finance Director
'5'03
__T
# # # # # #
REPORT ON CITY REVENUES
#######################
Prepared by;
Stephen J. Atkins, City Manager
Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance
Terry Kimble, Senior Accountant
Lorraine Saeger, Admin. Assistant
March 1987
I . What are the sources
of revenue
to the
_. General/Debt Service
Fund?
For the purposes of this report, the General/Debt
include General Fund, Tort Liability Fund, Trust
Service Fund (G/DS Fund) will
Fund, and Agricultural Land Tax Fund.
and Agency Fund,
Debt Service
- The FY88 budgeted revenues are shown as an example of the revenues
ten-year summary
program. A
of these revenues is also shown.
-
FY88
% OF TOTAL
REVENUE ITEM
BUDGET
REVENUES
General Property Tax
7,629,913
38.4
Tort Liability Property Tax
743,438
3.7
_ Agricultural Land Property Tax
9,881
--
Transit Property Tax
513,520
2.6
- Trust & Agency Property Tax
757,208
3.8
J Debt Service Property Tax
2,700,618
13.6
Personal Property Tax Replacement
159,820
0.8
Monies & Credits Tax Replacement
28,416
0.1
Military Credit
13,800
-
J SUBTOTAL OF PROPERTY TAXES
12,556,614
63.0
- Cigarette & Liquor Permits & Licenses
80,025
0.4
Building Permits & Inspections
150,764
0.8
Housing Permits & Inspections
80,286
0.4
Other Licenses & Permits
34,912
0.2
j Fines & Fees Magistrate's Court
117,228
0.6
Parking Fines (Illegal)
162,000
0.8
_ Parking Fines (Overtime)
192,000
1.0
Recreation Fees
376,792
1.9
- University Fire Contract
512,836
2.6
Library Services
82,456
0.4
Johnson County Contracts
177,236
0.9
Administrative Expense Chargeback
609,615
3.1
Other Fees & Charges
75,373
0.4
State Liquor Profits
277,794
1.4
State Bank Franchise Tax
50,000
0.3
State Municipal Assistance
337,899
1.7
Hotel -Motel Tax
210,540
1.1
Interest Income
100,000
0.5
- Cable TV Franchise Fee
96,298
0.5
Federal Revenue Sharing
461,517
2.4
Road Use Tax
2,036,090
10.2
CDBG
68,398
0.3
Other Transfers
124,638
0.6
Debt Service: Transfers from Other Funds
825,211
4.2
Miscellaneous Revenues -General Fund
68,933
0.3
Miscellaneous Revenues -Trust & Agency Fund
8,300
--
Miscellaneous Revenues -Debt Service Fund
11,928
- TOTAL
19,885,683
100.0
1
.So3
HISTORY OF REVENUES (O/DS FUND)
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
_ 1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
2
$ 9,791,431
11,093,006
12,179,175
13,902,918
13,133,176
14,779,971
14,771,674
16,127,669
16,858,530
17,960,071
19,885,683
503
_-T
2. What is the history of• property tax
in the G/DS Fund?
GENERAL TAX
Taxes levied on all taxable property, except agricultural land, used to
support general city services such as streets, library, police, fire, parks,
_ etc. The tax rate cannot exceed $8.10/$1,000 of taxable valuation.
TORT LIABILITY TAX
Taxes are restricted for use on certain insurance coverage: comprehensive
liability, motor vehicle liability, errors and omissions, and false arrest
insurance.
TRANSIT TAX
I-
i This property tax was approved in FY84 to support transit operations and may
be used only for transit. The maximum tax rate is $.54/$1,000.
i y
i
TRUST AND AGENCY TAX
Taxes are restricted for use for payment of pensions and employee benefits.
Pensions and benefits include social security, public employee retirement,
insurance costs, such as dental, hospitalization, disability and life. These
expenses may be levied when the general tax has reached its maximum. Currently,
police and fire pensions are charged against the trust and agency tax levy.
DEBT SERVICE TAX
Taxes are restricted for payment of debt principle and interest for general
- obligation bonds.
_ AGRICULTURAL LANDS TAX
- Taxes are levied on agricultural land for the same purpose as the general tax
levy. The tax rate cannot exceed $3/$1,000.
3
513
_7
_.T
HISTORY OF PROPERTY TAX LEVIES.
FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY
�
Regular Property Taxes
General Tax 3 3,596,336 3,778,383 4,406,138 4,799,842 5,135,572 5,560,334 6,013,732 6,859,256 1,204,868 7,513,247 762
913
Rate 8.100 8.100 8.100 8.100 8.100 8.100 8.100 1.717 7.530 7.107 7.143
Tort Liability Tax $ 194,800 208,547 263,306 110,544 258,126 253,030 66,369 147,338
Rate .439 .447 .484 .187 .407 .369 .089 .166 355.370300 2.875 438 743.696
Transit Tax 6 -
Rate -- __ -_ --"" -- 133.638
159.180 345,354 380,077 513,520
- .360 .360 .481
Trust 8 Agency Tax S 366,869 494,083 596,327 1,004,445 958,634 1,077,570 1,255,169 673,852 664,657 438,917 757,208 j
a Rate .826 1.059 1.096 1.695 1.512 1.570 1.691 .758 .693 .415 .709
i Debt Service Tax f 768,841 1,153,316 952.851 1,500,648 1.409,065 1,786,481 1,372,150 1,626,935 1,872,115 2,003,195 1,700,618
Rate 1.732 2.472 1.752 2.532 2.222 2.602 1.848 1.830 1.952 3.892 2.520
TOTAL REGULAR $ 4,926,846 5,634,329 6,218,622 7,415.479 7,761,397 8,677,415 8,841,058 9,467,372 10,442,324 11,217,874 12,344,697
Rate 11.097 12.078 11.432 12.514 12.241 12.641 I1.908 10.651 10.885 10.609 11.549
Ag. Land Taxes i -- -- 6,309 5,777 5,825 7.752 8,106 9,386 9,508 9,702 91881
Rate 3.004 3.004 3.004 3.004 3.004 3.004 3.004 3.004 3.004
TOTAL TAXES 3 1.926.816 5.634.329 6.224.931 7.421.256 7.767.122 8.685.167 8.849.161 9.176.758 10.451.832 11.227.576 12.354,578
N TOTAL OF G/OS FUNO 50.3 50.8 51.1 53.4 1 59.1 58.8 59.9 58.9 62.0 62.7 62.8
DEBT SERVICE PROPERTY TAX
General obligation bonds are issued to pay for capital projects. Bonds for
essential corporate purpose projects (streets and bridges, etc.) can be issued
by authority of the City Council. General corporate purpose projects (buildings
and swimming pools) must be approved by voters. These bonds can also be issued
for an enterprise fund (water, sewer) project with the understanding that the
enterprise fund's revenues are used to pay for a pro rata share of principal and
interest payments. Voters approved $3,500,000 bonds for the new library building
(issued May 1979) and $3,725,000 for a new swimming pool facility (issued August
1986).
On July 1, 1987, there will be $17,950,000 outstanding general obligation bonds.
This total is comprised of seven bond issues:
$3,015,000 issued June 1977
$2,250,000 issued September 1978
$5,500,000 issued May 1979 (includes library bonds)
$2,570,000 issued September 1980
$2,700,000 issued December 1982
$4,700,000 issued November 1985
$6,350,000 issued August 1986 (includes swimming pool bonds)
Two bond issues (June 1977 and September 1978) will be paid off by the end of
June 1989.
The City has a fiscal policy that sets a ceiling for the debt service levy,
"Debt service charges payable from the general tax levy shall not exceed 25 percent
of that levy in any one fiscal year."
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Bond/Interest
Payments
$ 987,356
1,291,755
1,480,454
1,576,954
2,182,917
2,049,896
2,060,813
2,296,560
2,456,925
3,229,721
3,595,400
Debt Service
Property Tax/Rate
$ 768,841
1.732
1,153,316
2.472
952,851
1.752
1,500,648
2.532
1,409,065
2.222
1,786,481
2.602
1,372,150
1.848
1,626,935
1.830
1,872,145
1.952
2,003,195
1.892
2,700,618
2.520
Percent of Total
G/DS Fund
7.6
10.4
6.5
10.8
10.7
12.1
9.3
10.1
11.1
11.2
13.6
5 SO W3
3- What are the major legislative 'Factors
that affect property taxes and the
revenue generated?
TAX LEVY LIMITS
Of the property taxes levied by the City government, the State imposes limits on
the general property tax levy and the transit property tax levy. The general
levy limit is $8.10/$1,000 of valuation. If the general levy reaches the limit,
—. employee benefits which were paid through the general levy may now be paid through
the trust agency property tax levy. The transit levy is limited to $.54/$1,000
of valuation. For example, the FY88 budget is $.48/$1,000. There are no maximum
_ limits on trust agency and tort liability property taxes. Debt service property
tax levy is regulated by the State in that general obligation debt cannot exceed
5 percent of the market value of taxable property.
FY88 Budaet At Maximum Limits Additional Taxes
J
General $7,629,913 $8,651,710 $1,021,797
J Rate 7.143 8.100 .957
Trust & Agency 757,208 1,911,615 1,154,407
- Rate .709 1.790 1.081
Transit 513,520 576,781 63,261
Rate .481 .540 .059
Total $8,900,641 $11,140,106 $2,239,465
Levy 8.333 10.430 2.097
_ TAXABLE PROPERTY
The State determines which properties may be taxed by local governments. Property
— owned by any governmental agency is not taxable. Of the total property in Iowa
City, the following represents that which is not taxed (exempt):
_. University of Iowa 23.0%
_ Iowa City Community School District 2.0%
Federal Government (VA and Post Office) 1.2%
Johnson County .2%
j City of Iowa City .9%
Other, non-governmental exempt property 5.8%
TOTAL 33.1%
i
6
903
_I
The "Other non-governmental properties", include religious institutions,
charitable and benevolent societies, certain housing projects, certain
associations for veterans, etc. These property owners must request the
exemption from the City Assessor. The Assessor will determine the value of
the property and then rule on its exempt status. In FY88, the value of the
"other" property was approximately $62 million.
MONIES AND CREDITS
In 1971 the State began taxing banks on the value of their monies and credits.
Prior to that, cities taxed them with property taxes. Between 1964 and 1973,
monies and credits taxes provided between .8% and 2.5% of the City's total tax
requests. The State pays the City an annual replacement of $28,416 which is
based on the amount received in 1971. For example, the total tax request for
FY88 is $12,354,578, with 1 percent equaling approximately $123,545. This
change in the law estimates that the City loses approximately $100,000 a year
in revenue.
�I
7
I
AGRICULTURAL LAND
' The tax y limit on
assessments (taxes collectedagricultural
inFY83),�dresidential00. For a
is 0dwellingsonaagricultural
j land were reclassified to be taxed as residential property. Although it is
a miniscule amount, this change was favorable to the City.
i
I -
MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT
�i
Beginning January 1, 1981, assessments on any new acquisitions of computers
and industrial machinery were assessed at 30 percent of cost. The State was
to replace the difference. As of FY87, the State Legislature repealed the
provision for the State to reimburse local governments for the revenues lost
between the normal depreciated value and the 30 percent value. The City lost
$121,000 due :o this legislative decision. At one time, for example, IBM was
one of the top ten taxpayers in the City.
PERSONAL PROPERTY
In 1973 the Iowa State Legislature began to phase out the assessment of personal
property. The base year of 1973 was established and all subsequent assessments
were to be reduced to that level for taxing purposes. January 1, 1985 (tax
-, collections in FY87) was the last assessment for personal property; these values
were reduced by 60 percent to equal 1973 values. The taxable valuation of
personal property since 1973 was $31,127,900, approximately 3 percent of the
_ total taxable valuation for FY87 taxes. For the FY88 tax levy, total taxation
on personal property would have been $359,500. The best estimate for the State's
replacement equals $159,820, a loss of $200,000 annually.
J
STATE ORDERED EQUALIZATIONS
Property assessments are required to be within 5 percent of median actual sales
prices. If they vary more than 5 percent (over or under the median sales) the
j — State may order equalization on any class of property. In January 1979 the
State ordered these equalizations: -8 percent on agricultural land, +34 percent
on residential and +9 percent on commercial. Agricultural land also received
_ equalization orders on assessments in 1981 and 1983 of +27 percent and +36 percent
respectively. Such equalization orders by the State are especially difficult in
that when residential property bears the major burden, significant local politi-
cal and economic concerns develop.
TAX ABATEMENT - INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY
_I
The Iowa City Council adopted a five-year tax abatement schedule for new
industrial property and improvements on industrial property. For taxes
collected in FY87, there were two companies participating in the program. For
- the first year, the two companies, with abatement on 75 percent of new or improved
property, saved $5,952 in taxes that otherwise would have been property tax
receipts to the City. For FY88 taxes, five more companies were added with
estimated revenue loss of $12,400.
- ROLLBACKS
For property taxes collected in FY77, the property assessments were based on
100 percent of the market value. Prior to that, they were based on 27 percent
of actual value. At that time, the State Goverment determined that cities
— could not tax the total assessment of property and created a rollback factor
to bring down the taxable valuation. From FY77 to FY82, the State set the
i rollback factors so that statewide the taxable valuations would increase
6 percent per year. After FY82, they were set to raise taxable valuations,
statewide, only 4 percent per year. The rollbacks are only on real property.
MILITARY CREDIT
Veterans are allowed $1,852 as a credit toward taxable valuation of one property.
For January 1, 1986, valuations the total military credits were $4,879,313. The
State provides replacement revenue of $13,800. If the State replaced according
to actual levies, the City would receive $56,000.
9 So3
maJor sources of
�S Fund?
503
10
maJor sources of
�S Fund?
503
_-T
CIGARETTE AND LIQUOR LICENSES
The City is required to issue permits to sell cigarettes at an annual fee of
$100, set by the State. The State, as you are aware, frequently considers
amendments to the cigarette tax for State revenue purposes, but these funds
are not distributed to cities.
Liquor permits are required for businesses if they sell beer, wine and/or liquor.
There are many different combinations of such permits for the sale of alcohol,
depending upon the size of the establishment and whether consumption is on or
off premise. Permit fees are set by the State. Local governments have the
responsibility for approval of such licenses/permits and are required to perform
inspections. Fees are remitted to the State Beer and Liquor Control Fund,
and the State disburses 65 percent of the fees back to the City. Permits
range from $75 to $2,000 for taverns which have Sunday sales. Liquor store
fees can be as high as $7,500.
RevenuLi Percent of Total G/DS Fund
iCigarette Permits Beer/Liquor Total
1978 $15,150 $53,805 $68,955 .7
_ 1979 12,875 52,874 65,749 .7
1980 10,625 55,636 66,261 ,5
1981 16,125 55,786 71,911 ,5
1982 15,200 58,147 73,347 5
1983 19,650 58,347 77,997 5
1984 11,200 60,020 71,220
.5
t 1985 17,200 63,963 81,163 ,5
1986 16,138 63,911 80,049 ,4
1987 16,200 63,825 80,025 ,4
1988 16,200 63,825 80,025 ,4
The revenue received from this source is controlled substantially by the State
even though the City does have program administration (inspection of premises)
responsibility and the total revenue generated is not returned to the City. It
r has remained a constant source of revenue, although not inflation adjusted. It
is likely that these revenues may be subject to further legislative changes as
the State enters a new era with respect to its control of liquor sales. The
revenue has declined as a portion of the G/DS Fund, but appears to be a reliable
source of income, barring State law changes. No appreciable growth is expected.
BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS
The Department of
operation, secures
Housing and Inspection Services, through its Building
fees for: licenses for
Inspection
_
construction, sale
updated in 1986.
of code books, etc.
plumbers and electricians, permits
Fees are set by the
for
City Council
and were
Revenue
Percent of Total G/DS Fund
1978
$102,053
1979
97,647
1.0
1980
133,485
.8
19811.0
106,907
1982
108,427
.7
1983
201,071
'8
i
1984
240,989
1.4
1985
126,749
1.6
1986
140,883
.8
1987'8
151,970
1988
150,764
.8
.7
J
I-
1
r.
12
� J
HOUSING PERMITS AND INSPECTION
The City's Department of Housing and Inspection Services performs rental
housing inspections, and revenues are derived from the permits which are
issued for rental housing. A certificate of occupancy is issued for the
rental unit at the time of inspection. The unit is reinspected every two,
three or four years, depending upon the number of units in the particular
building. Permits are renewed upon each inspection. Fees are based on both
the number of structures and also the number of units. The City Council has
authority to set the fee for rental permits and inspections and they were
last updated in 1986. There are approximately 11,300 rental units in the
City.
Revenue Percent of Total G/DS Fund
1978 $ 14,028
.1
-. 1979 17,643 2
1980 25,911 2
1981 13,458 .1
1982 49,494 .4
1983 51,516 3
1984 59,895 .4
1985 36,519 2
1986 57,726 .3
1987 80,286 .4
1988 80,286 .4
Rental housing income has increased significantly over the last ten years.
—I Income.is due primarily to more intensified efforts on the part of the City
to assure quality rental housing stock.
1
.J
13
J
so W3
`I
MAGISTRATES COURT
When an Iowa City police officer writes a ticket for violation of a City code
or ordinance (most often traffic violations), the fine and fee from the court
are distributed as follows:
Fine - 90% to the City, 10% to the County
15% Surcharge - 10% to the City, 90% to the State
The State Legislature sets the amount of the fines and surcharges, and these
were last changed in July 1985.
Revenue Percent of Total G/OS Fund
1978 $ 54,484 6
1979 66,795 .6
1980 100,221 g
i 1981 76,982 6
1982 97,202 7
1983 124,954 8
1984 112,698 8
_ 1985 109,165 ,7
1986 122,092 7
1987 117,228 7
1988 117,228
This revenue has grown during the ten-year history by approximately 124 percent
(CPI 68%), with the greatest growth occurring from 1979 through 1983. Since
that time, we have seen a downward trend with respect to the dollar volume.
Also, the trend of this revenue has declined as a share of the general fund.
While it is a reasonably stable and predictable source of income to the City
government, the fact remains that it is controlled by the State Legislature as
well as community pressures with respect to our enforcement efforts, and the
current downward trend appears to be a likely outlook for the future.
I j
1—
14
V5
PARKING FINES
Fines for illegal parking violations are $5 and $15. The maximum amount that
may be charged for such violations are established by the State.
Revenue Percent of Total G/DS Fund
1978 $235,439
2.4
1979 181,164 1.6
1980 129,118 1.1
1981 115,120 8
1982 142,851 1.1
1983 139,001 9
1984 161,081
1.1
1985 170,580 1.1
1986 184,934 1.1
1987 162,000
.9 �
1988 162,000 .8
i
This source of revenue has remained consistent (not inflation adjusted) over
the last five years (1984-1988) with a number of dramatic fluctuations in the
previous five-year period (1978-1983). Any increase in revenue would likely
require a commensurate increase in City expense, if more intensified efforts
are undertaken. There appears to be no interest on the part of the State
Legislature in increasing the amount of the fines.
15
503
-I
I
PARKING FINES (OVERTIME)
The fines were increased from $2 to $3
on January 1, 1986.
Parking attendants
issue these tickets. Between FY79 and
FY83, the fines were left in the Parking
_
Fund to build up a balance; however, since FY84 these revenues became part of
the General/Debt Service Fund
Revenue
Percent of Total
G/DS Fund
1979 $ 64,915
6
1980 126,211
1.1
1981 113,359
,9
1982 123,527
.8
1983 136,055
1.0
1984 116,322
g
1985 147,489
,9
—
1986 152,435
,9
1987 178,200
1.0
1988 192,000
1.0
i
J
J
-�
16
. Jt
_
RECREATION FEES
Recreation charges fees to participants
and rooms in
in programs and for rental of equipment
the Recreation Center. In
with the policy that fees for the
recent years, programs have been
expanded
pay direct
costs of those programs.
Revenue
Percent of Total G/DS Fund
_
1978 $106,322
1.1
1979 108,356
1.0
1980 125,425
1.0
1981 147,381
1.1
1982 156,806
1.2
1983 184,524
1.3
1984 278,821
1.9
—,
1985 284,519
1.8
1986 323,361
1.9
1987 343,469
1.9
-
1988 376,792
1.9
1
I -
I
I
1
I
i
t
17
-03
7
UNIVERSITY FIRE CONTRACT
_. The University of Iowa pays for fire protection based on a pro rata portion of
actual costs per square footage of buildings.
1957. The formula was established in
Revenue Percent of Total G/DS Fund
1978 $236,097
2.4
1979
268,874
— 1980 296,049 2.4
-- 1981 313,970 2.4
19822.3
325,447
_ 19832.5
370,371
2.5
1984
402,464 2.7
1985 440,869
(II 1986 441,277 2.7
1987 479,286 2.6
19882.7
512,836
2.6
I
I -i
I
IJ
I
18
503
LIBRARY SERVICES
The Library charges fines on
non-resident user cards, and
late return of library materials, fees for
fees
_
were amended in July 1985.
to reserve materials. The fines and fees
i
Revenue
Percent of Total G/OS Fund
_i
1978 $11,467
1979 12,895
.2
1980 20,476
.1
1981 25,056
1982 22,206
.2
2
1983.2
43,181
-
1984 48,618
3
1985.3
51,921
I
1986 75,093
3
_j
1987 82,456
.4
I
1988 82,456
5
_
i
4
_I
�J
IJ
j�
I
p JI
j
19
JOHNSON COUNTY CONTRACTS
The City contracts with Johnson County for library service to residents of
the unincorporated County and for Senior Center access to all senior residents
of the County. Beginning in FY85, the Library contract was agreed to be 10
percent of the Library's adopted budget; prior to that, the amount was negotiated
each year. In FY78, 79 and 81, North Liberty contracted for library service, and
in FY78 University Heights also contracted for library service. The Senior Center
opened in September 1981 with the agreement of the County paying 20 percent of
the adopted budget.
Revenue Percent of Total G/DS Fund
Library Senior Center
-- Contract Contract Total
1978 $ 36,249 - $ 36,249 .4
1979 47,560 - 47,560 .4
1980 42,960 - 42,960 .3
1981 58,227 - 58,227 .4
1982 69,650 $ 27,763 97,413 .7
1983 80,437 31,099 111,536 .8
1984 90,000 33,960 123,960 .8
1985 109,832 40,087 149,919 .9
1986 116,585 40,043 156,628 .9
1987 126,203 44,124 170,327 1.0
1988 131,140 46,096 177,236 .9
—i
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CHARGEBACKS
Enterprise funds that are self-supporting pay for costs incurred under the
G/DS Fund.
- Parking is under the Finance Department and pays a portion of Finance
Administration costs for supervision.
- Pollution Control, Water, Refuse and Landfill operation are under the
Public Works Department, so they pay a portion of Public Works Admin-
istration costs for supervision.
- Pollution Control, Water and Landfill pay for the cost of billing in-
curred by the Treasury, Accounting and Date Processing Divisions of the
Finance Department.
- Parking, Pollution Control, Water, Refuse and Landfill all pay a pro
rata share of general governmental costs such as Attorney, Finance,
Human Relations, etc.
- Assisted Housing, Broadband Telecommunications (cable TV) and the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program pay for actual adminis-
trative costs.
J Revenue Percent of Total G/DS Fund
_J
1978 241,458 2.5
- 1979 239,640 2.2
1980 255,480 2.1
1981 308,398 2,2
- 1982 351,665 2,7
1983 383,844 2.6
1984 436,819 3,0
1985 481,766 3.0
1986 535,140 3.2
1987 590,381 3.3
1988 609,615 3.1
21
1FO3
STATE SHARED REVENUES
Liquor Profits. Ten percent of gross receipts of State liquor stores are
distributed to cities according to population. The money is deposited into
the City's general fund and is not restricted in use. The State began phasing
out retail liquor stores in July 1985 and should be completed by June 1987.
Legislators may rewrite the liquor profit distribution formula in the 1987
session. FY88 estimates are based on information received in December 1986.
Bank Franchise Tax. This is a state tax, 5 percent of the net operating income
of financial institutions for the privilege of doing business in the state.
The state retains 55 percent while 45 percent is returned to the locality. Of
the 45 percent returned to a locality, 60 percent belongs to the City and 40
percent to the County.
Municipal Assistance. Sometimes called state revenue sharing, this is an amount
set by legislature to be distributed to cities according to population. The
amount received by a city cannot exceed one-half of the city's property tax levy.
Across-the-board cuts were executed by the State in FY82 and FY86, 3.6 percent
and 4.85 percent, respectively. Then in FY84 the State held back approximately
2.9 percent to cover its budget shortfall. Each year, legislature considers
__ discontinuing this program.
Bank Municipal Percent of General
Liquor Profits Franchise Tax Assistance Total Fund Revenue
1978 $248,599 $ 28,342 $270,269 $547,210 5.6
1979 266,874 33,679 270,258 570,811 5.1
1980 279,830 48,173 292,331 620,334 5.1
1981 269,858 91,434 317,475 678,767 4.9
1982 318,964 29,103 324,714 672,781 5.1
1983 309,990 37,665 340,351 688,006 4.7
1984 300,709 39,977 330,869 671,555 4.5
1985 293,117 27,131 340,350 660,598 4.1
_ 1986 279,034 77,615 324,004 680,653 4.0
1987 297,997 50,000 336,309 684,306 3.8
1988 277,794 50,000 337,899 665,693 3.3
These revenues, which represent a significant although declining portion of the
City's revenue program, cannot be considered stable income sources. Changes in
liquor sales administration by the State, and the legislative history of municipal
assistance, demonstrates that the City must approach the use of these revenues
with caution.
i
i
22
i'' so3
i
HOTEL -MOTEL TAX
This is a 5 percent tax on rental of rooms in hotels or motels. It was
approved by Iowa City voters on November 2, 1982, and implemented on April
1, 1983. There are currently seven hotels and motels in Iowa City that collect
this tax. The tax may be increased in increments of 1 percent to a maximum
of 7 percent by a general election. 50 percent of the tax receipts are re-
quired to be spent on facilities for recreation, convention, cultural or
entertainment, on bonds for such facilities, or promotions of tourism and
convention businesses. Iowa City's hotel -motel tax is distributed as follows:
25% Iowa City-Coralville Convention Bureau
25% Parks and Recreation
50% Public Safety - Police
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Revenue Percent of Total G/DS Fund
$ 99,127 .7
132,836 .8
210,542 1.2
210,540 1.2
210,540 1.1
23
.5'03
INTEREST INCOME
Interests income is earned on idle funds. These monies are generally put
into short term investments, with an average of six months.
Revenue Percent of Total G/DS Fund
_ 1978 $ 40,247
1979 63,574 .4
1980 100,866 '6
1981 138,065 '8
1982 139,421 1.0
1983 63,302 1.1
1984 85,605 4
1985 110,893 '6
1986 111,642 '7
1987 75,000 '7
1988 100,000 '4
.5
Interest rates received on invested funds fluctuate according to economic
conditions, as well as the amount of money available for investment. During
_ periods of inflation, it is to the City's benefit to have a high percentage
Of such elastic revenues, as inflationary increasbenefit t push u
�I the City's
yield in proportion to the price it must pay for goods and services in the
private market. The
withiCity has maximized its use of investmentinstr instruments
n our cash needs and ability to provide for long term, higher
investments. Current budget predictions are for a declining reserve position,
and thereby investment income could be further curtailed, yield
J
I J
f I
t "I
i
I -
-
i
24
CABLE TV REVENUE
-7
A Broadband Telecommunications franchise was approved by voters on November 28,
1978. This allows a cable TV company to install cables and operate the company
within the City. It also establishes a Broadband Telecommunications Commission
and a franchise fee. The cable television company's franchise fee is 5 percent;
however we are collecting at a 3 percent rate. The City Council is currently
in a lawsuit to secure the 5 percent fee. The Federal Communications Commission
limits franchise fees to 5 percent. The City's Broadband Telecommunications
Commission (BTC) coordinator's salary, office expenses, and government channel
— broadcasting costs are paid from this franchise fee.
—
Revenuej Percent of Total G/DS Fund
_. 1978 -
1979 - -
1980 -
1981 S 4,876 -
1982 45,025 0.3
1983 55,737 0.4
1984 63,238 0.4
1985 92,277 0.6
1986 76,368 0.5
J 1987 83,442 0.5
1988 96,298 0.5
I
25
,So 3
_.T
ROAD USE TAX
The State collects Road Use Taxes from the registration of motor vehicles, fuel
taxes, license fees, and the use tax on motor vehicles, trailers and accessory
equipment. Of road use funds, 18 percent is apportioned to municipalities
according to population. The revenues are restricted to the payment of expenses
for construction, maintenance and supervision of public streets.
This source of revenue is controlled exclusively by actions of the State Govern-
ment. It is frequently the subject of discussion by the State Legislature with
_ respect to changes in the distribution formula. The revenue has shown stability
over the last nine years (not adjusted for inflation), but declines as a portion
of the revenue program. Of particular concern is the fact that as a restricted
revenue, it can only be used for specific purposes. Those purposes, which require
the purchase of goods and services, are highly sensitive to inflation. The
J
total revenue has shown little change over the last four years.
Revenue
Percent of Total G/DS Fund
1978
$ 968,202
9.9
_ 1979
1,314,401
11.8
_ 1980
1,345,529
11.0
1981
1,286,446
9.3
1982
1,409,681
10.7
j 1983
1,501,501
10.2
J 1984
I
1,573,456
10.7
1985
1,675,447
10.4
1986
1,787,520
10.6
1987
1,793,034
10.0
1988
1,780,407
8.9
This source of revenue is controlled exclusively by actions of the State Govern-
ment. It is frequently the subject of discussion by the State Legislature with
_ respect to changes in the distribution formula. The revenue has shown stability
over the last nine years (not adjusted for inflation), but declines as a portion
of the revenue program. Of particular concern is the fact that as a restricted
revenue, it can only be used for specific purposes. Those purposes, which require
the purchase of goods and services, are highly sensitive to inflation. The
J
total revenue has shown little change over the last four years.
_I
_ OTHER FEES AND CHARGES
-' - Charges for police services (escorts, alarms connected to the Police
Department, truancy officer, records checks, incident reports)
- - Animal control fees (animal licenses, impoundment, boardin
trap rental)
9, acceptance,
Fees for zoning and subdivision applications and Board of Appeals action
- Commissions from vending machines and pay phones
Reimbursements for the cost of copies of documents (City Codes, maps,
brochures)
Reimbur
trees, etcents for replacement of damaged City property (street signs,
- Reservations for park shelters
TheThese fees and charges are set by
s. the City Council and were last reviewed in
i
I_
i
I J
J
i_
I—
27
OTHER LICENSES AND PERMITS
- Taxicab licenses
_. - Taxi driver permits
- Peddlers' and sound permits
- Trailer court licenses
- Dance hall permits
- Subdivision inspections
- City Plaza permits
- Cemetery burial fees
The City Council sets these charges. They were last reviewed in 1985.
i
J
I
J
I �
28
50 5
OTHER TRANSFERS
These are transfers between reserved funds and general fund operating activities:
— - From Parkland Acquisition Reserve to Parks (one-time transfer for capital
purchases)
- From Recreation Facilities Reserve to Recreation (one-time transfer for
capital purchases)
- From Broadband Telecommunications to Library (annually for one-half AV
Specialist)
- From Broadband Telecommunications to Finance (annually to repay start-up
— costs, deferred in FY88)
- From Perpetual Care Trust to Cemetery (annual transfer of interest income
plus one-time for capital purchases)
-I
CDBG
Community Development Block Grant funds will be used for payment to Aid to Agencies
in FY88. This was formerly funded by Federal Revenue Sharing.
29
,fo3
5• What has been the history
_ of
Federal
Revenue Sharing?
of
the City's
use
_
1974 Revue
1975-
$381,057
1976-
$707,539
-Code Enforcement
$ 4,490
$835,459
Transit
87,454$
Fire
Transit
38,000
Transit
$258,833
-Human Services
14,918
Human Services
316,950
Human Services
62,258
-Police
�
64,567
Police
150,000
Parks - Walks
8,369
-Finance
4,872
1,594
Park Improvements
16,139
IFinance
J Library
4,756
Library
5,075
Library
5,454
Civic Center
_
200,000
Civic Center
10,789
Rec Ctr Roof
66,890
_
Ralston Creek
27,552
Ralston Creek
11,482
Equipment Maint.
3,205
Equip• arkt.
25,500
Parks
2 953
Eastsidea Park
15,000
i -
Lower Park Road
1,689
Lower Park Rd.
43,890
I
Mercer Tennis
83,799
Mercer Tennis
19,569
_
i
Law Enf. Study
53,432
River Corridor
20,000
-
Space Needs Study
1,754
5,747
Space Needs Study
3,828
County Bike Path
5,000
Library Roof
22,296
Recreation Ops.
100,000
Landfill
122,790
Tree Trimming
12,116
Spec. Population
9,073
I J
f
r -
J
Bikeways
11,972
30
SO
_I
1977 Revenue
$423,316
Transit
$162,478
Human Services
63,747
Police
92,298
Recreation Ops
60,035
---Library Study
15,200
Police Lockers
20,485
_.Equip. Maint.
9,073
i-
1980 Revenue
$702,040
_.Transit
$309,440
Services
175,706
_Human
Library Ops.
13,163
Refuse
50,000
Capital Outlay
134,756
Senior Center
3,605
- Civic Center
15,370
li
Transit
Human Services
Fire
Finance
Refuse
Capital Outlay
Library Study
Police Lockers
Equip. Maint.
Property Acq.
Old Post Office
Transit
Human Services
JCCOG
Refuse
Capital Outlay
Park Shelter
Civic Ctr HVAC
31
1978 Revenue
$755,267
$ 55,000
153,534
70,549
2,922
164,862
95,134
4,000
1,765
24,881
157,620
25,000
1981 Revenue
$719,021
$277,824
110,615
43,696
150,000
2,000
11,892
122,994
1979 Revenue
$541,759
Transit $213,288
Human Services 153,532
Fire 24,620
Capital Outlay 100,205
Library Study 15,000
Nuclear Density
Meter 4,000
Civic Ctr HVAC 2,392
City Park Tennis 28,722
1982 Revenue
$712,745
Transit $455,950
Human Services 117,113
Refuse Coll. 29,535
Capital Outlay 12,500
Civic Ctr HVAC 97,647
Up to
`I
_.I
During the 15 -year history of the Federal Revenue Sharing, the City has utilized
the majority of available revenue to assist in the financing of the City's program
of services. Of the total Federal Revenue Sharing available during the 15 -year
period ($8,541,174), $3,110,101 has been devoted to transit related expenditures,
$1,828,060 to human services, $517,187 as a form of operational subsidy for refuse
collection/disposal (now a self-supporting program; i.e., revenues from fees equal
expenditures). These three examples represent 63% of the total.
Federal Revenue Sharing represents a critical loss of revenue in that it is no
longer available to the City to provide financial support for its program of ser-
vices, and therefore this revenue shortfall must be made up by other sources. Fed-
eral Revenue Sharing averaged 4.5 percent of the available general fund revenue.
i
32
,5'03
1983 Revenue
1984 Revenue
1985 Revenue
-
$661,970
$437,142
$572,721
Transit
$383,492
Transit
$281,869
Transit
$240,451
Human Services
131,515
Human Services
154,830
Human Services
165,295
Police
71,595
Audit
443
Police
139,149
Fire
67,000
Kirkwood Circle
27,826
Civic Ctr HVAC
8,368
i
1986 Revenue
1987 Revenue
Est.
1988 Revenue
i—
$429,555
$210,066
$461,517
-Transit
$ 67,072
Human Services
$193,299
Human Services
$ 10,000
_Human Services
171,698
JCCOG
764
Fire
451,517
_Capital Outlay
135,204
Civic Ctr Expansion
16,003
JCCOG
697
Kirkwood Circle
4,324
Civic Ctr Expansion 50,560
I
During the 15 -year history of the Federal Revenue Sharing, the City has utilized
the majority of available revenue to assist in the financing of the City's program
of services. Of the total Federal Revenue Sharing available during the 15 -year
period ($8,541,174), $3,110,101 has been devoted to transit related expenditures,
$1,828,060 to human services, $517,187 as a form of operational subsidy for refuse
collection/disposal (now a self-supporting program; i.e., revenues from fees equal
expenditures). These three examples represent 63% of the total.
Federal Revenue Sharing represents a critical loss of revenue in that it is no
longer available to the City to provide financial support for its program of ser-
vices, and therefore this revenue shortfall must be made up by other sources. Fed-
eral Revenue Sharing averaged 4.5 percent of the available general fund revenue.
i
32
,5'03
6 autt
*i sthe City Council's
revenues? /capability with
8
CITY COUNCIL DISCRETION OVER REVENUE , 9 u res) es,
- Building permits and inspections
Housing permits and inspections
Recreation fees
Interest income
13.3% University Fi
discretionary
respect to
re Contract (negotiated)
- Library services and contracts (negotiated)
- Administrative chargeback
- Other licenses and permits
- Other fees
and charges
I- Parking fines (overtime)
STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS REGULATE RATES AND/OR BASE
i- Agricultural Land tax
i [-Cable
General property tax
Hotel/Motel tax
68.4% Transit property tax
IJ agent Trust and
Y Property tax
Tort liability property tax
Debt service property tax
Cigarette tax
Parking fines (illegal)
TV
- STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS REGULATE RATE/BASEAND REDISTRIBUTE
1.0%f --
Liquor permits RIBUTE REVENUES
— Magistrates Court
STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS CONTROL SOURCE OF
_ - Federal Revenue Sharing REVENUE AND DIS7RlBUTION FORMULA
- COSG
17.3% - Road Use Tax
- Liquor profits
- - Bank franchise tax
- Municipal assistance
i --
33
i —
5163
What are the other major sources o1=
revenue available to the City's
In 1985 the Iowa Legislature passed a local option tax bill which provides cities
and counties with the opportunity to request voter approval fora local sales and
service tax, a local vehicle tax, a local earnings tax, or any combination of the
lature as �aneoptiont�mTheapurposeeofnthestaxxbi11 wasntoeprovidde ro ert
relief to Iowa taxpayers, to assist local governments with the a t1.cipatade Legis
reductions in other sources of revenue, and can be used for an P p y tax
LOCAL OPTION SALES AND SERVICE TAX y lawful purpose.
A local option sales and service tax may be implemented at the local level on
goods and services sold at the retail price. The general characteristic of a
;i local option sales and service tax includes:
1. The retailer is responsible for collecting the tax and remitting the
proceeds to the State,
2. The tax would be in addition to existing state sales tax and
3. The tax is allowed only on those goods anare subject
to state sales and services tax,
d services which
The
al
ion sales
allowsclocaltgovernmentsntosimpose arvice staxas authorized
by the State percent and services which are subject to the State's sales and service on thesame
may
be applied to transactions which occur within incorporated vicetand ix. The tax may
areas of the county, with contiguous groups of cities being considered as oned
e
incorporated area for the purposes of determining the rate of tax and imposing
the tax. The tax would be collected by the person making the sale and remitted
to the state. The State of Iowa would remit the proceeds of the tax back to the
Would be City and county according to a two-part formula. 75 percent of the tax revenue
according rtoieach localack ogovernment'stshareiof property n a er capia bass, and 25 etaxncollectionsrfemited
ort
the
prior three years. These shares would be allocated only among those governments,
within the county, where the tax is approved.
LOCAL OPTION VEHICLE TAX
withinLocal option
their jurisdictional imposed byes local governments on vehicles registered
age, pice or other
unitrtaxss of whichthe variesiaccording tor
rthe selected This aunit r vehicle,
uoftmeasureor may be a , such x may be a flat tax eas horse-
power or weight. The same formula could be used for trucks, based upon gross
vehicular weight. Normally, a vehicle sticker, which is displayed in the front
or rear window, is given to the vehicle owner as proof the tax has been paid.
Local option vehicle tax authorized in Iowa allows local governments to impose
the tax in one dollar increments per vehicle with no upper limit. The tax is
34
.S`6 3
_I
`ore, excludes new vehicle purchases or
This would be a county -wide tax which
>urer's Office and remitted to each city
;o be established on the ballot proposition.
•tain classes of vehicles from the tax,
used for transportation related expenditures.
91
,-03
LOCAL VEHICLE TAX ESTIMATES
- BASED ON
70,000 VEHICLES/%
OF POPULATION
Iowa City 65.0%
45,500
@ $10
= $455,000
Coralville 9.9%
University Heights
6,930
@ $10
= 69,300
1.4%
980
@ $10
= 9,800
-
North Liberty 2.6%
Hills
1,820
@ $10
= 18,200 ,
_
.8%
560
@ $10
= 5,600
-i
11
Johnson County 20.3%
14,210
@ $30
=
i
142,100
100.0%
70,00o
1980 Census: 77,649
j
This is a very difficult revenue
as well as the character/makeupof
to estimate
due to the
possibility
for illustration only.
the popul ations.
Therefore,
of exemptions
the information
is
i
I
i
I
i
36
so3
LOCAL OPTION SALES AND SERVICE TAX ESTIMATES
Based on 1% Tax on Taxable Sales = 345 000 000
Total Iowa City Coralville
75% Apportioned by
$287,979
Population
$186,110
$27,756,703
6.8
Population
1.2
0.3
1980 Census
77,649
50,508
% of Population
100.0
65.0
75% of Revenue
$2,587,500
$1,681,875
25% Apportioned by
Total Taxes levied
FY83. 84, 85
3 yr, total taxes
levied
$60,141,083
$27,095,541
% of taxes
levied
100.0
45.0
25% of Revenue
862,500
388,125
Total Annual
Revenue
t
l
7,687
9.9
$ 256,163
University
Heights
1,069
1.4
$36,225
North Liberty Hills
2,046
2.6
S 67,275
605
0.8
$ 20,700
Unincorporated
Johnson Countv
15,734
20.3
$ 525,263
$4,088,377
$287,979
$726,373
$186,110
$27,756,703
6.8
0.5
1.2
0.3
46.2
58,650
4,312
10,350
2,587
398,475
$ 3,450,000 $ 2,070,000 $ 314,813 $ 40,537 $ 77,625 $ 23,287 $ 923,738
37
INFORMAL SESSION
March 30, 1987
INFORMAL SESSION : March 30, 1987, 5:15 p.m. in the City Manager's
Conference Room at the Civic Center. Mayor Ambrisco presiding.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Ambrisco, Courtney,
Zuber. Dickson, McDonald, Strait,
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Baker.
STAFFMEMBERS PRESENT: Atkins, Helling, Timmins, Karr, Schmeiser, Prior,
Schmadeke. (Loren Leach)
TAPE RECORDED: 87- C17, Side 1, 239-251.
Moved by McDonald, seconded by Zuber, to adjourn to executive session
to discuss the purchase of particular real estate only where premature
disclosure could be reasonably expected to increase the price the
governmental body would have to pay for that property. Affirmative roll
call vote unanimous, 6/0, Baker absent. The Mayor declared the motion
carried and adjourned to executive session.
s-9