HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-06-30 Info PacketRULES CObMITTEE MEETING
June 30, 1987
Hmnediately proceeding formal Council meeting
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL aPMERs
AGENDA
By -Law Changes For:
1.) Riverfront Con nission
2.) Housing Appeals Board
=110i,
1
o.
r
r
T
t
I
r
f
I
RULES CObMITTEE MEETING
June 30, 1987
Hmnediately proceeding formal Council meeting
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL aPMERs
AGENDA
By -Law Changes For:
1.) Riverfront Con nission
2.) Housing Appeals Board
=110i,
.o•
r
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NOS. 76-354 AND 73-148, AND APPROVING
THE RIVERFRONT COMMISSION'S AMENDMENT OF ITS BYLAWS TO ALTER THE
MEMBERSHIP OF THE RIVERFRONT COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Iowa City has deemed it in the
public interest to establish a commission to assist the City Council in the
area of riverfront regulations and policy, and
WHEREAS, Resolution. No. 73-148 established a Riverfront Commission, and
described its power, authority, membership and terms of members; and
WHEREAS, the Commission and City Council deem it desirable to reduce the
membership and delete the requirement that there be a Planning and Zoning
Commission representative on the Riverfront Commission,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA, THAT:
1. Paragraph 1 of Resolution No. 76-354 be amended in its entirety to read
as follows:
The Riverfront Commission of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, shall con-
sist of ten (10) members. Six (6) of the members must be eligible
electors of the City of Iowa City; one (1) member shall be a resident
of the City of Coralville; three (3) shall be residents of Johnson
County, excluding residents of Iowa City and Coralville. The Commis-
sion members shall be appointed in the following manner: nine (9) of
the members, including those from outside Iowa City, shall be
appointed by the City Council of Iowa City, upon recommendation by the
Mayor. One (1) member shall be appointed by the City Council of Iowa
City upon the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Members shall serve without compensation, but shall be entitled to the
necessary expenses, including travel expenses, incurred in the dis-
charge of their duties.
2. The last sentence of paragraph 3 of Resolution No. 73-148 is hereby
deleted (to delete the reference to the Planning and Zoning Commission
member's term of office) and amended to read as follows:
3. The term of office for the member recommended by the Parks and Rec-
reation Commission shall be a one-year term.
3. Amendments of Article II, Sections 1 and 2 of the Riverfront Commission
Bylaws, to reflect the deletion of the Planning and Zoning Commission
representative requirement, which were approved by the Riverfront Commis-
sion, are hereby approved.
EdFAMLIM
Resolution No.
Page 2
It was moved by and seconded by
the Resolution be aUO—pt—eT,—anU upon FoTT call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Ambrisco
Baker
Courtney
Dickson
McDonald
Strait
Zuber
Passed and approved this day of 1987.
MAYdR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
■
.0,
•
Housing Appeals Board
July 8, 1986
Page 2
i
Faga said he would have to check whether the windows had a natural stop of
not. Moore asked about using bolts. Nicholas said that it would damage the
t window structure. Moore replied that three or four sizes of bolts were
! available for this purpose; Nicholas had only been shown one size at the
hardware store. Faga asked if the expandable screens would cover 45% of the
window area. Nicholas replied that 100% of the outside was covered with a
screen, and showed the Board with his hands how big the expandable screens
were. Streb moved to grant a variance. Dawson seconded. The motion carried
DISCUSSION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAWS
r
3 With the proper number of members in attendance to decide on a changeinthe
by-laws (four) the Board made a decision on the proposed by-law change. (See
attached copy.) Dawson moved to accept the amendment to the by-laws clarify-
ing the use of alternates. Newton seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Watts moved to adjourn. Streb seconded. The meeting adjourned by acclama-
tion at 9:50 a.m.
Minutes submitted by Christine Mullen.
Gary Watts, Chairperson
Ron O'Neil, Appeals Board Secretary
fi
II
I1'
U
9y�
.1.
i Pro osed Amendment to Section 11 of the Bylaws - Housin A eats Board
ropose changes are under ined.
11. The City Council shall appoint membership to the Housing Appeals Board
consisting of five (5) regular members and two (2) alternate members who
are members of the Housing Commission, none of whOm_a_re_e_mP70Y_e_es_07 the
City. An alternate member ma sit on the A eals Board to make a uorum
and/or to substitute or a reou ar mem er w o is a sent.
The term of the office of each member of the Housing Appeals Board shall
be for three (3) years.
The Chairperson of the Appeals Board shall be elected by a majority of
the entire regular membership at the first meeting in May of each calen-
dar year, to serve for a term of one calendar year. A Vice-Chairperson
i shall be elected in the same manner at the same time for a term of one
} calendar year.
i
6'
N
FFn
WF
Y,
c
h
BYLAWS - HOUSING APPEALS BOARD
J. The Appeals Board shall meet at the call of the Chairperson, or
when requested by the Housing Inspector.
1J. The City Council shall appoint membership to the Housing
Appeals Board consisting of five (S) mes an
mber
alternates who are members of the Housing Commid two (p)
ssion, none of
whom are employees of the City.
The term of office of each member of the Housing Appeals Board
shall be for three (3) years.
The Chairperson of the Appeals Board shall be elected by a
majority of the entire regular membership at the first meeting
in May of each calendar year, to serve for a term of one
calendar year. A Vice -Chairperson shall be elected in the same
manner at the same time for a term of one calendar year.
Ill. The Chairperson of the Appeals Board shall preside at all
meetings, shall conduct all hearings, and exercise and perform
such other powers and duties as may be from time to time
assigned to him or her by the Appeals Board or prescribed by the
shallbylaws.
rule on procedure a d on�order nofhpresentation,Chairperson
IV. A quorum of the Appeals Board shall be any three (3) members.
Frequent absences of a member may result in a recommendation to
the City Council that a new member be appointed.
V. The Board shall be the judge of the qualifications of persons
appearing as expert witnesses and shall be empowered to refuse
to receive the testimony of any purported expert not so
qualified.
f' VI.
In the absence or the disability of the Chairperson, the Vice -
Chairperson shall perform
all the duties of the Chairperson and
when $0 acting have all the
f'
all the restriction powers of, and be subject to
e upon, the Chairperson
i' V11.
In the absence of both the Chairperson and the Vice- Chairperson
of the Board of Appeals,
a Chairperson pro
from tempore shall be
elected among those regular members
.o•
present by a majority
vote of all the Board members present.
{ VilI.
Should any member have knowledge of any facts which may
constitute a conflict
of interest in his/her consideration of
any appeal, he/she shall forthwith notify the
Secretary, and
the Chairperson, of said fact.
IX.
The City Manager shall designate a secretary to the Board, who
Shall keep, or
cause to be kept, minutes of the proceedings of
the Appeals Board and shall
prepare an agenda of each meeting
I
.o•
0
which shall be furnished to members, not later than 24 hours,
prior to the actual hour of the meeting. The Secretary shall,
in addition, be custodian of the records of the Appeals Board
and shall, upon the filing of an appeal, furnish each Board
Member with a copy of the Notice of Violation pertaining to the
appeal and a copy of the letter of appeal.
X. Appeals from decisions of the Housing Inspector shall be in
writing and shall state the particular section of the ordinance
involved and a brief statement of grounds upon which such appeal
is taken.
X1. Appeals will be heard at meetings called pursuant to law by the
presiding officer or by a majority of the members of the Board.
Hearings shall be scheduled within sixty (60) days of the
receipt of a written appeal, unless both the appellant and the
Chairperson agree to a continuance.
X11. The decision of the Appeals Board on an appeal shall be final,
but shall not constitute a waiver of, nor affect in any manner,
whatever rights the appealant may have in judicial proceedings.
X111. Decisions rendered by the Board shall be in writing and shall
state the reason or reasons for the decision.
XIV. The Appeals Board shall not hold executive sessions, unless
authorized by law.
XV. Policy Changes or By-law changes will be acted upon at the
meeting following the meeting at which open discussion was
conducted on the specific changes. These Bylaws may be amended
by a vote of four of the regular members of the Appeals Board
subject to the approval of the City Council.
:o1
i
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM =
i Date: June 25, 1987
F
To: City Council
i
From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of FinanceQu�zb'
s
Re: Vehicle Estimate - Local Option Vehicle Tax
We have attempted to come up with a more accurate estimate of the number
1 of registered vehicles of Iowa City residents but have not been success-
ful. Numbers are available for total vehicles registered in Johnson
I County, but a breakdown by jurisdiction within the County is not avail-
able. We considered getting a listing of all vehicles registered in the
County and then sorting through the list by address, but found that there
i is no exact way to differentiate between City and County residency by
address alone.
I
Therefore, we will continue to use the estimate -of 40,000 vehicles as our
best guess of total Iowa City registered vehicles. The total number of
vehicles for the entire County is 70,000. The estimate of 40,000 vehicles
for Iowa City is a conservative estimate in that it is slightly lower than
the number of vehicles had the total vehicles in the County been allocated
based upon a population basis.
RV/sp
9r9
.o•
Johnson County Council of Governments
410EV(.flshirrgtona b✓VoGtb,,,0 2240
i i/ 0bate: June 24, 1987
To: City Manager and City Council
i.
From: Jeff Davidson, Transportation Planner
Re: Local Road/Scott Boulevard/Heinz Road RISE Project
'r
On June 18, 1987, Iowa DOT executed the agreement for the Local Road/Scott
Boulevard/Heinz Road RISE project. Design and ROW acquisition have already
begun on the Scott Boulevard and Heinz Road portions of this project, with
z! the County slated to begin these activities on Local Road yet this summer.
Public Works has indicated they of the grading for Scott
hope to have all
Boulevard completed yet this construction season. The time schedule for the
project indicates Summer 1988 completion of Scott Boulevard and Heinz Road,
and Sumner 1989 completion of Local Road,
V Following is a summary of the financing for this project:
r
Local Road (1.7 mi.)
RISE
Other Iowa DOT $ 983,368 (75)
Johnson County 197,7fl9 ( (7
City of Iowa City 50 000 q
1,31 ,15 100
Scott Blvd (9 m{ 1
RISE E 355,762 (40)
City of Iowa City 5 60
1
Heinz Road (3 mi.)
%
s RISE E 107,412 (60)
*City of Iowa City 161,118
E 268,530 (100)
*To be reimbursed by BDI per separate agreement.
Total state funding of the three projects is $1.6 million,
Othe
state financing for this project was a long, drawn out process involvingg many
members of the public and private sectors of the community. Many thanks to
all who participated.
cc: Don Schmeiser
bc3
476"
.1.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 19, 1987
To: Mayor Ambrisco and City Councilmembers n
From: Terrence L. Timmins, City Attorney (�/�//
Richard J. Boyle, First Assistant City Attorney all
Re: Summary Evaluation of First In. Evanc(elical
Glendale v. Countv of Los nae es_ ca , nrn,a 1(Z
In the above -referenced case, the Supreme Court held "that where the government's
activities have already worked a taking of all use of property, no subsequent
action by the government can relieve it of the duty to provide compensation for
the period during which the taking was effective." (Slip Op. 16). That is, the
Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause requires that compensation be paid for
temporary regulatory takings - those regulatory takings which are ultimately
invalidated by the courts. The decision finally holds what prior Supreme Court
decisions had suggested a majority of the justices would decide once the Court
found the issue was ripe for decision.
The facts of the case are simple. In 1957, the church purchased a 21 acre parcel
of land in a canyon along the banks of the Middle Fork of Mill Creek in the
Angeles National Forest. The creek is the natural drainage channel for a water-
shed owned by the National Forest Service. Twelve of the acres owned by the
church are flat land, and contain several buildings. The church operated on the
site a campground, known as "Lutherglen," as a retreat center and a recreational
area for handicapped children.
In July 1977, a forest fire denuded the hills upstream of Lutherglen, destroying
approximately 3,860 acres of the watershed area and creating a serious flood
hazard. On February 9 and 10, 1978, such flooding occurred when a storm dropped
11 inches of rain in the watershed. Runoff overflowed the creekbanks, flooding
Lutherglen and destroying its buildings.
In response to the flooding, in January 1979, Los Angeles County adopted an
interim flood protection ordinance prohibiting construction or reconstruction of
buildings or structures along the creek. One month later, the church filed a
complaint alleging, in part, that the interim ordinance denied to the church all
use of Lutherglen, and seeking damages for inverse condemnation) or "taking." The
County's motion to dismiss for failure to state any claim upon which relief can
be grantipd was allowed by the court on the basis of a California Supreme Court
decision which held that a landowner may not maintain an inverse condemnation
suit in California courts based upon a "regulatory" taking. Under that decision,
compensation is not required until a challenged regulation has been declared
excessive and the government has nevertheless decided to continue the regulation
in effect. If the government repeals the excessive regulation, money damages are
not payable. In the instant case, since the church sought only money damages its
complaint was dismissed by the trial court, and the dismissal was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
fare
2
The Supreme Court found the issue ripe for determination, and then turned
question of whether the Just Compensation Clause requires the
nme
for 'temporary' regulator "to the
of the Just Compensation Clausengs (Slip' °p' 8) After reviewingrthe nt to pay
ernment, the court held that the Clause requiresses lvang actions b purposes
takings are in effect. The Court reminded us that Sli Y the Federal gov-
t ypment for the time regulatory
( p. op. 16) -
As Justice Holmes aptly noted more than 50 years ago "
strong
desire to improve the public condition was not enou h Public
n ing the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way ofpafor
the change." 9 to warrant achiev-
Y 9 for
The Court noted that the Federal government has long been required to
sation for temporary takings, such as leasehold interests which were of shorter
duration than the period from Januar Pay cocase
so mere invalidation of a y„1979 to the date of decision in this case,
meet the demands of the Just Compensation clause.
is not a
4 sufficient remedy to
C It is important at this point to note what the decision did not do:
change substantive law as to when a taking
critical question It did not
in each of these cases. haEarlier rSupemeand tCourt sds ill the
t
however, failed to provide guidelines, and the Court has said: still the
eterms Court has generally 'been unable to develop any "set formula” for
determining when "justice and fairness" require that economic injuries
f caused by public action be compensated b
remain disproportionately concentrated on a few pthe ersons At rather than
f¢ it has examined the 'taking' question by engaging
factual inquiries that have identified several factors * * * Rather,
i in essentially ad hoc,
economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable
as athe
investment backed expectations, and the character of the
action - that have particular significance.
Ibid."3 governmental
The basic question then is: Does the regulation
has not Provided standards, so each case turns on gits town ffacts
.
Court left open the area of whether denial of use because of validesMoreoafety er,regt e
tions insulates the governmental bodyfrom befin obligated to Moreover, the
t Thus, in each case in which a 9 9
Pay compensation.
to be decided, taking" is alleged, there will be two main issues
" (1) whether there was
, in fact, a compensable taking resulting from a final
governmental action, and
y (2) ing there was, the extent of the damages which must be paid for that tak-
FOOTNOTES
lThe term "inverse condemnation" is'—
which a landowner recovers just compensationforaetaking�of his Property
in
condemnation proceedings have not been instituted." United States v. Clarke,
445 U.S. 253, 257 (1980), Y when
9s/
9.'
r
3
2A ins v. Tiburon, 24 Cal. 3rd 266, 598 P.2d 25 (1979), aff'd on other grounds,
4 0).
3Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 175, 100 S. Ct. 383, 390, 62 L. Ed.
d 332 79). See a so, Hodel v. Irving, 107 S. Ct. 2076, 2082 (1987); KX-
stone Bituminous Coal Assoc, v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 107 S. Ct. 1232, j
94 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1987).
{
I
I
i
v
t
i
9S/
.o•
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 23, 1981
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Meeting with University Staff - Design of New Laser Building and
Parking Ramp
On Friday, June 19, several City staff members, led by Patt Cain, met with
University staff to discuss the design aspects of the University's decision
to locate the laser facility just north of the Iowa Memorial Union and the
construction of a new parking ramp on North Capitol Street, between the
Chemistry -Botany Building and North Hall.
Thomas Hodne, the University's planning consultant, directed the discussion
session and explained the long-range campus planning objectives. The meeting
allowed the various parties to discuss the proposed new facilities in light
of goals and objectives and other constraints and/or concerns associated with
the goals and objectives of the parties represented.
City staff members explained the long-range need for improvement of the water
plant (additional filters, additional underground storage tank, and chemical
sludge handling facility). These were to be considered as part of the future
planning in and around the water plant site.
The University indicated they wished to make an architectural statement with
respect to a high quality building and site development. The City has indi-
cated that we would do everything within our planning and financial
constraints to cooperate in this project. The University's major concern was
that the water plant building would not architecturally complement the new
laser facility.
The University indicates that with the construction of the two projects,
approximately 330 parking spaces would be displaced. They indicated that
they would move quickly to construct temporary parking facilities. The new
parking garage is estimated to have 260± parking spaces.
Staff indicated to me that the meeting was very productive and all parties
attempted to accommodate different development goals. We hope that this
procedure will continue in the future. A second meeting with the University
is scheduled for July 2, and discussions will continue.
bj2/4
cc: Patt Cain
Dale Helling
9.s�.
.P'
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 25, 1987
To: Mayor William J. Ambrisco, City Councilmembers and City Manager
From: Terrence L. Timmins, City Attorney
Re: New Smoking Law and New Gift Law
Introduction:
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is
in session." Tucker Reports 248 (New York, 1866)
This old judicial maxim is said to be especially applicable to those legisla-
tive sessions when the legislature labors long and hard, but produces other-
wise modest results. Perhaps that was the case this year in the Iowa
legislature, because the legislature did pass a couple of major bills affect-
ing the liberties of legislators, governmental employees and officials, as
well as those of citizens, statewide.
In this year's session, the Iowa Legislature modified existing laws regarding
smoking in public places and regarding the giving of gifts to public offi-
cials and employees. In both cases, the law was made more restrictive. In
this memo, I will outline for you how the new laws will impact the City, its
officials and employees.
House File 79 - Amendments to Chapter 98A• Smoking Prohibitions.
The first section of the bill provides a somewhat expanded definition of
smoking, and defines for the first time what constitutes a "public place."
"Public place" is defined as "any enclosed indoor area used by the general
public or serving as a place of work, including, but not limited to... of-
fices of three hundred or more square feet of floor space, including wait ng
rooms of three hundred or more square feet of floor space,...; ublic conve -
ances with departures, travel and destination entirely within t s sta e;...
an auditoriums, elevators, theaters, libraries, art museums, concert halls,
indoor arenas, and meeting rooms. "Public place" does not include a private
enclosed office occupied exclusiyL11 by smokers even though the office may be
visited by non-smocers,... Tie term "public meeting" is also defined for
the first time as a gathering in person of the members of a governmental
body, whether an open or a closed session under Chapter 21."
Section 2 of the bill restates the prohibition on smoking. It provides that
"A person shall not smoke in a public place or in a public meeting except in
a designated smoking area." It then goes on to state that "Smoking areas �mma
be designated by persons having custody or control of public places, except
in "places in which smoking is prohibited by the fire marshal or by other
law, ordinance, or regulation."
?s
2
The next subsection addresses implementation of the smoking regulations, and
provides as follows: "Where smoking areas are designated, existing physical
barriers and existing ventilation systems shall be used to minimize the toxic
effect of smoke in adjacent non-smoking areas. In the case
consisting of a single roomof public places
, the provisions of this law shall be considered
met if one side of the room is reserved and Posted as a no -smoking area,"
The law also places certain duties upon persons in custody or control of a
i, public place or a public meeting. First of all, that person "shall make
i
reasonable effoia
rts to prevent smoking in the public places or public meeting
arranging seatingpaccordingly, Fns orther,g an sign oind9catinor gmoSmokinareas and
f ited except in designated areas" must be conspicuousl 9 prohib-
ited
to the public place or public meeting, y Posted on all major
Finally, the law imposes a civil penalty of $10 upon an
gg an area not designated for smoking, p Y person who smokes in
6 In terms of implementing this new law, think that it is obvious that smok-
$
tho hse areas which are in offices and work places generally not be permitted, except in
should determine if
B oposted awill I s smoking areas. The city administration
and where smoking areas are to be designated. As to rooms
in which meetings occur, including the Council Chambers, smoking should not
be permitted unless one side of the room is designated as a smoking area. The
Mayor and City Council should make that designation as to the Council Cham-
bers, and the city administration should do so as to all other meeting rooms.
Finally, the entrances to all City buildings and to all meeting rooms should
be posted with a sign which states as follows:
designated areas." "Smoking prohibited except in
F
r Senate File 480 - Amendments to Cha ter 68B - Solicitation and Acceptance of
is y u is
1C 7a s an mp OVees,
The first section of this bill begins with a laundry list of definitions,
s
including definitions for such terms as "gift," "local official/local em-
ployee," public disclosure, andfor
donee's agency." The definition of gthe phrase "is doing business with
ift is very broad and reads as follows:
t
S 9. a. "Gift" means a rendering of money, property, services, dis-
count, loan forgiveness, payment of indebtedness, or anything
else of value in return for which legal consideration of
equal or greater value is not given and received, if the
i
donor is in any of the following categories:
(1) Is doing or seeking to do business of any kind with the
donee's agency,
(2) Is engaged in activities which are regulated or con-
trolled by the donee's agency,
s
(3) Has interests which may be substantially and materially
affected, in a manner distinguishable from the public
generally, by the performance or non-performance of the
donee's official duty.
9.7's
3
S
¢
(4) Is a lobbyist with respect to matters within the donee's
jurisdiction.
} b. However, "gift" does not mean any of the following:
Campaign contributions.
of �+
$h fs
(2) Informational material relevant to a public servant's
official functions,
t
such as books, pamphlets, reports,
s documents, or periodicals, and registration fees
or
tuition not including travel or lodging, for not more
1, than three days,
at seminars or other public meetings
^, conducted in this state, at which the
public servant
s receives information relevant to the public servant's
official functions. Information
or participation re-
ceived under the exclusion of this
paragraph may be
applied to satisfy a continuing education requirement of
the
donee's regulated occupation or profession if the
donee
pays any registration costs exceeding thirty-five
dollars.
(3) Anything received from a person related within the
fourth degree by kinship
or marriage, unless the donor
is acting as an agent or intermediary for another
not so related. person
t; (4) An inheritance.
r (5) Anything available to or distributed to the public
generally without regard to official status of the
recipient.
(6) Food, beverages, registration, and scheduled entertain-
ment
at group events to which all members of either
.i house or both houses of the general assembly in-
vited. are
(7) Actual expenses for food, beverages, travel, lodging,
registration, and scheduled
entertainment of the donee
2' for a meeting, which is given in return for participati-
on in a panel or speaking engagement at the meeting.
i,
{' (8) Plaques or items of negligible resale value given as
recognition for public services.
6 The terms "local official" and "local employee" mean an official or employee
of a political subdivision of this state,
which includes cities, counties,
and school districts.
i
Finally, from a definitional standpoint, the terms "local official,,, "local
employee," and "candidate" include "a firm
of which any of those persons is a
partner and a corporation of which any of those persons holds ten
more
percent or
of the stock, either directly or indirectly, and the spouse and minor
children of any of those
persons."
9s.�
I
.P'
2
Basically, the new law prohibits local officials, local employees, and candi-
dates for local office from accepting a gift or series of gifts over $35 in
value from any one donor in any one calendar day, requires the governing body
of political subdivisions to adopt local rules for the reporting of gifts
over $15 in value, and requires such persons to report the receipt of any
gift from a single donor over $15 in value in any one calendar day. The
report must be made on the form provided by the secretary of state, and the
local rules and reports must be filed with the county auditor. Violation of
these provisions, by either a donor or donee, is a serious misdemeanor, and
if a public official or employee engages in such conduct, he or she is sub-
ject to reprimand, suspension, dismissal, or other sanction. An official or
employee can accept a gift of over $35 in value and not be in violation of
the law if the gift is donated within 30 days to a public body or a bona fide
educational or charitable organization.
In terms of implementing the law, the City's first step should be to adopt
rules to implement the reporting requirement and to circulate those rules to
all City officials, employees, and candidates for city office. The rules
implementing the reporting requirement have to be adopted by the "governing
body" i.e. the City Council. This could be done either by ordinance or reso-
lution, and could also include the City's substantive rules regarding the
receipt of gifts by City employees and officials. In my opinion, the City's
rules on the receipt of gifts could be more restrictive than provisions of
Senate File 480, which is to say that the tyy., cou pro ibit the receipt of
gifts altogether, or could set lower value liAikc_ n
/sp
ns,
I
.1.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 26, 1987
To: Honorable Mayor and Members, City Council
From: Richard J. Boyle, First Assistant City Attorney IV
Re: Regulation of Newsracks on Public Property
BACKGROUND
In recent years, unmanned devices for the vending or free distribution of
newspapers and periodicals ("newsracks") have proliferated in the City, both
on public and private property. The appearance of those devices on public
property has raised questions about the appropriateness of regulating them.
Regulation of newsracks on City Plaza has already been treated by ordinance.
City Code of Ordinances Section 9.1-7(1) provides that -
The City will make available, at a reasonable cost, space in the
City -owned newspaper dispenser units on City Plaza. In the case of
more applications than available space, a selection procedure that is
deemed fair, reasonable and appropriate by the City shall be estab-
lished.
There is no City -owned newspaper dispenser on City Plaza, although there are
a number of newsracks.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. May the City require that newsracks on public property be licensed?
2. May the City require that newsracks on City Plaza be placed in modular
units?
3. May the City impose size and location standards on newsrack owners?
DISCUSSION
The answer to all three questions is a conditional yes.
There have been a number of recent cases involving attempts by municipalities
and other governmental agencies to license and regulate the location of
newsracks, and while there are no definitive rules to be applied in all
cases, certain principles may be derived from those cases. Before discussion
of specifics, however, a bit of background may be helpful.
!sf,
As a general proposition, states have control of streets, highways, and
public property, but they have delegated to municipal corporations and other
public agencies responsibility for local streets and public grounds. In
Iowa, Code (1985) Section 364.12 provides that cities are "responsible for
the care, supervision and control of public grounds, streets, sidewalks... and
the city shall keep all public ways, squares, and commons open, in repair,
and free from nuisance..."
Governments hold public property in trust for the public, and it is generally
the rule that they cannot be put to any use inconsistent with the primary
purpose for which they were established. In the case of streets, the move-
ment of people is the primary purpose and municipalities have no implied
power to grant privileges to use streets for private purposes. For example,
the Iowa Supreme Court has held that Waterloo did not have authority to
authorize operation of a news stand on public sidewalks. Courts recognize
that public entities have power to preserve the property under their control
for the uses for which it was lawfully dedicated. Cities have a legitimate
interest in preserving access to buildings, and maintaining the normal flow
of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and it is the duty of public officials to
F> protect public property against inappropriate uses which interefere with
those interests. Stated otherwise, public ways (streets, alleys and side-
walks) are primarily for the movement of people and cannot be diverted for
merely private or commercial use which unreasonably curtails or interferes
with the public's use.
On the other hand, as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hague v. C.I.O.,
307 U.S. 496, (1939):
Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemor-
ially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of
mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating
thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such
use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been
part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citi-
zens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the
streets and parks for communication of views on national questions
may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but
relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general
comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good
order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or
denied.
That is, the exercise of First Amendment rights is another legitimate use of
streets and parks and, in those places, governments may not prohibit all
o' communicative activity.
II
Publication of newspapers is protected by the First Amendment guarantee of
freedom of the press, and that protection extends to their distribution since
the right to publish is meaningless if the right to distribute is curtailed.
However, such protection does not free newspaper companies from all regula-
tion, nor secure any private property rights. For example, enterprises
.V'
w
exercising First Amendment rights are subject to labor laws and zoning laws.
Further, the First Amendment does not create any right to use the property of
others. Indeed, "the First Amendment does not guarantee access to government
property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government." United
States Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Assn.. While some public property
istraditionaly a orum or place o exercise First Amendment rights, such
right is not absolute. In Heffron v. International Society for Krishna
Consciousness, Inc., the Supreme Court noted that "the First MAL
does
no guaran ee a right to comnunicate one's views at all times and places or
in any manner that may be desired." If the manner of expression is incompat-
ible with normal activities at a given time or place, such manner of expres-
sion may be regulated by reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
With the advent of heavy automobile and truck traffic, governments are faced
with conflicting demands for unobstructed movement of vehicles and pedestri-
ans and use of public property for exercise of First Amendment rights. Are
streets for vehicles or for demonstrations? In evaluating attempts to accom-
modate those demands, courts have attempted to formulate rules for resolving
" the conflicts. The first step is to' characterize the public property to
determine the existence of a right of access and the standards by which
limitations on such a right must be evaluated. That is, is the property a
traditional public forum? In Members of Cit Council v. Tax a ers for
Vincent, the Supreme Court repeated its ongstanding rue that (104 S. Ct.,
al—p-721 34
Public property which is not by tradition or designation a forum for
public communication may be reserved by the state for its intended
purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on
speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely
because public officials oppose the speaker's views.
In Gannett Satellite Inf. Net. Y. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., the Court of
Appeals approved a leasing scheme for newsracks in commuter railroad sta-
tions. The court held that the public areas of such stations constituted
public property which was not by tradition or designation a forum for public
communication, so the licensing scheme merely had to be reasonable and unre-
lated to the content of the publications.
An ordinance which makes peaceful enjoyment of a First Amendment right con-
tingent upon the uncontrolled will (i.e., discretion) of an official is
unconstitutional censorship, or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those
freedoms. Staub v. Cl of Baxley. Therefore, courts will invalidate an
ordinance or regu a n on w ci vests city officials with discretion to grant,
deny, or delay issuing licenses.
III
Governments may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions upon
exercise of First Amendment rights, but only if the restrictions are - (al
content neutral, (b) narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental
interest, and (c)leave
adequate alternative channels of communication. Perry
Educ. Assoc. v. Perry Local Educators' Assoc..
9s�
.a•
4
f5Y
If a city licenses all newsracks, such regulation would seem to be
content -neutral because it
facially
applies equally to all newsracks. Plain Dealer
Pub. Co. v. Cit of Lakewood, Ohio, Jacobsen
tvt
o, _ _ d/b/a/ Solo RFD v�rtvero.
regulations). °Wd' °v' 6, 1-01Yvtng es
otnes newrac
When dealing with public property which is a traditional public forum
as for example, the Pentacrest
- such
or City Plaza - a government may impose re-
strictions upon exercise of First Amendment rights Only if the
expression is basically incompatible
manner of
with the normal activity or use of the
public property at a particular time
j
and place. In such case, narrowly
crafted time, place, and manner regulations may be adopted to
interference with those interests.
prevent undue
Each regulation must be necessary to serve
a compelling state interest and must be
narrowly drawn toachieve that end,
Some
s
significant or compelling governmental interests include -
I. Orderly management of crowds and avoidance of congestion
streets and sidewalks.
on public
2. Traffic safety and obedience to traffic laws.
3. Unobstructed access to public facilities, such
i=
as utility
4. Aesthetics. poles.
5. Injury or property damage (i,e., public health
or safety),
6. Prevention of nuisances.
With respect to ample alternative channels of communication, in the Cit of
ii
thus a ty and numerous 24 hour establishments in which
thus establishing
newspapers were sold,
alternative channels for such communications.
Solo RFD v. Crivaro, the In
Td/b/a
nes Moines case Jacobsen
ternattve c anne s of communication in Judge Stuart foun3�e
vendors, or by
mail,
newsracks in locations complying th the ordinance,,,
noted there was no restriction
property, and said - He also
on therightto place newsracks*onprivate
Although the alternative distribution method may be more
First Amendment does
costly, the
not guarantee a right to the least expensive
means of expression, See Heffron, * * *
(state need not provide free
Y fairgrounds Or so xcitation); Kovacs
caccess
V. Cooper,
omnunication)rtct soundtracks even though they are cheapest
means of
IV
Whether specific regulations are reasonable time, place,
tions will depend upon the
or manner restric-
facts in any given case. They must be
drawn to serve a compelling P g
narrowly
government interest. In that regard, it is
helpful to review two recent court decisions
involving newsrack regulation:
f5Y
.1.
j
the Court of
Moines Appeals' decision
Cr=ordinance involved m the Cit of
in Jacobsen Lakewood
dvb/a Sol- case, and the Des
In the Lakewood and Sin )e Scene v,
racks in resp entia�' the Court of Appeals the
sustained the
safety agreeing 'with the finding that the city's ban
tainin� Proper functioning of district ordinance was °n news -
all 9 a clear a city s safety Courts hold- narrowly
substantial r�Over way o^ sidewalks for Y and sanitation that 'traffic
further than gov ynto neccinterests the Pedestrians forces
sustain necessar and , and aesthetics ed the size and °mPlish the Cit ' sub'ect
tionship t^ site ordinances reach
S Iocational requiremenbsectives', no
suggested the rental buildings and (i a The Court also
other haithout
nd, the license fee rather objects) and Placement in rela_
or
Court found unconstitutionajement is constitutional,deciding
�
1• The vesting of discretion On the
stitutional prior restraintis tno mayor to grant
5 2• Architectural not cured by built °r deny permits
i+ Tates review of newsrack in appeal Process) ncon-
First and Fourteenth design
3 Requirement (due process (n0 standards for review,
that ) amendments)• vio-
itY "for permittees ison whatndemnif
of a newsrackredPropertysdar occasioned uPonand rthee Y against liabil_
required Cit
Permitte' naming the Cit ge and liabilit installation and use"
Court of s therefore Y as insured.Y insurance of $100,000
Appeals dissenteruirement places undue (Not required owas
In Jacobsen would have sustained burden on ne other
newsrac Judge Stuart ct Des this Provision Pers, The
that He stated withusta"ned toe Moines regulations r
significant governmental elating to
[T]his Court is interest,
right-of-way on persuaded that "traffic
1 substantial sidewalks safety,,, maintaining
further than
government
�nterestspand sthe sub and aesthetics areClall
Ne also y to accomplish the Cit Ject ordinances all
sustained the City
s objectives," reach no
' while a government 3IO,poOdinaral license fee per
a First Amendment cannot encroachment
right, fees covering
s aliveimposingexercise
An interesting in9 administrative a fee on that
in the cases 9 variety of size costs are Permissible,
free passageway and size
and locational requirements has
Interests geway °f eneially those are desi
Moines in traffic and Pedestrians
to prevent been approved
ordinance safety and clear rightsians, thereb obstructions to
shall "unreasonablprovides that n^ -of- Y advancing a city's
fere or impede the obstruct the no en r achment way For example, the
encroachment flow of travel„ (whichDes
or be occuPY more than pedestrian or vehicular unreasonably ��ter�
Iowa located at street twenty-five traffic".
City Code of Ordinances,
within Percent of the width oi' a or may an
Sectio vision clearance triangles, sidewalk,
Ions 34-24(a) and 36-65(a),)
(See also
PSY
.1.
r
6
The Des Moines ordinance also providesi that:
(b) No newsrack shall be located:
(1) Within five feet of any fire hydrant, fire or police alarm
box, or other emergency facility;
(2) Within two feet of any marked crosswalk or any driveway;
(3) Where it restricts access to a bus shelter or a bus bench;
(4) Where it interferes with loading or unloading at the front
and rear doors of buses;
(5) On any handicapped access ramp;
(6) In such a manner as to reduce the clear space for the pas-
sageway of pedestrians on sidewalks to a continuous and
unobstructed width of less than six feet;
(7) On the right-of-way of any street where parking is prohibited
for all or any portion of the day or within 50 feet of such
street on the right-of-way of any intersecting street,....
(c) Newsracks on public street right-of-way shall only be placed
either (a) not more than one foot back from the face of the curb,
or (b) not more than six inches from a public utility pole or a
traffic sign pole located near the curb, or (c) parallel to the
wall of a building and not more than six inches from the wall.
Newsracks placed near the curb shall be placed so that the opening
through which newspapers or news periodicals are dispensed does
not face the curb line.
In its skywalk system, Des Moines provides modular units at locations it
selects and newspaper and periodical vendors may lease space in those units
in which to place their newsracks. Unless extra space is available, vendors
are limited to one space per modular unit. They pay annual rent of $10 for
each space, and renew leases in March of each year. If demand for a location
exceeds spaces available, lots are drawn for spaces. Unallocated space is
available first come -first served.
In addition to provisions described earlier, the ordinance at issue in Plain
Dealer Pub. Co. v. City of Lakewood, contains locational limits similar to
those in the Des Moines ordinance. Ine District Court and Court of Appeals
both held that the following locational, size and other requirements are
constitutional.
Newsracks -
1. Must be constructed of metal or substantially similar materials.
2. Shall not exceed 50 inches in height nor more than 25 inches in length
and width.
3. Shall not be placed in residential districts.
---------------
1Similar provisions are found in a model ordinance contained in P. Ball,
FvfrAl FYfral Read All About It: First Amendment Problems in the Regula -
TOW r
.Y'
4. Placed near curbs must be parallel to the curb line, not less than eight-
een inches nor more than twenty-four inches from the curb.
6. Shall not be placed within 250 feet of another newsrack for the same
newspaper or periodical.
7. Cannot be placed where three newsracks are already located.
Lakewood imposes a license fee of $10.00 per device per year, and requires a
permittee to maintain the immediate area around each newsrack free of litter
and debris. The ordinance also prohibits use of the devices for advertising
anything other than the newspaper sold therein.
Although the Des Moines ordinance does not require insurance or indemnifica-
tion, a reasonable requirement should be upheld. The Lakewood provision was
7 struck down because indemnification and insurance were not required of other
users of right-of-way, not because the requirement was suspect. Iowa City
requires indemnification and insurance from users of its streets (Code of
;! Ordinance sections 31-47 (excavations) and 31-141
etc.). Further, recent trends in tort law show thatpplacing obstructublic ionseon'
t public right-of-way can subject to liability the one placing the obstruction
j if a vehicle operator runs into the obstruction.
i
In Sisco v. Iowa -Illinois Gas & Elec. Co., the Iowa Court of Appeals held
that an obstruction near a street may be a nuisance, giving rise to liability
of a public utility for personal injury to one whose vehicle leaves the road
and runs into the obstruction. It is a small step from imposing liability on
a utility placing such an obstruction to imposing liability on a municipality
which permits encroachments or obstructions on right-of-way.
+ Since liability may result from placing obstructions or encroachments next to
streets, the one placing the obstruction should bear responsibility for any
damages arising from such placement, and therefore the City should be
indemnified respecting such liability.
CONCLUSION
Based upon my analysis of the cases, particularly Crivaro and City of
Lakewood, 1 have redrafted the proposed newsrack regulatory ordinance, a copy
or
w c is attached. That draft reflects the maximum in terms of regula-
tions which the City could expect would be upheld by the courts. It does not
i' any
ccor,nIof
titoiewant
todo vnewsracks.Adinglywouldinvte youto reviwthis memo and the
proposed ordinance in anticipation of a discussion of the matter during an
informal session in the near future. Based on our discussion of the matter
at that session, I will then be able to prepare a draft reflecting the degree
of regulation which the Council wishes to impose.
/sp
9st,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN TOTO USE
ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING ANCHAPTER 31 OF THE CITY CODE OF ANI ALS FEE AFOR kSUCH
OF PUBLIC PROPERTYNF R NEWSRACKS, AND
USE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
a. Municipalities hold streets and sidewalks in trust for the public and,
allow them to be put to
under Section 364.12 of the Iowa Code, cannot
inconsistent with street or pedestrian traffic use. Municipali-
any use
ties have no power to authorize any private use of or encroachments upon
ways. Interference
public ways which prevent unobstructed use of such
with such unobstructed use is a nuisance.
71
b. The City Council has discretion to authorize use of City property by
of the public generally, only for
-;
individuals and firms, to the exclusion
is deemed fair, the same as any other owner of
i
such consideration as
has exercised that right from time to time, including the
i
land, and
granting of a cable television franchise for consideration.
c. Newsracks are an important me ans by which newspapers and other periodi-
the gains access to the same,
cals are distributed and by which public
should be placed on public property only in such manner
but such machines
that the placement does not interfere with the public's right to have
and free from
CI
public streets, sidewalks, squares, and common areas open
nuisances and visual clutter.
d. Due to the large number of newsracks which have recently appeared in the
at times, obstructed
City, the public property has become cluttered and,
thereby interfering with the public's rights to have
by such devices,
aesthetically pleasing streets, sidewalks, squares, and common areas,
which are open and free from nuisances.
e. It is the intent of this Article that, in order to promote the health,
shall be
safety, and general welfare of the population, standards
newsracks on public property, but only places which
provided to allow bstructed use of
do not interfere with the public's right to free and uno
such property.
SECTION ]I. AMENDMENT. Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances, relating to
amended by adding the
following LOCATION places,
l Nces,NEWSRACKSby
followig new ArticleII
n
Section 31-160. Definitions.
,o•
"Public property shall mean the streets, sidewalks, roadways, squares,
by and located within the City
common areas, or other similar property owned
this Article, shall not include City Plaza.
of Iowa City, but for purposes of
"Modular newspaper vending machine" shall mean an unmanned device, containing
free distribution of more than one
separate compartments, for the vending or
edition of newspapers or similar periodicals.
9s�
.V'
Ordinance No.
Page 2
"Newsrack' shall mean an untanned, mechanical device utilized for the sale or
free distrioution of newspapers or news periodicals.
Section 31-161. Permits Required.
It shall b=_ unlawful for any person, group, firm or organization to use any
portion of public property for a newsrack without a permit for use of such
property. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prohibit the placement
of modular newspaper vending machines on public property either by the City,
or with the consent of the City.
Section 31-162. Standards for Location of Newsracks on Public Property.
a. A newsrack may be located on public property only in such place and
manner that it does not cause any obstruction to the public's free and
unobstructed use of such property, or impede the free flow of pedestrian
or ve-icular traffic in or out of a building. Specifically, no newsrack
may be placed, used, installed or maintained:
(1) Within five (5) feet of any fire hydrant or other emergency facil-
ity.
(2) On any handicap access ramp.
(3) Within five (5) feet of the intersection of any driveway, alley, or
street.
i
(4) Within two hundred fifty (250) feet of another newspaper vending
machine containing the same newspaper or news periodical.
(5) At any location where the width of paved clear space in any direc-
tion for the passageway of pedestrians is reduced to less than six
(6) feet.
(6) So as to occupy more than 25 percent of the width of the sidewalk.
(7) At any location which interferes with or impedes access to any
building abutting public property.
i
b. A newsrack on public street right-of-way shall only be placed either (i)
not more than one foot back from the face of the curb, or (ii) not more
than six inches from a public utility pole or a traffic sign pole located
near the curb, or (iii) parallel to the wall of a building and not more
than six inches from the wall. A newsrack located near the curb shall be
place-- so that the opening through which newspapers or news periodicals
are dispensed does not face the curb line.
c. No neKsrack shall exceed fifty (50) inches in height and two (2) feet in
width or depth.
9sr
.P'
Ordinance No.
Page 3
Section 31-163. Ap;lication --Generally
a. An application for a newsrack permit, containing the information required
by the terms of itis Article, may be filed with the City Clerk by any
person, group, firm, or organization desiring to locate'a newsrack ori
public property. An application may include all newsracks the applicant
wishes to locate on public property, but a separate permit shall be
issued for each such device.
b. Applications for the original issuance of newsrack permits for newsracks
currently located on public property shall be filed within sixty (60)
days of the effective date of this ordinance. Applications for addi-
tional or new permits may be filed at any time. All applications shall
be in such number of copies and in such form as may be prescribed by the
City Clerk, and shall be accompanied by the required fee.
Section 31-164. Application - Contents.
The application form for newspaper vending machine permits shall, in addition
to such other information as the City Clerk may deem necessary, contain the
following information:
• aff4
a. Name, address and telephone number of the applicant.
ri
b. The name, address and telephone number of a responsible person whom the
City may notify or contact
at any time concerning the newsrack.
C. A site plan for each location at which the applicant desires to locate
each newsrack.
d. Sufficient information to show compliance with Section 31-162.
e. A statement that the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
the City from and against all claims
for damages which in any way relate
to or arise from the use or location of
a newspaper vending machine on
public property,
Section'31-165. Fees.
The City Council shall, from time to time, set the amount of the permit fee.
The amount of such fee shall be
based upon the City's expenses related to
processing applications and issuing permits, inspecting and enforcing this
Article, and responding
to complaints. The fee shall be ten dollars ($Io.00)
per machine per location
per annum.
ii
'
Section 31-166. Issuance of Permit.
Following receipt of properly completed applications and fees, the City Clerk
shall promptly issue
a permit for each newsrack meeting the standards set
forth in Section 31-162. Such permits shall be in
the form of decals with
adhesive backing, and shall be displayed on each machine.
• aff4
.P'
•
Ordinance No.
Page 4
Section 31-i6%. Nature and Scope of Permit.
A newsrad: permit shall be revocable for cause. It shall not constitute
property nc- be subject to attachment and execution, nor be alienable or
assignable. A permit shall only relate to the location for which it is
issued. A newsrack for which a permit has been issued hereunder may be moved
to another location on public property, without a new application and fee,
provided the new location meets the requirements of this Article, and further
provided a site plan showing the exact new location is filed with the City
V': Clerk no later than the next business day of the City after the move.
Section 31-168. Term of Permit.
Newsrack permits shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of
issuance. Absent a material change of circumstances relating to a machine,
permits shall be automatically renewable upon payment of the applicable fee.
Section 31-169. Denial or Revocation of Permits - Grounds, Effect.
The City Clerk shall make the initial determination as to whether a newsrack
permit shall be denied or revoked, for any of the following reasons:
1. Misrepresentation of any material fact in the permit application.
2. If the location of a newsrack, in fact, obstructs the public's use of the
right-of-way.
3. If the newsrack does not meet the standards set forth in Section 31-162.
Section 31-170. Notices and Effect of Denial, Revocation or Non -Renewal of
Permit.
Notice of action denying or revoking a permit shall be mailed, postage
prepaid, addressed to the permittee at the address shown in the permittee's
application, and shall be deemed to have been received three (3) days after
the date of mailing.
If an original application for a permit for a newsrack currently located on
public property is denied, or if a newsrack permit is revoked, the owner of
such newsrack shall have seven (7) days from the date of receipt of notice of
the action denying or revoking such permit within which to remove such
newsrack from public property. Further, any newsrack for which a permit is
not renewed by the owner shall be removed from public property no later than
seven (7) days after expiration of the permit. If the newsrack is not
removed within such seven (7) day period, the City may remove it and assess
the cost of such removal against the owner of the newsrack. However, no
newsrack may be removed while an appeal is pending under Section 31-171.
Section 31-171. Appeal and Hearing.
The right. to a hearing before the City Manager shall be afforded to a
newsrack permit applicant whose application is denied, in whole or in part,
or to a permittee whose permit is revoked. Any applicant or permittee who is
aggrieved by a decision denying or revoking a newsrack permit may, within
rft7 r
Ordinance No.
Page 5
seven (7) days of such decision, request, and shall be granted,
a permit
hearing which shall be conducted in the manner provide.; in Section
2-186 of
the City Code of Ordinances.
SECTION III. REPEALER: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in
conflict
with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY: If any section, provision or part of
the Ordi-
nance shall e a ,judge o be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication
V
shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section,
!
provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in effect
after its
final passage, approve an publication as required by law.
jl
Passed and approved this
M4YOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
r;
ky
a,
g,
r`
iz
I
9s�
.v
•
I
�� t?
Iowa City • Iowa
0
Mayor William Ambrisco
City of Iowa City
civic Center
410 E. Washington
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Mayor Ambrisco:
June 29, 1987
On Thursday, June 25, the Board of Directors of the Greater Iowa
City Area Chamber of Commerce voted to endorse, with modifica-
tion, the majority report of the Citizen's Committee on City
Revenue. We believe it is essential the Council consider the
following points before making any final revenue enhancement
decisions.
We concur with the entire Citizen's Committee that the
current revenue options available to local governments
are unIowa dit, In partship
esirable.
like Cthe Chamberner mustprovide the lead to establish an effective, statewide
lobbying effort to secure more revenue options for
Iowa's municipalities.
The Chamber urges the Council to immediately review and
prioritize the supplemental recommendations
Citizen's Committee. of the
The Chamber supports the philosophy that no tax
increase should be imposed until a systematic and
thorough review of city expenditures and efficiencies
has occurred.
4. The Chamber believes debate on the local option sales
tax referendum can not take place until specific
referendum language is proposed to the community.
There is legitimate concern on the impact of a one cent
local sales tax on the current retail community and on
the direction of future retail development with a tax
in place. If the Council decides on a referendum, the
Chamber strongly endorses referendum language that sets
aside a portion of the anticipated revenues for the
development and marketing of a regional shopping and
visitor hub in Iowa City.
Greater Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 2356 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 (319) 337.9637
9Ss
Mayor William Ambriscp
June 29, 1987
Page 2
The
In estabber of commerce lishita the gitayenlst CommitteuncilTfo
hesetheir hi
many hours tacklin the C
Opportunity for flexibilit
their frustration.Very COmPlex oitizensers p
Y. Their well issue with spent
The Chamber We Publicly written re Very little
Council tp endorses Y commend their ort
reflects
Included 0 make a final the Mai efforts.
In his letter. ecision only after at but encourages the
Thank action on
You for Your consider the Points
Sincerely,
consideration.
Rpbert �'
President Sierk
RMS/lb
,f
i
i
:r
sl
1�
-1
`I
tl
it
i
Fi
<i
i
Mayor William Ambriscp
June 29, 1987
Page 2
The
In estabber of commerce lishita the gitayenlst CommitteuncilTfo
hesetheir hi
many hours tacklin the C
Opportunity for flexibilit
their frustration.Very COmPlex oitizensers p
Y. Their well issue with spent
The Chamber We Publicly written re Very little
Council tp endorses Y commend their ort
reflects
Included 0 make a final the Mai efforts.
In his letter. ecision only after at but encourages the
Thank action on
You for Your consider the Points
Sincerely,
consideration.
Rpbert �'
President Sierk
RMS/lb
.V
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM ._
Date: June 26, 1987
To: City Council
From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of FinanceKvx&�
Re: Iowa Disabled and Senior Citizens Property Tax Credit
Following is a brief synopsis of the qualifications for the property tax
r credit and a sample computation of the tax credit. I would agree with the
evaluation put forth by the gentleman who spoke at
p your informal meeting
ii on Monday, June 15, 1987, that the tax credit is available only to the
very low income individual and that it provides minimal to no relief for
?; the average senior citizen.
ei Qualifications:
t.; 1. Claimant must be 65 years of age or a surviving spouse of age 55 -
who has not remarried.
2. Claimant may be any person who is totally disabled.
3. Must occupy the homestead for at least six months of the year.
4. Must presently live in the State of Iowa.
5. Must have been a resident of Iowa for the entire prior calendar
year.
h
6. If part of the homestead building is rented or used for business
purposes, the credit applies only to property taxes due on that
portion being utilized as the dwelling by the claimant and house-
6:
hold members.
!`! 7. The combined income of the claimant and spouse must be less than
$12,000.
i.
8. Income is defined as:
a. Wages, tips and salaries.
b. Social security income.
c. All pensions and annuities.
d. All interest income/dividend income (including those exempt
from Federal/State income taxes).
e. Profit or loss from business/farming.
f. One hundred percent capital gains/losses.
eef
9s�
.1.
2
g. Other income: child support, alimony, welfare (cash only),
disability and other retirement income, insurance income such
as workers' comp, and any monetary contributions (i.e. from
other household members).
Credit Allowed:
Percent of Taxes Used
Household Income to Compute Credit
$0.00-$4,999.99 100%
$5,000-$5,999.99 70%
$6,000-$6,999.99 50%
$7,000-;7,999.99 40%
$8,000-$8,999.99 30%
$9,000-$11,999.99 25%
NOTE: The credit applies only to a maximum of $1,000 of property
tax.
SAMPLE COMPUTATION:
Assumptions:
1. Annual income of claimant and spouse is $10,000.
2. Claimant owns and lives in the average residential property in
Iowa City (taxable valuation = $52,953).
Description Amount
Property taxes payable $1,386
Add back homestead credit 62
Gross property taxes 317M
Property tax base (gross taxes or
$1,000 whichever is less) $1,000
Percentage used for credit 25%
Tentative credit v7�
Less homestead credit
Property Tax Creditg
RV/sp
NOTE: The computed property tax credit in this example is actu-
ally only 14% of the total property tax bill.
9,sOP
I
9�
CITY OF
IOWA CITY
FINANCIAL
PROJECTIONS
s;
FY88
- 89
yf
-------FY88-------
$
------ FY89-------
FY89 INCREASE/
%
$ %
DECREASE OVER FY88
Revenues
?' Property Tax
€' Other Revenues
12,556,614 65
6,871,552*
13 075,661 67
4.1%
35
6,532,898 33
(0.5)%
TOTAL
19,434,166 100
19,608,559 100
Expenditures
E_
0.
TOTAL
19,673,034*
20,552,929
Y
i'
4.5%
Revenues Over
Under Exp_ en_ di -tures
(238,868)
(944,370)
* Net of purchase
of and funding for Fire
Department ladder truck
($451,517).
9�
,n
s;
yf
E_
0.
1�
Y
i'
•
9�