HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-28 Info Packet of 1/24City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM*
DATE: January 24, 1986
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Material in Friday's Packet
Schedule for budget review session, Saturday, January 25, 1986.
Memorandum from the City Manager regarding economic development.
Memoranda from the Assistant City Manager:
a. Coralville Milldam Hydropower Project
b. City -School District Joint Swimming Facility Project
Copy of letter from the City Manager to Mark Jennings regarding the Pa
and Recreation Commission.
Memorandum from the Human Services Coordinator regarding staff recommei
for FY87 human services funding.
Memorandum from the Director of Finance regarding sewer bonds.
Memorandum from the Associate Planner regarding Old Capitol center norl
entrance landscaping.
Memorandum from the Transit Manager regarding monthly ridership statist
for December 1985.
Letter from Chamber of Commerce recommending that Phil Sive serve as a
member of the JCCOG Transit Advisory Committee.
Copies of letters in reply to the Mayor's letter regarding the Nuclear
Free Zone Ordinance from:
a. The White House
b. Representative Cooper Evans
Copy of letter to Douglas Boothroy from Representative Jim O'Kane regar
the decriminalization of municipal code violations.
Articles:
a. Citizens Action Center
b. Tax -overhaul bill stalls municipals
Iona City, Iowa Financing Plan for Wastewater System Improvements
Iowa City Conference Bd. meeting agenda from City Assessor
3
Y
�NNtva��ar Baa♦ \ �.'w atm\
NOTE:
LOCATION
SCHEDULE FOR FY87 BUDGET REIIEY
SATURDAY JANUARY 25; 1986
LIBRARY ROOM A
PAGE
8:00 A.M.-1:00 P.M.
8:00
City Manager
38
City Manager
47
Broadband Telecommunications
112
Energy Conservation
79
Civil Rights
308
Equipment Maintenance Service
8:30
Public Works Department
103
Administration
98
Engineering
116
Traffic Engineering
121
Streets
246
Refuse
251
Landfill
238
Water
230
Pollution Control
9:00
Parks b Recreation Department:
209
Administration
183
Recreation
195
Parks
76
Government Buildings
106
Central Business District
125
Forestry
131
Cemetery
10:00
201
Library
10:30
BREAK
10:45
Capital Improvements Program
416
%4
City of Iowa City
- MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 24, 1986
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager y.�f
RE: Economic Development
Enclosed are samples of advertising by cities in the recent national
Publication, "Plant Sites and Parks: The Magazine of Economic and
Office Development. Note the financial incentives and university
involvement.
%4
:,.,.....,...........................,...... ................ a_ ...............
Northern
Kentucky University
Foundation lie es�arch
& Technology Park
■ Owned and operated by
NKU Foundation, Inc.
• Stategically located:
. at juncture of 1.275/1.471
- 6 miles from Cincinnati
- 12 miles from Greater
Cincinnati Airport
- 10 miles from Lunken
Airport
NOsO
da
Ralph A. Tes•eneer, President
NKU Foundation, Inc.
Northern Kentucky University
Highland Heights, KY 41076
(606)674.5126
^rr^ta Reader Service Cod No. 271
PECOS
TEXAS..•
0
1p.1�r
• Financingp, G
$10,0rants and Assistance- �J
00,000In industrial Revenue Bontls.
Training Grants -NO STATE INCOME TAX.
• Tax abatement program: 100% firel year/
50% SA _ " year.
•Available Industrial Park properties - rail spurs,
adjacent to Interstate 20, forty minutes to Interstate 10, utilities available.
aaa, n I aaa-27.00 eracre er ear-city/county land
•Rlghttowork law,pmductive larkodentetl aborforceat non-union Pay scale,
•Transportation network - Rail, iir, 1.20 and 1.10. Municipal Airport capable of
handling heavy aircraft, ninety minutes from Regional Airport.
,The Sunbeltl No Winter -weather closedowns, Average temperature year
round 65' F.
rAvailable Housing at affordable prices with reasonable financing.
P Modern well equipped 62 bed hospital. Twenty-six churches of all denomina•
lions.
r Recreational facilities - Golf, Swimming, Tennis, Fishing, Hunting, Camping
and Hiking -All within an hours drive.
Excellent Educational and Vocational Training.
,A greet quality of life atmosphere! Warm, friendly people!I
/3
For Information or APPointment call.
Nita Smith, Peco SChamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 27, Pecos, Texas 79772
Reader Service Card No. 280
PLANTS • SITES & PARKS
rT
a17
,Zr � J, IT,
�
���
A Winning
Combination_
Frw lnretinnx rnn mnorh lhr t,-,hnnlav
gnl n•xuulrry n. xdnblr. .v_
Io Irnumr of 1'u rdur Induvtrinl Ifrvrxmh I'xrh. Itnly x frw
mmmrx x. Turd ur l'ni lrrnov 1 -nn h, -I,, coo tr
......... rh mon xpplird n nvlulr hxxic�
mroh,olr .n huvmrvv and mduvo n. I'xrk
Irmm%, II v1-rrud)'ucrrxx to nll univrn,nl lihrxriex and furili 111-x, s
x111n1; wo.' u pad ofhighly Irninrd mnnp11.'rr nvni Inhlr fnr fu II xnd
pxrt limn rmplovmrno.
ohn•r hnure hvlxir nndl'L 11 hnurx h. InvM v nal xf o. BI ��,f o hr oup Ihxl
m�trhrlr,n mr rnxmm. Innnvinnl 1-r., x„r uxndx. r o m, su:.
f muvmG. .nh•v nnJ Irnve nplunu unJ on 11f the 111.1-x1 Ix; rxtrx
:no,
nuli11n mIJIr Puryur Ind uxl ri11l Rr+rnrrh I'nrk wrll w,r1h
tour vrnxux r,,nxuh,to,
Purdue Research Foundation
Fredrick L. Ilovde 114,11, Purdue Ilniverxity -
Wert I.nfayene. I\' a94ersit '
IV or
Fr Mt. Pleasant
TENNESSEE
®LOCATION,
LOCATION, LOCATION...
Nt. Pleasant's central location In Southern
work to
,d east.
's Inter.
system.
® LAND, BUILDINGS, UTILITIES.... .
It's good land that requires little site preparation. In addition
to our 100 acre Industrial Park. adi....,,,.. #k. [d�.�.. � r•.... _...
ne ,onat nupon, we can otter over 300 acres of other
In ustdally zoned sites with utilities and rail accessibliryry A
50.000 Iit. building (under construction -expandable) is
available with an additional 33.750 sq.ft. bulldfngptanned
forspring'86. Also:we can assist in financing with Ids, the
® THE COMMUNITY AND IT'S PEOPLE.....
In the Mt. Pleasant area you can find those quality of life
advantages (good schools. medical care, recreatloal op•
portunities) that yyou need in a rural setting. Community
and Civil leadership is positive and supportive of new
business and industry. The area has an available work•
force and training assistance can be provided by both Ipj
state and local sources. People in our area are
noted for their work efforts and exceptional
capacity for Teaming. Existing Industries report
low rates of absenteeism and employee
turnover.
For Information Contact: en .
Mana
City of Mt Plleasant P O. Bort 426~Fyu
M
L Pleasant. Tennessee 38474ia,(:
(615-) 3%9-7717 trylk7.`Zni
SDVJP,
/7' Circle. Reeder Service Card No. fIB
al7
.....,,., . ..........................a -_.............,.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 24, 1986
To: City Council
From: Dale Helling, Assistant City Manage
��
Re: Coralville Milldam Hydropower Project
discussions regardingmonths
theago
City's Cinterest and SinvconductingEnaineers bean
f asibility
study for utilization of the Coralville Milldam as a power generating
facility. At that time Shive-Hattery had conducted a similar study for
the City of Coggin, Iowa. Coggin then chose not to pursue the project
further and Shive-Hattery proposed to file the necessary application on
behalf of Iowa City for a preliminary permit to conduct a similar feasi-
bility study. As a result of subsequent discussion by Council, and upon
execuownertofnof an the dam,atheement with the City authorized Shi enCounty Hattertoofilevation Board
the applica-
tion.
Application for the preliminary permit was filed in October, 1984. The
late December, 1985, that the preliminary permit had been issued
City was formally notified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Conmission in about November 7, 1985. The City Council had previously elected to on or
wait
until a preliminary permit was issued before making a final decision on
whether or not to contract with Shive-Hattery to perform the feasibility
study. The preliminary permit having been granted, it is now necessary
that Council address this matter further and determine whether or not to
conduct the feasibility study. Time has been scheduled at your informal
meeting on January 27, 1986, at 7:30 p.m, for discussion of this matter.
Representatives from Shive-Hattery will be present for that discussion.
Attached please find updated information from Shive-Hattery regarding FERC
requirements, as well as major project activities and scope of services -to
be provided by Shive-Hattery and estimated fees for those services. In
addition, Shive Hattery is conducting research to determine preliminary
cost, savings, and payback estimates for this project. This research
utilizes a computer model which makes certain assumptions regarding con-
struction costs, operation and maintenance costs, interest rates for
financing the project, escalated energy costs, etc. in order to project
cost savings and payback to the City. Preliminary estimates of the cost
for constructing power generating facilities are approximately $2.5 mil-
lion. However, the feasibility study will include not only refinement of
relevant information based on this traditional approach, but will also
explore more recently developed technologies which could substantially
reduce construction costs with only a minimal loss of efficiency or gener-
ating power, resulting in a more cost effective project. Representatives
from Shive-Hattery will provide more detailed information during your
discussion on January 27.
�r
..............
N
The City has committed, in its agreement with the Johnson County Conserva-
tion Board, to complete the feasibility study within six months. It does
not appear that we will experience any difficulty meeting this time re-
quirement if the decision to proceed is made in the near future, The
estimated cost of $7,000-$8,000 for the Preliminary Data Review (feasibil-
ity study) will be financed with water and sewer revenues. This is appro-
priate since these would be the primary users of the electricity generated
by this facility if the City decides to go ahead with construction.
Please contact me if you have any questions or would like additional
information prior to the January 27 scheduled discussion.
tp3/1
cc: Johnson County Conservation Board
Johnson County Board of Supervisors
Resources Conservation Commission
Riverfront Commission
Michael Kattchee, Mayor of Coralville
Shive-Hattery Engineers
n
................... !................................................................. w ... • ............... .
ESTIMATED FEES
FOR SHIVE-HATTERY ENGINEERING SERVICES
Iowa City Hydro
January 20, 1986
PHASE
TITLE
ESTIMATED FEES*
I
Obtain FERC Preliminary Permit -
$1,800
Completed 11/7/85
II
Preliminary Data Review, Resource Agency
$7,000-$8,000
Contact, Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric Co.
Contact, Site Lease or Acquisition Contact
III
Environmental Analysis and Studies
Undefined**
IV
Prepare FERC License Application
$5,000-87,000
V
I
FERC License Review Process Assistance
$4,000-E8,000
VI
Final Preparation and Negotiations for
$4,000-810,000
Financing, Site Lease or Acquisition and
Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric Co. Inter-
(Legal fees will
connection
also be
required)
VII
Final Design
Undefined**
VIII
Construction Services
Undefined**
Ix
Start-up and Operation
Undefined**
* A master contract would be prepared and the fees for each phase
would be
negotiated
proceed on
with the City based on a specific scope of work.
any
Approval to
i
phase would be by supplimental agreement issued
by the City.
**These fees
cannot be defined at this time due to their highly
variable
i nature. Further definition of these will be obtained through
work with
the Phase II
estimated fees provided at that time.
I
SHIVE•HATTERY ENGINEERS
+MN��a aa�f.ava \.....'.. v..•..!aaaw.wN.V
Iowa City Hydro
January 20, 1986
FERC REQUIREMENTS
Activities required by FERC in order to maintain the Preliminary Permit and
priority for a license to construct a hydro plant at the site:
1. Begin and prosecute diligently, the investigations, examinations, and
surveys contemplated under the permit.
2. Provide six month reports per Article 8 in the permit. First report is
due April 30, 1986, second is due October 30, 1986 etc. thru April 30,
1988.
3. Submit a license application before October 30, 1988.
SHIVE•HATTERV ENGINEERS
u
MAJOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
Iowa City Hydro
January 20, 1986
I. Obtain FERC Preliminary Permit (Completed November 7, 1985)
2. Select Preliminary Project Design
3. Environmental Analysis and Studies (If Required)
4. Obtain FERC License
5. Site Lease or Acquisition
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
n
`I•^.��AN taa aaa .. aa.\...... ........ .aaawini.v..._............. r•. �....��.
Iowa City Hydro
January 20, 1986
GENERALIZED SHIVE-HATTERY ENGINEERS INC.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Phase I: Obtain FERC Preliminary Permit
Completed November 7, 1986
Phase II: Preliminary Data Review Resource Aaenc Contact Iowa Illinois
Gas & Electric Co. Contact Site Lease or Acquision Contact
a. Obtain information and evaluate the suitability of an inverted
siphon system vs. the conventional submersible system as
proposed for Coggon in 1984.
b. Select the apparent most desirable system.
c. Complete the FERC required "Initial Stage of Consultation"
with resource agencies. Concentrate on requested studies and
comments relative to the proposed installation of
flash -boards.
d. Submit the required six month progress report to FERC by April
30, 1986.
e. Contact Iowa -Illinois Gas and Electric Co. to discuss
interconnection with their system. Attempt to obtain
preliminary terms and conditions for this interconnection.
f. Contact the Johnson County Conservation Board to discuss
preliminary terms and conditions for lease or acquisition of
the dam site.
g. Assist the City in determining the viability of.the project as
it relates to City goals and anticipated project development.
Phase III: Environmental Analysis and Studies
a. Develop scopes and cost estimates for any studies required by
the FERC and interested resource agancies. Study scopes could
vary from literature searches to field data accumnulation and
analysis.
b. Coordinate all work with the FERC and the resource agencies.
SHIVE.HATTERY ENGINEERS
al,v
0
Iowa City Hydro
January 20, 1986
c. Complete the required studies.
d. At the completion of this Phase the City should have enough
information to determine suitability of the site for hydro
development as it relates to environmental restrictions.
Phase IV: Prepare FERC License Application
a. Prepare the license application document.
b. Submit the license application to FERC'and resource agencies.
c. Obtain acceptance for filing by the FERC.
Phase V: FERC License Review Process Assistance
1
a. Provide information as requested by FERC.
i
b. Monitor the review process.
i
Phase VI: Final Preparation and Neotiations for Financin Site Lease or
Acquisition an Iowa -Illinois as ectn c Co. ntprrnnnprr,nn
a. Provide technical information necessary for the financing
plan.
b. Assist the City in final negotiations with the Johnson County
Conservation Board concerning site lease or purchase terms.
c. Assist the City in final negotiations for interconnection with
Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric Co.
Phase VII: Final Design
j a. Prepare Plans, specifications and contract documents.
b. Assist the City in obtaining bids and selecting materials and
j contractors.
i
Phase VIII: Construction Services
a. Provide construction contract administration.
b. Provide construction management as required.
SHIVE-HATTERY ENGINEERS
a
Phase IX: Start-up and Operation
a. Assist in project start-up.
b. Prepare operation and maintenance manuals.
c. Provide operation assistance as requested.
d. Provide operator training as requested
SNIVE•NATTERY ENGINEERS
Iowa City Hydro
January 20, 1986
.4
14
M
Lr.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 24, 1986
To: City Council
From: Dale Melling, Assistant City Manager
Re: City -School District Joint Swimming Facility Project
Attached please find a copy of a summary of the Committee meeting of January
16, 1986. In addition, the Committee met again on January 23, 1986, and
Councilmember Darrell Courtney will provide further update information at
your informal meeting on January 27.
cc: City Manager
bj5/4
a�9
0
DATE:
PROJECT:
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
January 16, 1986, 4 p.m.
Iowa City Community Fitness Center
NM File p2.86A
PRESENT: Planning Committee:
Randy Jordison, Co -Chair
Mike Cilek
Mike Moran
Craig N. Willis
Darrel G. Courtney
T Mary Neuhauser, Co -Chair
Dee Vanderhoef
City of Iowa City:
j Dale Melling
I! Iowa City Community School District:
Jerry Palmer
Neumann Monson, P.C., architects
Roy Neumann
Kevin Monson
Ken Wictor
NOTES BY: Kevin Monson
1. The Architects will keep Conference Memorandum and will submit 10 copies
to the City for distribution to the Planning Committee.
2. The Architects requested plans and specifications for the existing swim-
ming pools at Mercer and City Parks.
3. Surveys of the existing facilities including property lines, topographi-
cal information, and utilities will be needed from the School and the
City.
4. Ken requested a contract person be named who would act as the facilitator
of communications between Architect and Committee.
5. A preliminary schedule prepared by the Architects was
cussion. presented for dis-
6. The resolution for the Bond Issue must be to the Commissioner of Elec-
tions on April 9th.
7. It was decided that the members of the Committee representing the School
Board and the City Council need to periodically report to their represen-
tative governmental bodies on the progress and decisions of this commit -
.tee.
8. The operational agreement will be prepared by the School and City Staffs
and not this committee.
9. A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement was distributed to all present.'
10. Minutes of all previous committee meetings will be forward to the
Architects.
....... ..... ...._.........,..,._ ..,.
Page 2
11. The following spaces have been discussed for possible inclusion in the
new Fitness Center:
Pool, Gymnasium, Locker Rooms, Racquetball Courts, Floor Exercise Area,
Machine Exercise Area, Administrative Uffices/Control Area, Vending
Machine Area, Play Room, Whirlpool, Meeting Rooms (very low on priority
list), Lobby with area for swim team sales.
12. Spaces that have not been deemed necessary but which were discussed
include:
Game Room, Hobby/Arts Spaces, Community Theatre
13. The Architect will meet with Mike Moran and further define program of
space needs.
14. The Committee would like to investigate three pool sizes:
a. 25 meter by 25 yard pool
b. 25 meter pool with bulkhead and integral diving well.
c. 50 meter pool with bulkhead and integral diving well.
15. The needs of the handicapped and the elderly must be considered in all
pool'designs.
16. The Architect will prepare a contract to be submitted to the City for
their review.
17. The condition of City Park and Mercer Park Swimming Pools was discussed
at length. Without further testing and information it is difficult to
predict the cost of renovation or the economics of renovating the pools.
18. The Architect will proceed with securing of necessary testing of existing
outdoor pools working with the city Staff.
19. The Architect will make a recommendation on the location of the new fit-
ness center upon receiving existing site plans of Southeast Junior High
and of Mercer Park.
20. Meetings will be held from 3:30-5:00 at Iowa City School Board Chambers.
This memorandum is submitted for your review. It is intended that the data
contained herein be considered a factual reference and provide a basis for de-
sign. If you have any questions, additions or changes, please contact this
office.
NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS
226 South Clinton Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Distribution: 10 copies - Dale Melling
Ken Wictor
Roy Neumann
Kevin Monson
Jack Kiefer
NMA File
C 1l
CITY OF 10
CIVIC CENTER 410 " ' CITY
E WASHWGTON ST. IOWA CIN, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-50M
January 22, 1986
Mr. Mark Jennings
3202 Friendship St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mark:
Thank you for your letter of January 17, 1986, concerning reappointment
to the Parks and Recreation Commission, As appointment decisions are
made by the City Council, it is appropriate for the City Council to
receive
and otheo meeting ur eattendanceand hein orm tion addendum. I to have
forwardedCit Council
your
However, it is not my impression that attendance was a significant
factor in the Council's decision,
If you are interested in serving on the Parks and Rec Commission and you
believe there is a misunderstanding, I would suggest that you contact
Councilmenbers directly,
I certainly appreciate your efforts and particularly your participation
in the interview of the director candidates.
Sincerely
urs,
Heal G. Berlin
City Manager
/sp
cc: Terry Trueblood
Craig Willis
Joyce Carroll
e
`University of 'Iowa
'Foundation
January 17, 1986
Mr. Neil G. Berlin
Civic Center
410 East Washington
Iowa City IA 52240
Dear Neil:
I'm not sure if you are the right one to be writing to, but you are the
City Manager so I thought the most logical to correspond with.
I just heard 'through the grapevine' that I was not reappointed to the
Parks and Recreation Commisssion. I'm disappointed.
I'm disappointed mainly with the way the whole commission process was
handled.. First, when I attended the December meeting, Craig Willis told
me my term was expiring at the end of that meeting. Me suggested if I was
interested in continuing to serve on the Commission that I reapply at the
Civic Center, which I did that week. The lady behind the desk asked me
if I wanted to take the form home and fill it out, which I declined to do
because I didn't think there was time. So I hurriedly filled it out there.
Secondly, I'm disappointed because on the day of the January Commission
meeting, as I stopped by to take the new Director to lunch and introduce
him to the Commission's Chairman, I was asked by Joyce Carroll if I
"wanted to come to tonight's meeting to receive my service certificate" --
the old gold watch trick. I was surprised and would have been totally
embarrassed if I would have attended the Commission meeting unknowing
of the situation. If you expect dedicated and professional service by
Commission members, I believe we can expect the same treatment in return.
A council member has since told me that the reason I wasn't reappointed
was due to my poor attendance record. That, I find hard to believe! I
think I just got a taste of the Iowa City version of the "Daly. machine."
I'm sorry I won't be serving on the Commission, because with Terry
Trueblood as the new Director, I think the Department is really going
to progress. I had renewed enthusiasm for the Department.
I'm still interested in the Parks and Recreation Department and plan to
apply for a spot on the Commission when there is an opening. I love
living in Iowa City and plan on living here for many years and want to
be involved in community affairs.
Alumni Center / Iowa City, Iowa 52242 / Telephone: 319'353-6271
as 0
i
Mr. Neil G. Berlin
January 11, 1986
Page 2
I want to reiterate that I think your decision to hire Terry Trueblood
was a very good one. I'm sure you and the Council will be Pleased with
his performance.
Sincerely,
,�azoe
Mark Jennings
Director, Law School Fund Raising
MJ:brs
cc: John McDonald
Terry Trueblood
Craig Willis
1
ADDENDUM:
In view of the fact that there is a feeling that my attendance was poor
(I'm sure I made as many meetings as anyone else on the Commission except
maybe Craig Willis), I thought I would list a few of the extra meetings and
things that I did while a member of the Iowa City Parks and Recreation
Commission.
- I attended ever budget meeting that we were asked to attend. These
were the Sa>ti�y morning sessions in January where we usually stood
around the lobby of the library while the session ran hours late.
- I attended both organization meetings that were targeted to discuss
the formation of a Community or Parks and Recreation Foundation.
- I attended an all -day workshop on how to be a better Parks and
Recreation Commission member.
- I went on several special park tours of the city.
- I served on the Selection Committee to hire the new Director of Parks
and Recreation.
- I attended several Council meetings when the Commission was asked to
attend and express our views about the swimming pool situation, and
there were several of these occasions.
- I remember sitting in several Council work sessions for one reason or
another.
- I attended a joint meeting with Planning and Zoning and Parks and
Recreation to discuss the mandatory park dedication issue.
- I spent time with Al Cassidy to make him feel welcomed to Iowa City.
- I introduced Terry Trueblood to the Commission's Chairman and arranged
for a luncheon meeting.
This is in addition to attending most of the regular scheduled meetings.
When you add all the regularly sche7uled meetings with all of the other
special meetings that I attended, I'd say my attendance record was very
good, maybe exceptional!
Z20
COMMISSION MEETING ATTENDANCE
PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION
JANUARY 14, 1984
AUGUST B. 1984
PRESENT
Rtd a
ABSENT
Riddles— Crum
Willis Je�nniIgs
Martin
Dean
Crum
MitchellaM rtin
Mitchell
Steinbrech Hart
Willis
Alvarez
Steinbrech
Jennings
SEPTEMBER 12, 1984
HartWillie—
i
Jennings
ar
FEBRUARY 8, 1984
Mitchell
Crum
Steinbrech
Martin
Mitchell
Alvarez
Willis
Hart
Crum
Steinbrech
Martin
Jennings
Dean
OCTOBER 9, 1984
Rt -Pd Fe -Jaxiiw
MARCH 14 1984
Riddle
Crum Alvarez
Steinbrech Jordison
Steinbrech
Mitchell
Jennings
ar
Willis
Martin
Crum
Mitchell
Martin
I
Willis
NOVEMBER 14, 1984
R dd a 9itchell
MAY 184
Steinbrech Alvarez
Willis
e
Willis
�J_e_n_n_i_n�s
iM tchel7
Crum
Martin Jordison
Steinbrech
Hart
Jennings
Alvarez
i Martin
Crum
DECEMeE�, 1984
JUNE 13, 1984
Steinbrech
Rd e
Crum
Willis
Mitchell
Martin
Willis `
Martin
Jennings
Alvarez
Steinbrech
Mitchell
Alvarez
Hart
Crum
JULY 11, 1984
Jordison
R d e
Mitchell
Willis
Crum
Steinbrech
JANUARY 9 1985
Jennings
Alvarez
Alvarez
Steinbrech Jordison
Martin
Jennings
Hart
Mitchell
Willis
Hradek
i
i•
Martin
=?ao
l
�A aa{ava!a aaa\.. .aa a\avaaaa!vuwAw.V .... s..a .aa.ai ii«rv'rvv..ar
5
FEBRUARY 13, 1985
AUGUST 14, 1985
PRESENT
ABSENT
dd a Martin
R dddle
— —
Martin
Steinbrech i
Steinbrech
Jordison
Willis Alvarez
Willis
Mitchell
Jennings
Hradek
Mitchell
Jordison
Alvarez
Hradek
SEPTEMBER 12, 1985
Riddle Martin
MARCH 13, 1985
Steinbrech Jenninas
Jenn s
ng
Riddle
Willis Mitchel)
Jordison
Alvarez
Jordison Alvarez
Martin
Hradek
Mitchell
Steinbrech
OCTO 9, 1985
Willis
Ri d eBER
Hradek
Steinbrech
Willis
APRIL 10, 1985
Martin
ATRTe
Mitchell
eft at 7:10)
Jordison
Mitchel"
Alvarez
Hradek
Hradek
Alvarez
Steinbrech
Jordison.
Jennings
Willis
NOVEMBER 20, 1985
Martin
ordison
Steinbrech
MAY 8, 1985
Willis
RT a
Martin
Jennings
Jennings
Jordison
Mitchell
Martin
Hradek
Mitchell
Alvarez
Steinbrech
Willis
DECEMBER 11 1985
Hradek
lvarez
Alvarez
Steinbrech
Jennings
JUNE 12 1985
e
Watson
Hradek
Steinbrech
Hradek
Martin
Jordison
Mitchell
Jordison
Weideman
Jennings
Alvarez
Willis
JULY10,1988
Jordison
AiJetche1
Martin
Steinbrech
Willis
Hradek
Alvarez
I
o?eZ0
*4.
V F'
fin...:. ............. u�.........................................,.....
Johnson County Council of Governments
41OEVvfjshir>gicnSr. kwuGrybwo5-724O
rf %0
/ Date: January 23, 1986
To: City Council of Iowa City
From: Marge Penney, Human Services Coordinator
Re: Staff Recommendations for FY87 Human Services Funding
You will find attached, for Council's consideration, staff recommendations
for FY87 Human Service Agency funding, as well as highlights of the Agencies'
FY87 budgets and funding presentations. These recommendations are presented
by the City Manager and the Human Services Coordinator, and were made in
consultation with Riley Grimes, Johnson County staff, and Mary Anne Volm,
Director of the United Way of Johnson County.
Also attached are charts of the history of Human Service Agency funding for
City, County and United Way Agency Directors' Salary Recommendations and
Benefit Points. These provide an overview only, and will be most helpful if
used in conjunction with your FY87 Funding Request Books. Please note, in
particular, that the acceptable range of agency benefit points is now 63 to
89, as retirement is now one of the benefits considered. The United Way
Planning Division Agency Rankings will not be available until January 30,
1986 and will be provided to Council at that time.
Items attached for your consideration include the following: PAGE
FY87 Funding Recommendations:
I. Agencies which are currently funded by both City and County ........ I
II. Agencies which are requesting new funding from the City and
which are currently County funded.................................9
III. Agencies which are requesting new funding from both the
Cityand the County..............................................11
City of Iowa City Funding for FY85 and FY86, Agency Requests for
FY87, and staff recommendations for FY87..............................13
Johnson County Funding for FY85 and FY86, Agency Requests for FY87,
and staff recommendations for FY87....................................14
United Way Funding for UWFY85 and UWFY86, and Agency Requests for
UWFY87...............................................................15
United Way Designated Giving for UWFY85 and UIIFY86............ 6 ......... 16
A Comparison of Current Local Support...................................17
Recommended Salary Structure Chart......................................18
Benefit Point Chart.....................................................19
10T
R
1�M.��tii�aaataa! • avv \ at`.a«.\ attvta!aan.a.�.aa,:..V::..................w...t
2
In making recommendations for Iowa City's FY87 human service agency funding,
the basic goal has been to provide the agencies with funds necessary to
maintain current programming levels. At a time when virtually all of our
agencies are experiencing significant increases in requests for service, an
attempt to keep programming levels constant may require significant addi-
tional funding. Most agencies are aware that funding for expansion and new
programming must come from sources other than the local funding bodies.
However, the basic funds provided by the City, County and United Way are
crucial to the functioning of these agencies. The impact of various state
and federal funding cuts has already been felt by several local agencies, and
future cuts may be devastating. The exact effect, timing and scope of these
cuts ena-
tions. Wencanis nexpect todcould not be used a factor see their impact more clearly on next these
nexyear'sofunding
requests.
The remainder of the Council's funding decision process for Human Service
Agencies includes:
Friday, January 31, 1986 - A meeting of representatives from the Iowa City
Council with representatives of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to
review staff recommendations and prepare committee recommendations for pres-
entation to each funding body.
Monday, February 10, 1986 - City Council Informal Discussion of committee
recommendations.
If
j
the
, a formaland nsession will be heldfeel that no ntional to finalize individual sessions
ize decisions
If you have any questions or desire additional material, please call me at
356-5242.
/sp
.1�71?/
61
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY
FOR FUNDING HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES IN FY87
I. REQUESTS FOR CONTINUED CITY FUNDING (AND FOR CONTINUED COUNTY FUNDING)
A. Big Brothers/Bi Sisters: Recommended Funding $25,300
Current Funding FY87 Request Funding Recommendation
City $24,091 $27,000 (+12,1%) $25,300 (+5%)
County 11,340 15,000 (+32,3%) 11,900 (+4.9%)
United Way 10,000 13,000 (+30%)
Total Income $72,081 $86,500 (+20%)
Descri tion of Program: Big Brothers/Big Sisters provides opportuni-
es or soc a , emotional, mental and physical development for
at -risk children aged 6-14 from single -parent families. This is
accomplished through matches made with adult volunteers in the commu-
nity.
Significant Changes Proposed:
1. One a e a -lime case worker at $8,500 plus benefits and
taxes.
j 2. 5% salary increases for all present staff,
3. 18.7% increase in the cost of benefits and taxes, caused primar-
ily by the proposed addition in staff.
4. 46.7% increase in dues and memberships ($1500 to $2200) to BB/BS
of America.
5. previ usly beeniin-kind supportpfram tI e500ohto 1,100) Extension
Service.
6. 100% increase in staff development ($750 to $1,500).
Rationale for Recommendation: This is an excellent program serving a
rea need, The increase requested was generated by a proposal for
additional staff, a need caused both by this agency's waiting list
and by the limitation on case load imposed by Big Brothers/Big sis-
ters of cannot be�recomoend recommended time. The of fiscal ofunding tproposedawouldamainn
tain this agency at the current level of i service. The. dollar amount
of increase is $1,209.
Director's Salary: Within suggested range.
Director's Benefit Points: 77
1
ami
k .......................... ........... ....
B. Crisis Center Intervention: Recommended Funding $8,798
Current Funding FY87 Request Funding Recommendation
City $8,460 $8,798 (+4%) $8,798 (+4%)
County 25,475 26,494 (+4%) 26,494 (+4%)
United Way 23,400 24,450 (+4.5%)
Total Income $67,520 $70,586 (+4.5%)
T Description of Program: Crisis Center is a suicide prevention and
crinis iriterven ion service which is available to anyone who calls or
comes in. This agency provides short term counseling as well as
information and referral. It also provides a message relay service
for the deaf utilizing the TDD, Telecommunications Device for the
Deaf.
gnif�icantt Chaneg s Proposed:
1. 7X -increase for present, regular staff combined with a 17%
decrease in expenditures for work study staff. These result in a
net increase of 4% in salary expenditures.
2. 15.5% increase in benefits and taxes caused by increases in
rates.
3. 28.6% decrease in rent and utilities as the cost of space is
divided more equitably with the Crisis Center Food Bank and
'emergency Assistance budget.
Rationale for Recommendation: The Crisis Center has held the line on
expenses while meeting increased client demand. Its '24 hour tele-
phone availability is very important. A $338 increase is proposed.
Director's Salary: $1,610 below suggested range for current year;
$196 below suggested range for FY87.
Director's Benefit Points: 68
Note: While the Iowa City City Council has approved CDBG funds for a
facility for the Crisis Center, the schedule for occupancy of this
new facility is unknown at this time. Therefore, the new location of
the Center has not been considered in this proposal. It will be a
very significant factor in future funding recommendations. The
Crisis Center should be asked to provide revised budget information
to both City and County within three months after occupying its new
facility.
j
2
a -Zi
A
t
C. Crisis Center Emeraencv Assistance and Food Bank: Recommended Fund-
ing E9,340
Current Funding FY87 Request Funding Recommendation
City $8,902 $9,340 (+4.9%) $9,340 (+4.9%)
County 8,902 9,340 (+4.9%) 9,340 (+4.9%)
United Way 12,000 12,600 (+5%)
Total Income $56,724 60,591 (+6.8%)
Description of Prooram: The Crisis Center Food Bank and Emergency
Assistance rogram is part of the Crisis Center but has its own
coordinator. It provides assistance through two programs: the Food
Bank gives individuals (primarily permanent Johnson County residents)
emergency and supplemental food; the Emergency Assistance Program
helps both transients and local residents, on a one-time basis, with
emergency needs such as transportation, lodging and prescription
medications.
S1 nificant Chan es Pro osed:
1. sa ary ncrease or present staff.
2. 66.7% increase in rent and utilities as the cost of space is more
equitably divided with the Crisis Center Intervention budget.
Rationale for Recommendation: This program continues to meet dra-
matic increases in requests for assistance, and to coordinate most of
the private funding for these needs in Johnson County. Several
budget pro'ections seem remarkably conservative (decreases of 6% for
food and for transportation and lodging). die agency's full
request is recommended: a $438 increase.
Director's Salary and Benefit Points: The Coordinator of the Crisis
Center Food Bank is not an agency director.
Note: While the Iowa City City Council has approved CDBG funds for a
fac7litY for of tis
new facility ishunknown satethisnter�time. sTherefore, the nthched u le for ew anlocationhof
the Center has not been considered in this proposal. It will be a
very significant factor in future funding recommendations. The
Crisis Center should be asked to provide revised budget information
to both City and County within three months after occupying its new
facility.
3
aai
10 Op
D. Domestic Violence Project: Recommended Funding $13,200
Current Funding FY87 Request Funding Recommendation
City $12,000 $14,500 (+20,8%) $13,200 (+10%)
County 12,000 14,500 (+20.8%) 13,200 (+10%)
United Way 15,500 .16,600 (+7.1%)
Total Income $84,242* $110,943 (+31.7%)
*Not including one-time CDBG funds and other contributions for reha-
bilitation in FY86.
Description of Program: The Domestic Violence Project makes compre-
hensive services available to those effected by domestic violence in
Johnson County. This program provides: safe shelter for victims of
battering and their children; short-term counseling, advocacy and
referral for both shelter residents and other victims of abuse;
programs for children of battering families; and community education
on the issue of domestic violence.
Significant Chances Pro osed:
1. One additional, full-time staff person: a Shelter Counselor at
$18,000 plus taxes and benefits. This position will be filled
only if Federal Victim Funds become available.
2. Salary increases averaging 17.7% for current staff.
Rationalefor Recommendation: The Domestic Violence Project has
consis en y Prov e the—community with high quality services at
very reasonable cost. In FY85 the shelter provided 2,984 shelter
days for less than $52,427 ($12,106 for the entire agency's admini-
stration, $30,414 for shelter and $9,907 for children's services) for
a rate per shelter day of $17.57. This has been possible because of
the commitment of agency staff to work many more hours than they are
paid for. While the increases requested are not inappropriate,
fiscal constraints prevent recommending full funding. The recom-
mended increase would provide some improvement in staff salary lev-
els. The proposed level of funding is an increase of $1,200.
Director's Salary: $3,522 below suggested range currently; within
suggested range for FY87.
Director's Benefit Points: 60
E. Elderly Services Agency: Recommended Funding $28,671
Current Funding FY87 Request Funding Recommendation
City $27,836 $28,671 (+3%) $28,671 (+3%)
County 1,500 1,750 (+16.7X) 1,750 (+16.7%)
United Way 10,500 10,815 (+3%)
Total Income $92,502 $94,602 (+2.3%)
4
aa/
%4
�MN�\vvaavv!a.v\a ativa.v av•
Descrf tion of Mira The Elderly Services Agency offers four
programs to res dents of Johnson County who are age 60 and older:
Information and Referral for services pertaining to the elderly;
Outreach and Advocacy to seek out and assist elderly in need of
services; Chore and Respite Care to provide services to enable eld-
erly persons to remain in their own homes; and Shared Housing to
match elderly people with others who will share their homes in return
for rent or services.
Significant Changes Proposed:
average salary increase.
Rationale for Recommendation: The Elderly Services Agency has again
budgeted quite conservatively. The Director continues an excellent
job of strengthening thisprogram, and services provided are up dra-
matically. No expansion is requested; funds will continue the pro-
gram as is. ESA helps the elderly remain in their homes, saving many
dollars to the community. Funding at the requested level is recom-
mended for an increase of $835.
Director's Salary: $916 below suggested range currently; $286 below
suggested range for FY87.
Director's Benefit Points: 58
F. HACAP (Hawkeve Area Community Action Program): Recommended Funding
�2,6uu
Current Funding FY87 Request Funding Recommendation
City $2,277 $3,000 (+31.8%) $2,600 (+14.2%)
County 7,554 9,000 (+19.1%) 8,000 (+5.9%)
United Way 15,000 16,000 (+6.7%)
Total Income $6,858,429 $6,929,130 (+1%)
Description of Program: HACAP is a multi -county agency providing a
wide variety of sery ces. HACAP utilizes funding from Iowa City and
Johnson County to support its Head Start full-day program and addi-
tional funds from Johnson County for support of the Food
Reservoir/Supplemental Food Program. The Head Start Program provides
full-day developmental care to low-income, handicapped or protective
care children whose parents are working or in training. The Food
Program provides government surplus commodities and privately donated
food to needy households on a monthly basis, to local emergency food
distribution operations, and to local non-profit feeding programs.
§ignniificant Changes Proposed:
1 5' average sa ary ncreases proposed.
2. One additional Day Care Teacher at an annual cost of $10,675.
3. Elimination of rent expense for Head Start.
4. Costs for Food Program remain constant, while revenue from Commu-
nity Service Block Grant decreases.
5
a.2i
Rationale for Recommendation: HACAP is proposing neither new pro-
grams nor signs scan program expansion. The need for increased
staff for Head Start results from state requirements for day care
staffing. If fiscal limitations permit, funding at the full level
requested would be desirable. The recommended funding is an increase
of $323.
Director's Salary: HACAP was not included in the salary study. Its
director's salary does fall within the top range.
Director's Benefit Points: 70.5
G. Mayor's Youth Employment Program: Recommended Funding $30,000
Current Funding FY87 Request Funding Recommendation
City $29,000 $30,000 (+3.4%) $30,000 (+3.4%)
County 3,144 8,000 (+154.5%) 4,000 (+27.2%)
United Way 5,500 6,500 (+18.2%)
Total Income $211,759 $265,341 (+25.3%)
Description of Program: The Mayor's Youth Employment Program pro-
vides subsidized employment to disadvantaged youth in Johnson County
through three programs. The In -School Component offers work experi-
ence during the school year in the public and private sectors; it is
funded by both Johnson County and Iowa City. The Sumner Component
offers a work -earn -learn program in conservation; it is funded by
Iowa City. The Jobs Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Summer Program
offers placement to youth through age 21.
Ski nific�ant Changes Proposed:
1. Sa ry increases of 5.1% total. This includes a 4% rate
increase, and also brings the salaries to full time.
2. 28.6% increase in rent as MYEP has moved to a new facility.
i
3. 14% increase in the wages to be paid to youth.
Rationale for Recommendation: This agency placed 316 youths in jobs
last year, preparing tem or the world of work and increasing their
family income. For every local funding dollar contributed to Mayor's
Youth Fm loyment Program, more than two dollars are' generated in
state and federal money. That is a very good return for local fund-
ing. There has been continued discussion in recent years of the
economies to be realized by locating agencies together - either as
separate entities or as merged or blended agencies. The youth serv-
ing agencies would be very appropriate for this approach, and local
funding bodies may want to pursue that possibility during the next
year. The agency's full request is recommended, an increase of
$1,000.
Director's Salary: $136 below suggested range currently, within
range for FY87.
Director's Benefit Points: 74
6
ami
i
P
n
H. Rape Victim Advocacy Program: Recommended Funding $10,350
Current Funding FY87 Request Funding Recommendation
City $9,865 $10,647 (+7,9%) $10,350 (+4.9%)
County 9,865 10,647 (+7,9%) 10,350 (+4.9%)
United Ilay 6,000 8,092 (+34.9%)
i
Total Income $41,609 $49,066 (+17.9%)
Description of Program: The Rape Victim Advocacy Program provides
crlsis intervention, peer counseling, advocacy and information to
victims of sexual abuse and their families. It also works toward the
prevention of sexual assault and harassment through public informa-
tion programs.
Sjicgnificant Chanqes Proposed:
1-5aT1ry fnereases`of 37'K for the program coordinator and 17% for
the assistant coordinator.
2. 31.5% increase in printing and publicity.
Rationale for Recommendation: This program appears to be back on
track, addressing itself'* Frimarily to dealing with sexual abuse
crises. Although a greater increase in funding recommendation would
permit the Director to move closer to the recommended salary range,
fiscal constraints prevent so large an increase. A $485 increase is
recommended.
Director's Salary: $3,892 below suggested range currently; within
range for FY87.
Director's Benefit Points: 85.5
1. United Action for Youth: Recommended Funding $40,000
Current Funding FY87 Request Funding Recommendation
City $38,592 $40,425 (+4.7%) $40,000 (+3.6%)
County 38,500 40,425 (+5%) 40,000 (+3.9%)
United Way 10,500 18,000 (+71.4%)
Total Income $134,930 $128,350 (-4.9%)
Description of Program: United Action for Youth includes two pro-
grams - Outreach and Synthesis - which provide counseling, outreach
and creative arts opportunities for youth in Johnson County. Many of
the youth served are alienated from more traditional youth services,
and UAY often intervenes with at -risk youth who might otherwise
become involved in juvenile delinquency.
7
,!
9
r
Significant Chan es Proposed:
1. Salary rate increases range from 2.5 to 5.0% with an average of
3.3%.
2. Decreases in staff development, professional consultation, sup-
plies, printing and local transportation range from 15 to 54.5%.
3. 50% increase in insurance costs.
4. Decrease of 38.1% in income from State and Federal sources.
Rationale for Recommendation: This agency will be severely affected
y State and Federa cutbacks. No new programs or program expansion
are planned. There has been continued discussion in recent years of
the economies to be realized by locating agencies together - either
as separate entities or as merged or blended agencies. The youth
serving agencies would be very appropriate for this approach, and
local funding bodies may want to pursue that possibility during the
next year. An increase of $1,408 is recommended.
Director's Salary: $272 below range currently; within range for
FY87.
Director's Benefit Points: 78.5
J. Willowcreek/Mark IV: Recommended Funding $10,250
Current Funding FY87 Request Funding Recommendation
City $9,400 $10,829 (+15.2X) $10,250 (+9.0%)
County 2,600 4,123 (+58.6%) 3,500 (+34.6%)
United Way 18,500 21,097 (+14.0%)
Total Income $39,109 $39,834 (+1.9X)
Description of Program: The Willowcreek Neighborhood Center provides
services to residents of Mark IV Apartments (now Pheasant Ridge) and
other residents of Johnson County. Programs include recreation,
education and outreach, food and nutrition, counseling and support,
South East Asian Outreach, and Childcare Coordination.
11 nificant ChangesProposed:
1. 0 5 sa ary ncreases, and an increase in hours for the child-
care coordinator.
2. The Gannett Foundation grant for the Childcare Coordinator will
end in October of 1986.
Rationale for Recommendation: This agency has again experienced a
c ange o personne n the Director's position. Directors have
consistently told funding bodies that current staff levels are not
adequate for existing programs. Program quality is high. The new
Director has served as Program Coordinator, so the transition was
smooth. While fiscal concerns prevent recommending full funding, any
additional support would be warranted. An increase of $850 is recom-
mended.
0
a-2/
Director's Salary: $5,042 below suggested range currently; $q,P92
below range for FY87.
Director's Benefit Points: 52
II. REQUESTS FOR NEW CITY FUNDING (AND FOR CONTINUED COUNTY FUNDING)
A. Independ_ e�ivina: Recommended Funding $0
Current Funding FY87 Request Funding Recommendation
City $0 $750
$0
County 6
3,842 9,05 +150%
' ( ) $5,000 (+30.1X)
United Way 11,200 21,315 (+90.3%)
Total Income $32,224 $42,970 (+33.3X)
Descrt tion of Pro ram: Independent Living exists to provide support
to eve opmenta y sabled youth and adults. It is a client di-
rected service. Kirkwood Community College Adult Basic Education
classes are offered in Consumer Economics, Survival Skills and
Self -Esteem. Individualized tutoring is provided, and counseling and
advocacy are available.
Si nificant Chan es Pro osed:
1. n ncrease o 24% Mnexpenditures for salaries includes funding
to change the Director from half-time to full-time. (He is
already
2. Anincincrease benefitslandl taxes of 25% is caused by the in-
creased salary level proposed.
Rationale for Recommendation: New funding is requested to expand the
rec or s me ran a - ime to full-time. Because of fiscal
constraints, funding cannot be recommended at this time.
6. MECCA (Mid -Eastern Council on ChemicalAbuse): Recommended Funding
f
Current Funding FY87 Request Funding Recommendation
City $0 $30,000
$10,000.
County 103,000 200,000 (+94,2%) 200,000 (+94.2%)
United Way 1,000 15,000 (1,400X)
Total Income $744,660* $992,896 (+33.3%)
*Does not include sale of Voss house, CDBG funds for new facility, or
new facility contributions.
Description of Promram; MECCA's programs are Treatment, Prevention
and Acute Care. Treatment includes individual, group and family
counseling, as well as residential facilities for both male and
9
aai
female recovering substance abusers. Prevention provides workshops,
presentations and in -services on substance abuse prevention, includ-
ing the Elderly Outreach Project. Acute Care includes social detoxi-
fication for substance abusers: withdrawal from alcohol and other
drugs. It also includes acute psychiatric care: in-patient psychi-
atric care, often for adjustment of medication levels.
Signific^nt Changes Proposed:
1. Entire Acute Care program is new at a cost of $134,276.
2. Wide range in salary increases varying from 2.5 to 13.6%. Total
salary increase of 33% includes staff for new Acute Care Pro-
gram.
Rationale for Recommendation: The full staff and resources at MECCA
are pus e o e m of by state and federal cutbacks and by the
increasing problem of substance abuse. This chronic problem impacts
virtually every other Human Service Agency in Iowa City; it is
clearly seen at the Domestic Violence Project, Rape Victim Advocacy
Program and United Action for Youth, for example. Funds contributed
toward helping residents who reach out to MECCA for assistance are
well spent in terms of prevention of other, related community prob-
lems. The impact of these dependencies on crime and traffic accidents
is well documented.
The new MECCA facility should have a very positive local impact. It
is hoped that individuals who until now must leave home and job for
one month or more to obtain in-patient treatment, will now receive
in-patient care at MECCA for a much shorter period of time. They
will then return to work and receive out-patient care.
It is important to note that both Coralville and Solon contribute to
this program. Other University towns in Iowa: Ames, Waterloo and
Cedar Falls, all contribute a portion of their liquor revenues to
substance abuse programs. Last year Iowa City received 5222,716.95
from license fees and liquor sales. The $10,000 support recommended
would be 4.5% of that amount.
Director's Salary: Within range.
Director's Benefit Points: 69.5
C. Red Cross: Recommended Funding $0
Current Funding
City
$0
County
4,000
United Way
12,000
Total Income
$63,182
FY87 Request
$1,000
7,000 (+75.0%)
16,710 (+39.3%)
$62,675 (-0.8%)
Funding Recommendation
$0
5,000 (+25%)
Description of _Program: The Red Cross provides three programs in
o nson oun y. HealEn and Safety: Education in health/safety and
childcare, blood pressure screening, first aid stations and support
10
services to blood collection and water safety programs. Services to
Military Families: Assists in reuniting families with members in the
armed forces during times of family crisis. Disaster Services:
Emergency food, shelter, clothing and other essentials for victims of
natural disasters.
Si nificant Changes Proposed:
1. Sa ary increases o 4%.
2. Amount of National Dues decreased from $16,020 to $10,000
(37.6%). This appears to be part of National Red Cross' attempt
to help the local chapter regain fiscal stability.
Rationale for Recommendation; This agency is providing substantial
f sery ces to res ents of Johnson County, particularly in the area of
disaster relief. The need for increased funding results mainly from
the planned reduction of interim support which the local agency has
been receiving from National Red Cross. While the services provided
by this agency are valuable, fiscal concerns prevent a recommendation
for funding at this time.
III. REQUESTS FOR NEW CITY FUNDING (AND NEW COUNTY FUNDING)
A. 4C's (Community Coordinated Child Carel; Recommended Funding $0
Current Funding FY87 Request Funding Recommendation
City $0 $4,500 $0
County 0 4,500 p
United Way 6,500 12,000 (+84.6%)
Total Income $199,229 $148,348 (-25.5%)
Descri tion of Pro ram: 4C's focuses on the needs of young children
ages b rth to 6+ years), their parents and child care providers.
Programs include: Child Care Information and Referral, Child Devel-
opment Education, Emergency Child Care, Fine Arts and Folk Arts,
Child Care Food Program and Sexual Abuse Prevention. The 4C's Child
Care Directory is an excellent resource detailing child care serv-
ices available in Johnson County,
Significant Chances Proposed:
1. 3% increases in the salaries of the Executive Director and
Education Coordinator combine with a reduction in hours for
other staff to produce a decrease of 8.9% in total agency sala-
ries.
2• $40,000 grant from Gannett ends.
Rationale for Recommendation: 4C's receives a large portion of its
budget rom sources ou s e Johnson County, including funneling more
than $100,000 in Child Care Nutrition funds into our area this year,
Because Johnson County has many day care centers and homes, there is
a great need for the Child Care Directory and for child care work -
11
aai
U
shops. The 4C's Gannett Grant has ended, •leaving this agency in
severe fiscal difficulty. While fiscal constraints prevent a recom-
mendation for funding, City and County help may be necessary to help
save 4C's, perhaps by finding a place for this agency within an-
other.
i
B. Handicare: Recommended Funding: $0
Current Funding FY87 Request Funding Recommendation
I
City $0 $3,600 $0
County 0 3,600 0
United Way 500 3,600 (+620%)
Total Income $109,300 $203,423 (+86.1X)
Description of Program: Handicare is a licensed daycare/early
childhood ntervent on center which offers specialized services to
developmentally disabled/handicapped children (from infancy to six
childrItalso offers
regular
en. Itsuniquenessil
sdue daycare
oaservices
to ted
the only daycareinaIowa
to integrate disabled and non -disabled children of this age group, i
Significant Changes Proposed:
1. t is move to a new facility and connected expansion, most
areas of expenditure are not comparable to previous years.
2. Total salary expenditures will rise 84.8% because of new posi-
tions and staff salary increases.
Rationale for Recommendation:• Handicare runs a quality program of
great benefit to the disabled and non -disabled children it serves.
While expansion has been rapid, the agency appears to have handled
the changes well. Next year's projected intone of $203,000 includes
fees for services of $190,000, indicating that the program is close
to self-supporting. Initial funding cannot be recommended at this
time.
12
ami
N;
a
c
CITY OF IOWA CITY
HUMAN SERVICE AGVICY FUNOIUG
Ao-ency
Funding
Ff 85
Funding
F'f 86
% Increase
'85 to '86 Reouest
FY 87
Recommended %
Increase
Dollar
Increase
Big Bros./81g Sisters S
21,901 S
24,091
110.0
S 27,000
§ 25,300
5.0
§1,209
Crisis Center-Interv.
8,281
8,460
2.2
8,798
8,798
4.0
338*
Crisis Center -Food Bk.
8,627
8,902
3.2
9,340
9,340
4.9
438*
00mestic Violence Proj.
10,420
12,000
15.2
14,SO0
13,200
10.0
1,200
Elderly Services Agcy.
27,159
27,836
2.5
28,671
28,671
3.0
835*
HACAP
2.000
2,277
13.8
3,000
2,600
14.2
323
Mayor's Youth Employ.
29,076
29,000
-.3
30,000
30,000
3.4
1.000*
Rape Victim Advocacy
10,56688
9,865
-7.5
10,647
10,350
4.9
485
United Ac -ion for Youth
37,592
38,592
2.7
40,425
40,000
3.6
1,408
Willow Creezilaark IV
9.023
9,400
4.2
10,829
10,250
9.0
850
Total Continuation
164,747 170,423
3.4
183,210
178,509
4,7
8,086
Conti noencir
99156** 3,468
-62.1
4,077
4.077
17.6
609
Total
173,903 173,891
0.0%
187,287
182,586
5.0
8,695
New lemem - Eristino Agencies
C's
4,500
-0-
Handicare
3,600
-0-
Indenendent Living
750
-0-
MECCA
30,000
10,000
10,000
Red Cross
11000
-0-
Total New Requests
II
39,BED
10,000
Grand To:ai
173,903 173,891
0.0%11
227,137
192,586
10.8
18,695
*Recommendation is agency's full request.
**This unusually large Contingency funding included the City's contribution
for Agency Directors' salary adjustments.
13
,V-u.:.ciu......! .... ,..................w...............
JOHNSON COUNTY
HUNAN SERVICE AGENCY FUNDING
Agency
Funding
FY 85
Funding
FY 86
X Increase
'85 to '86
87 Dollar
Reouest
Recommended
�_
S In
Increase
ARC
Big Bros./Bio Sisters
$ 10.800
$ 36,000
11,340
N/A
50
S 47,000
$ 46,000
27, 8
$ 10,000
Crisis Center-Interv.
Crisis Center -Food Bk.
24,252
8,635
25,475
15,000
26';C4
11,900
26.494
4.9
4.0
560
8,902
3.1
91- 0
9,340
4.9
11019**
438**
Domestic Violence Proj.
Elderly Services
7,800
1,528
12,000
1,500
53.8
14,500
13,200
Free Medical Clinic
RACAP
30,899
.32,444
5,0
1'750
47,050
1,750
39,482
1G0.0
1,200
250
j
4,175
7,554
80.9
91000
81000
21.7
5.9
7,038
Independent Living
Lutheran S.S.
2,400
12,980
3,842
13,436
60.19160-2-
6,000
30.1
446
1,158
Mayors Youth Employ,
Mental Health
I
2,200
3,144
3.5
42.9
14,4.5
14,000
0
4.2
27.2
564
312,137
345,416
10.7
388,2013
388,213
12.4
42 jgj
MECCA
Rape Victim Advocacy
103,000
9,865
103,000
9,865
0
0
200,000
200 .000
94.2
**
Red Cross
4,000
4,000
0
�,
10,-47
10,350
4.9
,97,000
485
United Ac:lon for Youth
37 .00
38,:00*
2.7
40,425
40000 ,000 000
23.9
1.000
Visiting Nurses Assn. 138,425
Willow Creek/1-lark IV
129,216
-6.7
129,216
129,216
3.9
0
1,500
Youth Homes
2,000
51,416
2,500
55,413
30.0
7,g
3,500
34.6
0**
900
i
6,205_
56, _g
55,413
0,
0
Total Continuation 764,022
843,647
10.4
1,038,664 1,010,858
19.8
New Requests - Existing
Agencies
167,211
Emergency Housing
- -
4 C's
61000
-0-
- -
_ _
4,500
-0-
er
LegalServices
Legal Services
- -
-
-
3,600
-0-
-
- _
51000
.0 -
Total New Requests
II
191:00
-0-
Grand Total 764,022 843,647
10.4 11,076,891
1,010,858
19.8
167>211
Total without MECCA & 395,231
Mental Health
488,678
422,645
6.9
27,414
*$4,000 of United Action for Youth's FY 86 allocation was dispensed to them
(in FY 85). Therefore, the County's budget
in June
of 1985
only
shows $34,500
for FY 86.
**Recommendation is agency's full
request.
14
gal
S
P
UNITED WAY
HU14AN SERVICE AGENCY FUNDING
Agency
FAlloc.
Y84-85
Al loc.
FY85-86
7 Inc.
AIloc.
Request
$ Increase
ARC
S Inc. Funded
3 12,000
$ 12,000
0
$ 17,000
$ 5,000
41.7
BB/BS
Boy Scouts
10,000
9,000
10,000
9,200
p
13,000
3,000
30.
2 2
15,600
6,400
69.66
Camp Fire
renter
4+500
23+000
4,500
23,400
0
8,500
4,000
88.9
C.C. Food Bank
11,500
12,000
1.7
4.3
24,450
1,050
4.5
12,600
600
5.0
Dent. Svs. Children
OVP
2,000
2,000
p
2,620
13,000
15,500
19.2
16,600
620
1,100
1.0
37.1
Elderly Services Agency
10,000
10,500
5.0
10,815
4 -C's
315
3.0
Free Medical Clinic
6,000
34,396
6,500
35,000
8,3
1.8
8.1
41,330
6000 ;330 1500
Ger. Mobil Dental
Girl Scouts
21000
10,000
2,000
10,000
0
3,000
1,000
50.0
Goodwill
35,500
35,500
p
0
13,625
40,000
3,625
36.3
4,500
12.7
HACAP/Headstart
Hardicare
17,000
15,000
-11.8
16,000
1,000
6.7
Hillcrest
-
_
500
1,200
NA
NA
3,600
3,100
620.0
11,555
10,355
862.9
Independent Living
101000
11,200
12.0
21,315
10,115
90.3
Legal Services
Luth. Soc. Services
9,000
10,000
9,400
10,000
4.4
15,000
5,600
59.6
0
15,000
5,000
50.0
MECCA
Mayor's Youth Employ.
5,500,
1,000
5,500
NA
0
15,000
14,000 1,400.0
6,500
1,000
18.2
RVAP
Red Cross
6,000
12,000
61000
12,000
0
0
8,092
2,092
34.9
16,710
4,710
39.2
Sal. Army
Sch. Children Aid
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
0
121.7
7
15.6
UAY
10,000
10,500
L
0
71.4
VNA
45,700
45,700
00
Willow Creek/Mark IV
18,000
18,500
2
14.0
TOTAL
$332,096 $340,600
2.6 11$454,826 $114,226 .33.5
15
aai
%4
.........<... R ...... .........v....... k..
UNITED WAY
DESIGNATED FUNDS
Agency
Designated
UH FY 85
Designated
UW FY 86
ARC
BB/BS
$ 996
$ 810
Boy Scouts
1,160
1,220
1,655
1,035
Camp Fire
128
270
C. Intl. Program
257
1,440
Crisis Center
1,713
1,607
C.C. Food Bank
-
Dent. Svs. Children
578
497
DVP
2,295
5,351
Comm Mental Health
-
Elderly Services Agency
1,256
2X 023
4 -C's
414
562
Free Medical Clinic
1,437
1,709
Ger. Mobil Dental
105
419
Girl Scouts
405
1,253
Goodwill
803
842
HACAP/Headstart
322
543
Handicare
761
663
Hillcrest
101
Independent Living
483
601
Iowa C d F Services
615
997
I. C. Hospice
3,054
3,316
Legal Services
244
297
Luth. Soc. Services
1,365
828
MECCA
1,249
298
Mayor's Youth Employ.
319
306
Mental Health Assoc.
988
954
Project HOPE
1,016
982
RVAP
1,053
1,464
Red Cross
1,610
1,892
Sal. Arany
1,470
1,327
Sch. Children Aid
260
633
UAY
437
482
U. Way
VNA
1,207
1,980
Willow Creek
485
448
Youth Homes
1,067
1,467
TOTAL
$30,772
$39,052
16
i
aa�
%4
L
• HV\\{a avvS..vv\vvLv.......... ii.'.-.+wt..v
Agency
Assn. Retarded Citizens
Big Bros./Big Sisters
Boy Scouts
Campfire
Crisis Center - Food
Crisis Center
Dental Svs. Children
Domestic Violence
Elderly Services
Emergency Housing
i
4 C's
Free Medical Clinic
Geriatric Dental
Girl Scouts
Goodwill
HACAP
Handicare
Hillcrest
Independent Living
Leggi Services
Lutheran Social Svs.
MECCA
Mayor's Youth
Mental Health
RVAP
Red Cross
Salvation Army
School Children's Aid
United Action for Youth
Visiting Nurses Assn.
Willow Creel/Mark IV
Youth Homes
TOTAL
LOCAL ALLOCATIONS
Johnson County
FY86
$ 36,000
11,340
8,902
25,475
12,000
1,500
32,444
7,554
3,842
13,436
103,000
3,144
345,416
9,865
4,000
38,500
129,216
2,600
55,413
Iowa City
FY86
S -
24,091
8,902
8,460
12,000
27,836
2,277
0
29,000
9,865
38,592
9,400
5843,647 $170,423
17
United Way
U.W.FY86
$ 12,000
10,000
9,200
4,500
12,000
23,400
2,000
15,500
10,500
6,500
35,000
2,000
10,000
35,500
15,000
500
1,200
11,200
9,400
10,000
1,000
5,500
6,000
12,000
3,000
3,000
10,500
45,700
18,500
$340,600
aai
,4
5
18
- jai
RECOMMENDED SALARY STRUCTURE
JULY, 1984
Grade
A enc
Full Time
Salary Range
1
Independent Living
$17,398
- 24,357
4 C's - Community Coordinated Child Care
j 2
ARC - Association for Retarded Citizens
$18,790
- 26,306
3
Big Brothers/Big Sisters
$20,292
- 28,409
Free Medical Clinic
Handicare
Red Cross
Rape Victim Advocacy Program
United Action for Youth
Willow Creek/Mark IV
4
Crisis Center
$21,916
- 30,682
Domestic Violence Project
Elderly Services Agency
Mayor's Youth Employment Program
United Way
Youth Homes
5
Community Mental Health
$24,913
- 37,370
Goodwill Industries
MECCA
VNA - Visiting Nurses Association
18
- jai
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: 6/11/84
To: Social Services Agencies and Funding Bodies
From: Salary/Benefits Review Committee
Re: Employee Benefits for Social Services Agencies - Recommendations
To promote equity and consistency in the allocation of benefits for employees of
Social Service agencies funded by the City of Iowa City, Johnson County and the
United Way of Johnson County, the following are proposed to guide decisions re-
garding establishment of the appropriate levels of employee benefit allocations:
1. Recommended benefit allocations for full-time permanent agency employees are
at minimum 50 benefit points and should not exceed 60 benefit points. Benefits
may be prora ea tar part-timef permanent employees.
2. Benefit point equivalents are as follows. Within the 50-60 point range,
benefits may be selected as determined to be appropriate by each agency.
3. For Salary/Benefit comparison purposes, 1 benefit point = $75.00. Benefit
packages which exceed the 50-60 point range may warrant review of salary
level.
NOTE FOR FY87 FUNDING REQUESTS TO JOHNSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, AND TO
UNITED WAY FOR 4/1/86-3/31/87:
The memorandum above, and last year's budget forms, included all benefits except
retirement'. In order for the funders to gain a more complete understanding of the
agencies' benefit packages, retirement has been included on this year's budget
forms. Using the current IPERS (Iowa Public Employees Retirement System) employer
contribution percentage (5.75:) together with the range of recommended salaries
($17,398 - $37,370), the range of benefit points for retirement should be 13 to 29
for agency Directors. The addition of retirement points would make the recom-
mended range of benefits points 63-89.
BENEFIT POINT INFORMATION APPEARS ON PAGE 6 OF EACH AGENCY'S BUDGET.
19
aa�
Benefit
Points
1
day off
= 1
point
1
1
year single
health
= 12
points
year single
+ family health
= 24
points
Life Insurance 1 x annual per year
LTD
= 1/2 point
coverage per year
= 1
point
1
1
year single
dental
= 2
points
year single
+ family dental
= 4
points
3. For Salary/Benefit comparison purposes, 1 benefit point = $75.00. Benefit
packages which exceed the 50-60 point range may warrant review of salary
level.
NOTE FOR FY87 FUNDING REQUESTS TO JOHNSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, AND TO
UNITED WAY FOR 4/1/86-3/31/87:
The memorandum above, and last year's budget forms, included all benefits except
retirement'. In order for the funders to gain a more complete understanding of the
agencies' benefit packages, retirement has been included on this year's budget
forms. Using the current IPERS (Iowa Public Employees Retirement System) employer
contribution percentage (5.75:) together with the range of recommended salaries
($17,398 - $37,370), the range of benefit points for retirement should be 13 to 29
for agency Directors. The addition of retirement points would make the recom-
mended range of benefits points 63-89.
BENEFIT POINT INFORMATION APPEARS ON PAGE 6 OF EACH AGENCY'S BUDGET.
19
aa�
�t1 A\atal.aa+vnNtaa
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 22, 1986
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Finance Qgq�,w, ,Upaal.�
Re: Sewer Bonds 0
Although the report from the financial advisors on "Financing Plans for
Wastewater System Improvements" did not specifically address call provisions
on bond issues, that concept was considered in the development of their pro-
jections. Since it would definitely be to the City's advantage to include
call provisions, we will be considering such provisions as a priority in the
structuring of all bond issues for this project.
bj3h4
I
%4
rT
PRECEDING
DOCUMENT
r
r
Vh.:wa:.....t...................t.....:.n,.....:::
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 22, 1986
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Rosemary Vitosh, Director of Financeli16.�
Re: Sewer Bonds 0
Although the report from the financial advisors on "Financing Plans for
Wastewater System Improvements" did not specifically address call provisions
on bond issues, that concept was considered in the development of their pro-
jections. Since it would definitely be to the City's advantage to include
call provisions, we will be considering such provisions as a priority in the
structuring of all bond issues for this project.
bj3/14
aa�
I _J
�'1l�A.N aaa taa�.a`.�•. \r at .a•
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 24, 1986
To: City Council
From: Patt Cain, Associate Plannerlli
Re: Old Capitol Center North Entrance Landscaping
Terry Robinson, City Forester, has recommended that the three easternmost
trees and grates at the north entrance to Old Capitol Center be removed and
replaced with sidewalk surface. These trees are subject to severe environ-
mental stress from exhaust fumes, inadequate sunlight and pedestrian traffic,
and the grates pose a safety hazard to persons .entering and exiting the
buses.
At their January 15 meeting, Design Review Committee members agreed with the
City Forester's recommendation. They acknowledged that safety considerations
made the location of trees impractical in that area. The Committee
stipulated however, that the sidewalk material used to replace the grates be
specifically chosen and installed to match the area surrounding each grate.
In accordance with these recommendations, the Public Works Department will
develop plans and specifications for replacing the three trees and grates
with sidewalk surface and will coordinate activities with Terry Robinson and
with the Design Review Committee for review of the plans prior to sidewalk
installation.
bdw/sp
as 3
.4
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 23, 1985
TO: City Council
FROM: Larry McGonagle, Transit Manager
RE: Monthly Ridership Statistics ,/y
Attached are Iowa City Transit's ridership statistics for
December, 1985.
Vh...xa.......,....,...................,.rte ...... .:c-»..............._Y.........�,....�.�.....
MONTHLY RIDERSHIP STATISTICS
FY 81
FY 82
FY 83
MONTH
RIDERSHIP
+ _
+
R DERS P
+ -1
'JULY
126,668
4
141,870
11
152,830
7
AUGUST
112,958
(3)
131,162
14
152,473
14
SEPTEMBE
181,320
13
198,065
8
220,691
10
OCTOBER
207,557
5
221,940
6
237,075
6
NOYEFiBER
181,722
(3)
205,132
11
242,446
15
DECEMBER
186,843
11
199,346
6
209,865
5
JANUARY
191,966 1
(1)
1 242,050
21
224,297
(7)
FEBRUARY
230,887
(1)
266,456
13
258,786
(3)
MARCH
203,381
1
254,476
20
232,604
(9)
APRIL
197,513
6
234,880
16
220,792
(6)
PAY
146,832
8
166.886 112
165,126
JUNE
138,138
12
156,727
12
148,845
5
2,465,832
2
*.' of INCREASE (DECREI
SE)F� 4 PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR
t
n
'11NTH
WEEKDAY
WEEKDAY VENING
SATURDAY
SATUR AY
EVENING
8
t(-)
2 t(-)
FY
83
t(_)
FY
B1
t(_) FY
82
t(_)
FY
83
+(_) FY
111
t(-) FY
82
t(_)
FY
93
t(_)
FY
91
t(_)
FY
82
t(_)
FY
83
t(-;
JULY
827
20
680
(18) 1455
47
AUGUST
5419
(2)
6817
21
8647
21
SEPTEMBER
1
907
1153
30
2
1070
1431
15
19
1128
1788
5
19
OCTOBER
1 9 53
i
92
9867
17
98
1 926
19
17
50
5 ]O6
4.232
21
16
0 094
5 364
3
17
17 15
1204
23
1927
38
2177
ll
NOYEFOIER
DECEMBER
50 609
1327 26
1017 (11)
1932_
1569
7
31
1929
1685
26
7
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
'111RLH
APRIL 167
{py
TUNE
'DIAL
•S F
161 628
195 710
171 340
334
21 526
18,486
,791,12
INCREASE
2
1
5
6
3
3
(DELREASE)
1
22 282 2
15 16) 19
98 015 15
37 172 11
33,419 11 126,98
.037.1H 12 2,072.955
FROM
2
199 66
182 9fi
136 37
PREVIOUS
2
7
B
1
5)
2
FISCAL
9077 1
3 401 7
1,797 12
1,28B 12
7710 14
7180 17
12,118 11
Y1..
4 009
8,389
7,064
5,574
9414
8635
145,51
35
27
31
28
18
17 0355
23 140,73
2 960
16,149
14,068
13,047
9498
7
(12)
(IB)
(16)
1
(3)
2
9 915
20,221
15,951
17,550
16,329 13
11,495 10
88.165
27
15
15
17
9
25 812
23 262
19 499
19,49)
18,558
3,577
16,444
23
]3
18
10
2
6
13 23,307
23 154
17 299
2 493
7,710
2,346
.5
11
3
5
91027
3
267
14,311
6
22
13
5 3
46
I79/
1742
1096
19,854
38
40
25
27
6
28
1846
2269
1568
2285
1541
1156 15
I
20,821;
2
24
10
2)
21 I
1(12) i
5
G
•a.�Wµvalaea!•av♦ t • \'Naa\\ ♦a� \aa!a+.aa.www.v l:.'TT:'.\': ,a.aw-wM++A...v.��iiii...wv...a ..Ye......... I•v.Ytivw\w'.wa w
•
lto—w_l II city
R E C E IVED.IAM 201986
January 17.
Saa1 DcrIin, City Mann er
Cit'• of iowe C; t',*
Ci':ic Ginter j
Coca City, Toota 522•10
Drat•
The Executive Committee of the Greater• lowa City Area Chamber of ,
Cnmmerce recummends that Phil Shive, owner and Manager of Sweets
and Treats be appointed as a member of the .Johnson Cuunly Council
c•f Government Transit Advisory Committee. its a downtown t•e-
t:1iIL'1•, well studied in critical transit,'puri•iutt issues, Phil
will bring valuable insight: to this committee.
The +L-ealev Iowa C;ty ren +:hn:nher u;' ,'omill rt•ce wcic.on,th,: :,P-
pnrtunity to work wtlh public "I'tic,.q in ,1,�•:,.ieniu: s com..
,ruhLti c:.i ; rata i I n1 : _..
—s—Zati
. Gr=atcr !o(,a Cit, Aria Chamber of Cum:nerc0
Greater Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 2358 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 (319) 337-9637
n
RE CE IV ED JAN 2219PR
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 16, 1986
Dear Mayor McDonald:
On behalf of the President, I would like to thank you for your
recent correspondence.
A copy of your letter has been forwarded to the appropriate
officials at the Department of State for their benefit and
consideration.
I sincerely appreciate your sharing your views with the
Administration.
Sincerely,
Deborah L. Steelman
Deputy Assistant to the President
and Director, Intergovernmental Affairs
The Honorable John McDonald
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
0?026
0
COOPER EVANS
u) CANNON HOUSE °.N¢! suaOlx
..1NNGICN oC )°$Is
}RO OI s1111c[lawl
jl C [
12021221-3301
COMMMIE ON AGRICULTURE
�, L E I '•
1tl)W{SI NOUR1N ffRF[I
SUICOMMIRIIs'
Y°x5.
/ryy
Izongras of the `united E$tatr's
WAIIRLOO.IOWA 101°.
1.3715
RESEARCH OR(ILN
RESEA`{CUNo10
10} SUYNHCLINIONSNR((, It.,
°w1CR,, }.0
wxucsonN12x0
°1'}11-0012
TIEDCANNOT
douse of RPresnratis
1}w{51MMN
AOHOC ALRICULIYRI
VAPSNAIL,°W NIOWA1. SS
. I
1Uo_c.l,
.
Uas ington,B.C. 20515
111110}3.1)
salt, muu mle ON Aeme
W IOwA. mu HUL xuusl.6
1-eoo.n).17.5
TFC..Ot%l ASSISS RENT BOARD
January 16, 1986
Honorable John McDonald
Mayor
City of Iowa City
Civic Center, 410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mayor McDonald:
Thank you for your recent letter and your efforts to share your concerns about
nuclear weapons.
I share your concern and have supported efforts to provide a stable posture to
encourage negotiations which will lead to real reductions in nuclear weapons
stockpiles on both sides and reduce the risk of nuclear war.
Your views are much appreciated, and I hope you will feel free to contat me
again if you have additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
14V141 -
Cooper Evans
Member of Congress
CE/mtm
a�7
JIM O'KANE
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Find District
P1.vK 15161 TJI•Z21
HOME ADDRESS
1e15R,be .5lrte1
SIOUX CITY. IOWA 511m
M...171z1RS,
January 20, 1986
Pause of �Hepresentntbjes
STATEOPIOWA
Sn"4-Fir8t Ceaera1 Aseemhly
SPATE HOUSE
,Da Points, Anion 50319
Mr. Douglas W. Boothroy
Director
Housing a Inspection Services
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Boothroy,
COMMITTEES
"I Government Choir
Admini"m Rule Rnkw.
Vin Choir
Natural Raouna
Rulm and Administration
Ws" and Mans
Thank you for your letter of December 17th regarding the
decriminalization of municipal code violations and the establish-
ment.of a municipal infraction citation process. The
attached information was very interesting.
I have requested that the Legislative Service Bureau draft
a study bill for consideration by the House Local Government
Committee on this subject. Its form will probably be very
similar to the legislation being drafted for Senator Small.
I will keep you informed of any progress we make in the
House on this issue.
Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention.
Very truly yours,
J O'Kane
tate Rbpresentative
JO/ao
aa8
........... ........
NEWS
DIGEST
JANUARY Mill'.'
CITIZENS ACTION CENTER
by Nana L. Cornwell, CMC
City Secretary, Waco, Texas
With citiesgrowing largerand more complex, ilbecomes
increasingly more difficult for citizens to know what city
official or department to call with their requests for
information, service or complaints. After a frustrating
round of calling the wrong departments, the irritated
citizen will either give up or start calling the mayor,
council or manager. The City of Waco has approxi-
mately 1200 employees in 45 departments and divi-
sions. Ending the run around is what the Action Center
is all about.
In City Secretary's office
The Action Center was established at the request of
the present city council. It opened May 15,1985, and is
located in city hall as a division ofthe City Secretary's
Office. The Action Center was placed in the City
Secretary's office since our office would be neutral in
that we work for the city council rather than for the city
manager, and we could act as a liaison between the
citizens and staff. This is unique since our study
revealed that action centers in Texas are generally
Placed under the jurisdiction of the city manager in a
special department or in the public information office.
In NewYork, the action centeris operated bythe mayor's
staff.
The Action Center is designed to handle multiple
requests or complaints. Suppose someone has a
health, zoning, street and water complaint. Instead of
the citizen trying to figure out who handles what and
calling each in turn, the person can just call the Action
Center. The Action Center is open Monday through
Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with two operators
on duty. There is a direct line number and an extension
line off the city switchboard for persons who call city
hall.
Details on Calls
When no Immediate visible action is taken, the citi.
zen can be left with the impression that the request has
been forgotten. The Action Center makes sure the
appropriate department is notified within four hours
(immediately if the request is of an emergency nature).
The department then notifies the employee in the field,
action is taken, and the citizen is contacted by phone, if
Possible. The department then responds to the Action
Center in writing. The Action Center sends a letter and
a postage -paid evaluation card to the citizen so the
citizen can evaluate the response by the department
as well as that of the Action Center. When the evalua-
tion is negative, the citizen can be recontacted to clear
up misunderstandings orto initiate furtheraction. When
the response is positive, these comments serve as a
morale booster to all who are accustomed to getting
the gripes but seldom receive the thanks for a job well
done.
Rating cards also are a management information
tool in the evaluation of departments. Since this infor.
mation is computerized, we can identity areas of citi.
zen concern, emerging trends, and troublesome hot
Spots. If they so desire, council and management may
then initiate changes, which could affect resource alto.
cation and staffing.
Publicity
Newspapers have published five articles about the
Action Center. We enclosed peel -off labels in city mail.
(Continued on page 6)
M
......... !,... I......... ....t.....,- __.A.... ,...
6
CENTER (Con'd)
outs with the Action Center number and emergency
numbers for police and fire. Staff in my office is avail-
able to speak to civic organizations about the Center.
Coe
rCE
JQIemeto'e,
ACT ON TN ER
7sss7ss
FOr Emergentles
YOUR CITY OF WACO
POIICa 752.5555
ACTION CENTER NUMBER
Flro 752.6511
FOR/7Y SERVICES ANO
PEEL r 1 OFF
I NFORMA RMA7IO/ON
city or W¢o
ACTION CENTER
�P
7ss•rss
„1„r,�
\ •"+
For EmergtncMl
//I/}.� ,• ~, V •
Poliq 752.5555
:,- `iki.7 `""';�
Fln 752.6511
itis �
Open Records and Confidentiality
A big question in starting this program was whether
or not we should take anonymous calls. In their delib-
erations, the council first felt that a caller should be
willing to share personal information if the complaint or
request was legitimate. A decision was made to take
all calls, advising callers that their name was not
necessary, but if they would share their name and
address, we could write them explaining what the
department had done as well as send them an evalua-
tion card. They are advised that the information is part
of the open record.
If a citizen requests specific information concerning
a call we have received, such as "Who turned me in?",
we then will ask them to fill out a written request which
will be reviewed by the City Attorney on a case-by-case
basis. Thus far we have not had a problem in this area.
In our reporting system to the council and press, only
statistics and subjects are used rather than names and
detailed information, thereby protecting our citizens
and avoiding "neighborhood squabbles:'
As is the casein most cities, the Action Center is not
the only office responding to such requests. The City of
Waco does have a public Information officer. The line
departments all receive complaints directly and have
separate extensions in city hall, and departments such
as tax, water, parks and health have separate numbers
for specific services. The Action Center Is not a substi-
tute for these existing mechanisms, but a complement.
Tracking Response Time
The Action Center is computerized to provide faster
service for citizens. We have a breakdown of com-
plaints by department and council district, and are able
to track departmental response time with an investiga-
tion data form. Departments respond within three days
to the Action Center. if there is going to be a delay In
response time, it is indicated on the data form so we
will know the status of a complaint at all times until the
citizen is satisfied.
The bottom line is —will more citizens receive satis-
faction because the Action Center exists? I believe
they will.
Our monthly report is being prepared in about three
hours using an IBM PC. Each council member in the
five single-memberdislricts receives a report reflecting:
total calls, type (using codes), call status including
number needing follow-up, number completed, and
numberwhere the departments have not responded to
the Action Center.
Equipment and Supplies
The City of Waco -Citizens Action Center computer
system has been installed on a stand-alone IBM PC
microcomputer. The computer has sufficient on-line
storage capacity to store one year's history of calls.
The computer system has been designed to perform
these main functions:
1. Record citizen action calls.
2. Track all calls taken.
3. Produce information and response forms for each
responding department.
4. Provide immediate information on all calls entered.
5. Produce summary analysis and management re-
ports on a scheduled or unscheduled basis.
We have gathered all the written information possi-
ble to assist ouroperators: phone books, citydirectories,
street guides and maps, council district maps, code of
ordinances, and specific information furnished by other
departments (i.e., how to get a garage sale permit).
This relieves staff members in other departments from
taking repetitive calls. The written information elimi-
nates erroneous information being relayed.
Procedures Manual Used
Our operators have a telephone procedures manual
which reflects the desires of the council and staff, as
well as correct telephone etiquette. It also assists in
training new employees. Three employees are being
cross -trained between the City Secretary's Office and
the Action Center. We plan to rotate them every six
months, and feel this will give us a smooth operation.
Each department was requested to make a list of
activities to which we assigned action code numbers.
Each department has a series of numbers (i.e. 500
series are codes for public works) allowing ease in
memorizing the series of numbers by our operators.
These codes are also used in our reporting system to
council staff.
Is It Worth It?
Is it worth the funds it takes? The answer is ultimately
a function of such tangible things as the volume and
velocity of the complaints the city receives, and intangi-
ble factors such as the increased access for citizens to
their city government.
We rece ved 11206 calls in the first four months that
the Action Center was open. About 509/16 of our calls are
for information and the other 50% are for service or
complaints which we refer to as action calls. A good
public information program should reduce the number
of calls to an action center. A large number of informa-
tion calls may mean the city should step up its public
information effort.
The evaluation cards have been very favorable and
supportive. Our councilwoman, when asked her opin-
ion of the Action Center, responded: "The citizens
believe it to be an asset to the city, and it is the consen-
sus of the council that the Action Center is an asset to
the citizens and management of the city."
VT
_................... I ..................
..... .
{' SITE WALL STREET JOURNAL TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1986
Tax -Overhaul Bill Stalls Municipals
Buyers Shy Away, Fearing Issues' Taxability
By Ewfir Jaml9aw
swfxTo.rerefxlo vv shun Jov.0
The tax -overhaul bill. which helped spur
a record flurry of municipal bond offerines
last year. has slowed the flow of 19*vin.
tape tax-exempt bonds to barely a
tackle.
Many major Institutional Investors are
refusing to buy 1986 tax-exempt bonds. and
iome Wall Stmt firms have declined In
bid for such Limits. The reason: a growing
uneasiness over the Implications of the In -
overhaul bill now in the Senate.
Known as H.R. 3818, the bill passed the
House with a Jan. I effective date—which.
in effect, requires Issuers to abide by the
provisions of the bili even though It Isn't
yet law. The Senate Finance Committee is
about to take up tax overhaul, and It's un-
clear what changes the committee may
make to the House measure. But confusion
over the requirements In the House bill is
causing tumefi In the primary market for
tax-exempt bonds, some issuers and under•
writers say.
"The dismptloos are very pervasive.
broad-based and far-reaching;' says Ed*
ward T. Swanton. managing director of na-
tional municipal underwriting at Merrill
Lynch & Co. "It's causing distortions in
bidding, a high degree of uncertainty, and
a great deal o1 negativism."
Some issues have been pulled from the
market because of confusion over the Im-
plications of the tax -overhaul legislation.
Concern Over Noncompliance
The- major concern for underwriters
and Investors Is the continued tax -exemp-
tion of bads Issued urder the measure.
Under the proposed bill, tax-exempt bonds•
would become taxable retroactively to the
date of Issue 11 the Issuer falls at any time
to abide by Its provisions. "If the Issuer
falls into noncompliance for one reason or
another and the bonds are declared -taxa-
ble. the injured party Is the Investor.
That's absolutely, egregiously wrong:, Mr.
Swanton says.
Under the bill. an Issuer could be In
noncompliance if 51, of the bond proceeds
aren't spent within 3a days. This require-
ment virtually bars Georgia from the tax-
exempt market, because the state constitu-
tion requires proceeds of an Issue to be in
hand before any contracts may be signed.
Other states and municipalities may also
be affected, bui It Isn't clear how many.
Another provision of the bill requires
municipalities to keep a strict accounting
of profits from arbitrage—using proceeds
of one Issue to Invest In a higher -yielding
security. A percentage of those profits
must be paid to the Internal Revenue Serv-
Ice on a regular schedule. Failure to meet
this requirement at any time during the
life of an issue could result in the loss
of tax-exempt status retroactive to the
date of Issue.
'Confusion Reigns'
One Investment banker said 90% of his
firm's institutional customers have said
they won't buy Hun bads, alto O00m
have played down the disruption ealaMb
H.R. 383L "Confusion reigns, obT the
ket Is not at a hall;' said Gary O'Hagan. A
vice presldeht in municipal trading at saw
mon Broilers Inc. "Some customers have
shown some reluctance, some haven't"
One institutional Investor that. has
adopted a tough stance on HIM municlpas
Is T: Rowe Price Associates Inc., a Balli -
more -based sponsor of mutual funds. "Our
policy, which Is subject to change, Is to
purchase no municipal bonds Issued after
Jan. 1 unless we can clearly define that
they are classified as governmental Issues
or essential -purpose bonds, and that the Is.
suer will covenant that they will abide by
the provsfas of HIL 30." said Peter ,
J.
Gordan, of
of the firm's Tax -
Free Pundit. :. .
A further problem for mutual funds 1s a
provision in the bill that makes some non•
governmental municipal bonds subject to
an alternative minimum tax. Including
such bonds in a fund portfolio would re•
duce the yield for investors who have to
pay the tax• an&create accounting head-
aches for fund managers, so "mutual
funds will want to keep their dividends
pure;' Mr. Gordon said.
The tact that retail customers are less
likely than bstlluilorul buyers to under-
stand the Implications of the bill has some
underwriters nervous about their liability
if they sell bards that are later found to be
in noncompliance. .
„There's no guarantee that solve sales-
man isn't Wing in sell room and
pop . some bonds without ramifications of the tax bill," explaining
sald Robert
S. Edwards, first vice president In the ne-
gotiated underwriting group at Smith Bar.
ney, Harris Upham & Co. "We don't want
any potential legal liability—that's our con,
cem:
Disclosure of Implications
In response. Smith Barney had been fig-
uring a "risk factor" into Its competitive
bids. "In effect• taking ourselves out of
the market;' Mr. Edsvar s said. The firm
recently established guidelines calling for
all sales documents to fully disclose the
Implications of the tax bill and to be avail-
able to all syndicate members. It also pro-
vided for an underwriter's counsel to be re-
tained to review the implications of the bill
for all Issues Smith Barney underwrites.
both competitive and negotiated.
The difficulties in making sure bond is-
sues fulfill the requirements of the bill are
"Mind-boggling;' sold Mr. Swanton of
Merrill Lynch. "I, as in underwriter. have
to concern myself with the proceeds and
how they will be spent. I have to determine
whetber bond counsel Is nationally reeog•
nized and I have to go over the opinion
with a fine•toothed comb. Then I have to
try to figure out how to sell It and to
whom."
But the' legal opinions that underwrit-
erslook to for assurance that an Issue L In
compliance often aren't as clear-cut as
they'd like. One prominent New York law
firm. Mudge Raw Go" Alexander &
Ferdaa, Mudes In the a m., statement
that accoiii n7 s the boed�ie a waif
to buyers Nra
at "no one n predict what s
going to happen to the bill In the Senate."
said Robert E. Ferdon• senior partner.
•'We can't express an opinion as to what
the future may hold."
Phoentnt. Ariz., Issue
Wall Stmt's concern over disclosure
prompted the city of Phoenix, Ariz.. a
high -rated Issuer, to withdraw a 872.8 mil-
lion tax-exempt lease,llnanft lad week
after getting only one bid. The problem:
The city didn't Include In Its disclosure
document a formal opinion that It would
meet the requirements of H.R. 3838, al-
though underwriters were awed that a
supplemental opinion addressing these re-
quirements would be wind to them. That
wire was sent, but it didn't help.
"The Stmt Is very nervous about the
bill;' said Kevin Keogh. Phoenix's assir
tat Mance director. 'Mey were very•
very nervous that what.we put on the wire
wasn't sufficient to allay their concerns."
11141041W Martel Poesfble
And although the supply of 1985 bonds
still remains bo tutlful, some underwriters
believe that the uncertainty surrounding
the few 1986 issues that have come to mar-
ket
arket could eventually lead to a "two-tier"
market, with bonds Issued after Jan. 1
trading at higher yields to offset the risks
posed by the uncertainty of H.IL 3838.
'Institutions have told me that In order
to buy a 1996 bond. In light of H.R. 3839.
they want 50 hosts points more In yield:'
Mr. Swanton said. IA basis point Is one-
hundredth of a percentage point of Inter-
est.)
Even favored Issuers have been greeted
with uncertainty, by underwriters, be said.
A recent 550 million Issue by the los Ange-
les Department of Water and Power re-
ceived bids from 8%. to 8.625%. The normal
range would be from 8.01%. to 8.051., he
said. "I can't remember that big of a
spread on that Issuer."
a3o
,C�sLt7u.,(�J /ai�P6
IOWA CITY, IOWA
FINANCING PLAN FOR
WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
k'
I
i
S
,C�sLt7u.,(�J /ai�P6
IOWA CITY, IOWA
FINANCING PLAN FOR
WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
k'
�tti��tt.!ttt.\...........at'!vwwM'.Y.vA.vl::::'at'.ww."..ww.�w.l�l..wvv�..w..v'�.....'1...1'.wtv/.w�ttNw
George K Baum &- Company
INVEST?2ETTT BANHEnS
N[N9[R OT SUITE 28M
H[w TOOK STOCK [[CHANGE. INC. Sil SEVENTEENTH STREET
NIGVLST STOCK [ECHANGLDENVER. COLORADO 90293
T[l[eHOML I301I 898.8028
January 15, 1986
Mayor William J. Ambrisco
City of Iowa City
Civic Center
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa
Dear Mayor Ambrisco:
We are pleased to submit this Financing Plan for the expansion
of the Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities serving
the City of Iowa City.
Our contract called for a review of the Metcalf & Eddy Project
Team financial alternatives report, for examination of the full
range of options available to the City for financing and the
presentation of a plan for financing. This report attempts to
accomplish each of these objectives.
We look forward to meeting with you and to presenting this
report to the Special Committee and the City Council.
S' ely,
CURTIS R. JENSEN STEPHEN F. BUTTERFIELD
George K. Baum & Company Boettcher & Company
a3/
3
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
We wish to thank the staff and consultants to Iowa City for
assisting us in assembling the background information contained
in this plan.
We are especially grateful to the following:'
Neal G. Berlin - City Manager
Rosemary Vitosh - Director of Finance
Charles Schmadeke - Director of Public Works
Donald Schmeiser - Director of Planning & Program Development
Kenneth Haynie - Bond Counsel
Ahlers, Cooney, Dorweiler, Haynie, Smith & Allbee
IOWA CITY, IOWA
City Council
Mayor.... William J. Ambrisco
Mayor Pro Tem .... Kate Dickson
Ernest V. Zuber, Jr.
Darrel Courtney
John McDonald
George Strait
Larry Baker
:ity Manager.... Neal G. Berlin
lance Manager.... Rosemary Vitosh
Works Director.... Charles Schmadeke
FINANCING PLAN
FOR
WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
PREPARED BY:
GEORGE K. BAUM & COMPANY
DENVER, COLORADO
AND
BOETTCHER & COMPANY
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
January 1986
I �
I
i
ka
M
I
i
��µlN aaaaaa .r vnv\.... a a v. a.. a aa...............v vn...�.r..1.v.v..v.vµ ...�.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section PAGE
IOWA CITY, IOWA BACKGROUND
I 1
INTRODUCTION
CONCLUSIONS
II 3
Comparison of Revenue Increases Needed
Recommendations
FINANCING ALTERNATIVES STUDIED
III 9
1. Municipal Debt
a. Revenue Bonds
b. General Obligation Bonds
c. Types of Revenue and General Obligation Bonds
1. Fixed Rate - Long Term
2. Fixed Rate - Short Term
3. Variable Rate
4. Zero Coupon Bond
S. Convertible Capital
6. Lease/Purchase Financing
7. Privatization
APPLICATION 0£ FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES
IV 12
Benefits & Disadvantages of:
Revenue Bonds
General Obligation Bonds
Fixed Rate - Long Term Bonds
Fixed Rate - Short Term Bonds
Variable Rate - Demand Notes
Zero Coupon Bonds
Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds
Lease Purchase
Privatization
METCALF & EDDY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS REPORT
V 15
PRIVATIZATION
VI 76
Sample Cash Flow Statement, Tax Benefits of Private
Owner of a Project, "Privatization"
IOWA CITY — CURRENTLY
VIZ 19
Current Wastewater System, Proforma with no Change in
Services, System Expenses Rise @ 68 Per Year, New
Hookups Increase Revenues @1.18 Per Year
Current Wastewater System Assumes 68 Annual Increase
in Expenses and 1.18 Growth Rate Plus Annual Rate
Increase to Cover all Expenses
I
COMPARATIVE SEWER USER CHARGES
VIII 23
a3�
I
CITY OF IOWA CITY
WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
TABLES OF CONTENTS
SELECTED CASH FLOWS Closing
Section
Assumptions Used in Bonds and Revenues
Proforma Flow of Funds & Earnings, Revenue Bond Issue
New Wastewater System with all Improvements, Proforma
for New Revenues Needed, City Revenue Bond'Issue
Proforma Flow of Funds & Earnings, Zero Coupon & Revenue
Bonds
New Wastewater System with all Improvements, Proforma for
new Revenues Needed, Zero Coupon & Revenue Bonds
Proforma Flow of Funds & Earnings, Private Owner/Operator,
Fixed Rate Bond Issue
Proforma Annual Rate Increases Needed to Meet Payments to
Private Company - Fixed Rate Bonds
Proforma Flow of Funds & Earnings, Private Owner/Operator,
Floating Rate Bonds
Proforma Annual Rate Increases Needed to Meet Payments to
Private Company - Floating Rate Bonds
PAGE'
25
11
MSN \vvlaav ...........
IOWA CITY, IOWA
FINANCING PLAN
FOR
WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Background
Iowa City has long recognized the need for new wastewater
transportation and treatment facilities. The City's 1983
comprehensive report lists five "Major Findings". Each of them
is directly tied to the need for new and improved wastewater
facilities. This same report refers to the need for the Capital
Improvement Programming planned for in the 111979 Sewer Study".
The City hired a firm (Veenstra & Kimm, Inc.) to complete
drawings for construction of parts of the system. It has since
hired a new Project Team to review this work and suggest
alternatives. The City at one point temporarily suspended new
building in one area due to lack of adequate treatment.
Reading the 1983 Comprehensive Plan and the 1985 Zuchelli,
Hunter & Associates population projections, one is struck by the
need to expand the present facilities and to provide a means to
stop the storm water flooding that regularly causes an overflow
of untreated sewage into the river.
Iowa City is now a city of approximately 53,500 persons living
in 21,100 households within city boundaries that include 13,864
acres. Projections show annualized city population growth at
1.1% compounded annually and new household formation at 2.2%
compounded annually for the near future. Fewer persons per
household are causing more housing growth than the population -
would indicate. This is an important planning consideration.
The 1983 Comprehensive Plan states that only 5.8% (808 acres) of
the City's acres are "developable" today without major
wastewater system improvements. The wastewater system
improvements being suggested currently would open up 1,949 new
acres for development within the current city boundaries. The
continued growth of homes and businesses within the City rather
than outside of its boundaries (but using City services) depends
on the project under study. The growth will take place, the
only question is where?
Iowa City is an anomaly in the Midwest. It is a medium sized
city with very low unemployment, a very well educated labor
force and the social amenities of a major university. Its
continued growth and economic strength cause it to be envied by
many. The major missing link to sound development and continued
growth is an adequate wastewater system.
-1-
Introduction
In June of 1984, the City selected a team of firms headed by
Metcalf and Eddy to prepare a technical report of all
alternatives available to the City for construction of
wastewater system improvements. This project team (also
consisting of Flour Transportation and Infrastructure and Arthur
Young & Company) were also to prepare a report on construction
alternatives to reduce costs and financial alternatives
including Privatization.
The engineering/construction phase of• this report was given to
Council in September, 1985 and Alternative N11 was recommended.
Council adopted the recommendation. Alternative N11 includes a
University Heights Sewer, system extension, a new northern
portion of the Southeast Interceptor, alterations and expansion
of the existing sewage treatment plant, building a new Sand Road
sewage treatment plant, placing sewers for and around the
southeast Interceptor and construction of a new lift station.
The total construction cost is estimated to be $33,911,000.
Construction time is estimated to be eighteen months after final
engineering is complete.
Metcalf & Eddy submitted a separate Financial Analysis for
Alternative Nil in November, 1985 and an update recently. our
firms were hired from among several firms who made proposals to
the City in June and July of 1985. Most of our early effort was
directed at acquiring information and background on Iowa City
and the Project. This financing plan and the alternatives
presented are meant to be an indepth analysis of all
alternatives including the ones presented in the Metcalf & Eddy
report. Each alternative studied was carried in a proforma
projection to the final form of an actual financing. our method
was to introduce all known factors such as construction costs,
time, etc., and a reasonable market estimate of all other costs
and experiences. We then built a mathematical model of the
project and used this to test various alternatives.
i
Our financing plan does not include all of the various
alternatives we examined since some were clearly not viable.
Our guiding principal was to reduce the impact on sewer user
fees and tap fees to the lowest possible level, and to maintain
a consistently high level of project income support features to
use in assuring a high bond credit rating and therefore the
lowest possible interest rates.
We have also done considerable research on the various fees and
charges for sewer services imposed by Iowa City and similar
rates of surrounding cities. We have linked our financial
alternatives and selections to.the fees necessary to support the
financing. This will give the Council, Staff and citizens the
full knowledge of the impact of the project in current and
future years.
-2-
d3/
n
V-w:..:.......t.....,:............ t,,.......,,....,.:::_........ ....,.....o.....,,...:...Y........
...........+.....- .......
CONCLUSIONS
There are several ways to rank each type of financing examined.
Among these are:
1. The amount of the increases in sewer user rates in the
immediate future.
2. The total amount the rates must be raised over the years of
the bond issue.
3. The desire to own and operate the facilities versus allow a
private owner/operator.
4. The average annual payment necessary to pay debt service or
capital charges.
5. Current lower payments versus risk of future increases.
We have displayed key parts of each type of financing to examine
each based on the criteria:
Type of
Financing
Rate
Increases
Necessary
Final Year's
Revenues
NeededOwnership
public or
Private
Average
Annual
Payment
Fixed or
Floating
Rate
110% then
$9,193,167
Public
$3,873,000
Fixed
Revenue
Bond
30% in 2yrs.
Long Term
& 14% in lyr.
Revenue
85% then
$16,285,786
Public
$1,880,000
Fixed
Bond &
5.838 for
plus Zero
Coupon early
Zero Coupon
every yr.
call
Bonds -Case wl
1208 then
$ 8,387,009
Public
$1,880,000
Fixed
Revenue
Bond &
98.7$ in
plus Zero
Coupon early
Zero Coupon
7 yrs.
call
Bonds -Case $2
Private Owner
100% then
$ 8,489,210
Private
$3,114,000
Fixed
/operator
16% in 4yrs.
Fixed Rate
& 15% in lyr.
$ 7,836,,578
Private
$2,450,000
Floating
Private Owner
608 then
/Operator
26% in 2yrs.
Floating Rate
& 14% in 1 yr.
-3-
o?3L
0
-4-
.23/,
COMPARISON
OF REVENUES NEEDED
FOR
EACH FINANCING STRUCTURE USED IN
THE STUDY.
THE
FIRST YEAR
IS RATED
100 AND ALL OTHER YEARS
ARE TAKEN AS
AN INCREASE FROM THE
BASE YEAR.
FISCAL
CITY REV
ZERO'S
ZERO'S
PRIVATE PRIVATE
YEAR
BONDS
CASE i
CASE t
FIXED FLOATING
ONE
TWO
RATE RATE
1986
100
100
100
100
100
1987
211
186
221
201
161
1988
213
199
223
203
163
1989
215
212
225
206
165
1990
282
227
228
208
209
1991
324
242
230
243
241'
1992
347
259
232
283
256
1993
361
277
235
305
271
1994
375
296
468
321
282
1995
387
316
473
337
291
1996
394
337
478
344
300
1997
406
360
483
355
309
1998
410
385
488
363
316
1999
422
411
492
374
322
2000
431
440
497
385
336
346
2001
440
470
502
507
393
406
357
2002
453
466
502
536
512
418
368
2003
2004
476
573
518
431
379
2005
490
612
523
440
391
2006
505
654
528
454
407
2007
520
699
533
468
424
2008
535
746
539
487
441
2009
551
797
544
502
455
469
2010
568
852
549
555
518
539
488
2011
2012
585
602
910
972
560
561
513
2013
627
1.039
566
579
534
534
2014
627
1,110
572
579
-4-
.23/,
i
A
0
The chart shows that the ranking on each of the criteria are as
follows:
:Privatization- 1 1 Private 1 Floating
Floating Rate
Privatization, floating rate is clearly the winner on charges
and rate increases. It is open to question on public versus
private ownership. It is much more vulnerable on risk of
floating rate. Its lower overall costs may offset much of
future years risks.
Privatization, fixed rate occupies the middle ground on revenue
issues and may be challenged only on the public versus private
question, its final cost to repurchase the plant, and its
vulnerability to changes in federal law.
The Revenue Bond has the advantage of being a known financial
structure that may have acceptable rate increases.
The Zero Coupon and Revenue bond mixture offers a choice to the
City. If revenues are raised slowly (as in Case N1) the final
charges are higher. If revenues are raised quickly (as in Case
N2) the final revenues are much lower. This illustrates the
control given to the City in this type of financing. A range of
rate changes can be used to either pay the Zero Coupon Bonds off
early, or delay the repayment. A mandatory sinking fund with
minimum deposits must be started immediately and the sinking
fund must have the ability to pay off the bonds without huge
increases in the last few years. The combination of Convertible
Capital Appreciation Bonds with the Zero Coupon Bonds will give
the City a known schedule for interest payment dates of some of
the issue.
-5-
Smallest
Lowest
Private or
Average
Fixed
Rate
Final
Public
Annual
or
Increase
Year
ownership
Payment
Floating
Rate
Revenue Bond
4
4
Public
3
Fixed
Zero Coupon #1
2
5
Public
low/high
Fixed
Zero Coupon $2
5
2
Public
low/high
Fixed
Privatization-
3
3
Private
2
Fixed
Fixed Rate
:Privatization- 1 1 Private 1 Floating
Floating Rate
Privatization, floating rate is clearly the winner on charges
and rate increases. It is open to question on public versus
private ownership. It is much more vulnerable on risk of
floating rate. Its lower overall costs may offset much of
future years risks.
Privatization, fixed rate occupies the middle ground on revenue
issues and may be challenged only on the public versus private
question, its final cost to repurchase the plant, and its
vulnerability to changes in federal law.
The Revenue Bond has the advantage of being a known financial
structure that may have acceptable rate increases.
The Zero Coupon and Revenue bond mixture offers a choice to the
City. If revenues are raised slowly (as in Case N1) the final
charges are higher. If revenues are raised quickly (as in Case
N2) the final revenues are much lower. This illustrates the
control given to the City in this type of financing. A range of
rate changes can be used to either pay the Zero Coupon Bonds off
early, or delay the repayment. A mandatory sinking fund with
minimum deposits must be started immediately and the sinking
fund must have the ability to pay off the bonds without huge
increases in the last few years. The combination of Convertible
Capital Appreciation Bonds with the Zero Coupon Bonds will give
the City a known schedule for interest payment dates of some of
the issue.
-5-
«<................................... ......... ,..,.
Recommendations
Our recommendation depends upon the City's desire to move
quickly versus more slowly. If the City wishes to move quickly,
we recommend the use of a mixture of long term and zero coupon
bonds as a City revenue band issue. The mixture used in our
study was 57% fixed rate long term revenue bonds and 43% fixed
rate, long term Zero Coupon Bonds about half of which would be
convertibles to pay interest at known dates in the future.
We have shown two cases of use of Zero Coupon bonds. one uses
quick rise in sewer user charges to keep long term raises to a
minimum. The other has a low raise in current sewer user
charges but has a long term high rate needed. The advantage of
this type of financing is that either extreme or some
modification in between may be used. We recommend that the
maximum tolerable increase in the near-term be used and
increases be used earlier rather than later. .
The current municipal bond market has very attractive rates, the
market now is excellent. Substantial savings in annual payments
can be realized, but only with speed. Changes in federal law,
now pending in Congress have had a very negative effect on new
bond issues and this lack of supply has driven rates down. As
noted previously, these changes will directly impact this bond
issue due to the changes being treated as law by most bond
counsel.
If the City wishes to move more slowly, we recommend issuing a
request for proposals from private companies to be
owner/operator of part or all of the facilities. We believe you
should examine each for their qualifications but request
specific information.on the following.
1. The impact of pending change in federal tax law (which will
not be resolved until August) on:
a. tax benefits used to lower costs.
b. ability to use tax exempt Industrial Development Bonds
for debt.
Specifically, it would be important to understand the
implications on 'any proposed contract with the City. How much
must be left open for determination at a later date.
2. The amount of money that would be gained by the City from
each of the following private owner alternatives:
a. Buy the existing plant and build, own and operate all
new facilities.
b. Build, own and operate all but the existing plant and
improvements.
C. Buy the existing plant and build own and operate the
new plant together with the existing plant and
improvements.
d. Build and operate only the new plant.
6 .?3/
3. would floating versus fixed rate financing be a pass through
or fixed charge?
4. How much credit support must the City supply and in what
form. Must all payments have a coverage ratio?
S. How will future expansions of the system be handled?
6. How will operating costs be contracted?
7: How will the final value (buyback) of the facilities be
determined. Will the*City have the right to renew the
contract at a lesser charge? For how long?
Each of these questions (and many more) would be meaningful in
determining to proceed publicly or privately.
Proposed changes in the federal tax law could eliminate the use
of tax exempt bonds and eliminate many tax advantages.
we recommend the use of Bond Anticipation Notes (-BAN's) only if
the City chooses to move more slowly in the decision on final
financing and at the same time, move the project through
engineering and perhaps construction. A private owner/operator
can be chosen "after the fact" if necessary. The use of BAN's
can be cost effective, but the risk of higher rates at the time
of takeout long term financing is a potential problem.
we recommend that the rate increases which will be necessary, no
matter the form of financing, be split between the "minimum
charge: and the current charge per 100 cubic feet above 400
cubic feet per month. Currently the system has 13,500 users.
The minimum charge accounts for about 27% of total revenues, the
charge per cubic foot accounts for most of the remainder. Thus,
a 100% increase in the minimum charge will net only a 27%
increase in total revenues, whereas a 100% increase in the water
charge per cubic foot will result in a 73% increase in
revenues. We recommend proportionate increases in each rate.
if the faster approach using City revenue bonds and Zero Coupon
Bonds is chosen the final decision on rate increases needed
should be adopted in general form currently. The ability to
either call or delay the Zero Coupon Bonds will allow for
flexibility in future rate increase decisions. The convertible
Capital Appreciation Bonds are fixed as to the interest payment
date, and they must be phased into the overall known rate
increases.
-7-
a3i
The bond payment schedules and debt service coverage ratios
which are the basis for our conclusions use all excess revenues
from earlier years together with earnings on those revenues to
make later years payments. These excess funds are also used in
the calculation of debt service coverage ratios. As a result,
if this form of financing is used, these funds will have to be
escrowed and used only for debt service and extraordinary items
of repair. As explained earlier. the use of Zero Coupon Bonds
normally requires an invested sinking fund for later retirement
of the bonds.
The coverage ratio required by credit rating agencies has two
principal purposes: 1.) to protect against unknown events such
as major damage, failure, and force majure, and 2.) to provide a
known source of revenues to repair and replace the facilities in
the futdre. Sewer'and plant systems have major types of
failures such as pump stations, the motor gears etc, in the
plant and underground pipe breakage. This underground breakage,
when it happens as a part of aging of the system, often goes
undetected until it occurs in many locations. Part of the
improvements needed at the existing and new treatment plant that
were factored into the Metcalf & Eddy report are due to
infiltration of ground water through these cracks and breaks.
We recommend that Iowa City adopt a policy of establishing a
Extraordinary Repair and Replacement Fund. The best way to
determine the amount to be set aside is to set an "economic
life" on each different type of component (eg. pipes - 20 years,
pumps - l0years, etc.). The amount of money necessary (plus
earnings) to repair or replace these components in the future
will then be in the fund and will not cause the problems that
Iowa City faces currently (raise bills to fix one item this year
or continue to delay repairs).
0?3/
FINANCING ALTERNATIVES STUDIED
We have listed below a range of broad areas we explored in
connection with this financing. Each contains a brief
explanation.
Municipal Debt
A. Revenue Bonds - Only the income of the system is pledged
to support the bond issue. This income is typically from
monthly sewer user charges, "tap" or connection fees for new
buildings served, and/or special one time assessments placed
on property within the service area. Revenue bonds
typically carry a debt service coverage ratio requirement of
at least 1.25 which mandates collections above the level
needed to repay bonds. Iowa law makes service charges for
sewer, a'direct lien on property:
B. General obligation ds - These bonds are secured by a
pledge of all City property and local option taxes. The
bonds can carry a higher credit rating due to a wider
distribution of sources of repayment. The City may use the
sewer charges discussed in "Revenue Bonds" as the source of
repayment, but the pledge is a wider pledge on revenue
sources. Certain coverage requirements are relaxed or
suspended due to the general pledge on all revenues. Iowa
law does not require a vote on "Essential Corporate Purpose"
projects such as wastewater treatment facilities. A limit
of 5% of assessed valuation is placed on the total of all
General Obligations. The current limit is $62,407,607. The
current General Obligation debt of the City is approximately
$15,235,000.
C. Types of Revenue and General Obligation Bonds -
1. Fixed Rate - Lona Term - This is the traditional
bond used in financing of long term projects such as
sewer system improvements. The term is usually 20 to
30 years, the interest rates and payments are known at
the time of issue. The bond normally covers both the
construction period and the long term amortization of
the project. An additional limit of twenty years is
the maximum maturity of General obligation Bonds.
2. Fixed Rate - Short Term - These are "Engineering/
Construction Bonds" used to finance the short term
needs of or engineering and construction. They are
normally taken out by a longer term bond at the finish
of construction, thus the name Bond Anticipation Notes
(BAN'S). They allow a project to move into a more
known cost, delay decisions on final finance
structures, and can provide for fast tracj(design/build
structures by ordering long lead time items while still
designing the project
-9-
a3�
11t... t......\.............. ...........
3. Variable Rate - Demand Bonds - These bonds are long
term, and carry rates which vary monthly, but the bond
holder may demand that the City repurchase them with
short notice (typically 7 days) and must then be sold
to another bond holder. This is a very widely used
type of bond today with a large market. Iowa law does
not allow cities to use Letters of Credit which are
necessary in this form of financing, therefore it may
only be used by a private company which may build and
own the plant.
4. Zero Coupon Bonds (or Capital Appreciation Bonds) -
These are long term, fixed rate bonds which pay no
interest to the bondholder during the term of the bond
and all principal and interest on redemption. They are
typically issued at a deep discount from par and pay
the par value on redemption. They carry a slightly
higher yield than a typical long term bond which pays
interest semiannually. The normal requirement with
these bonds is a mandatory sinking fund and an agreed
rate increase to match the required sinking fund
deposits.
5. Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds - These are
essentially Zero Coupon Bonds which begin paying
interest at a predetermined point in the future, but
before they mature. These bonds are used to push
payments further into the future than might be normal,
but begin paying interest earlier to reduce perceived
risks and lessen interest rate penalties.
6. Lease/Purchase Financing - This is a method of
using a general pledge of revenues. A lease/ purchase
obligation necessarily has an annual right of the City
to not appropriate the funds for payment of the debt
and to return the property. This creates a "lease"
which may be nullified and a "purchase" if carried to
final payment. The buyer of this Certificate of
Participation (rather than Bond Holder) is assured that
the City intends to pay but must, for local law
restrictions, have the written right to discontinue
payments. These instruments typically carry a credit
rating one step below a similar bond debt and therefore
are more expensive. They do not offer any tax
advantages to the holder (such as depreciation, etc.)
except the interest income is tax exempt.
-10-
a3�
0
i
.. a.....a......urw..r
i
7. Privatization - This is a recent form of financing
which takes advantage of certain private sector tax
benefits and design/build efficiencies, and the use of
tax exempt Industrial Development Bonds. A private
company is allowed to design, build, own and operate
the facilities. They use Industrial Development Bonds
issued by the City or County as their debt instrument.
They use the tax advantages of ownership (Investment
Tax Credits, depreciation, interest carrying costs) to
reduce taxes and pass some or all of this tax reduction
on to the City in the form of equity invested in the
project. The combination of equity and tax exempt debt
makes the overall payments needed from the City
significantly lower than a similar bond issue. The
total savings to a City can be 20-308 of the payments
they would have made on bonds.
APPLICATION OF FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES
we have examined each of the financial alternatives for the
benefits and disadvantages they offer to the Project. We have
summarized our general impressions below.
i
Revenue Bonds
Benefits:
j o Traditional type used, comfortable to the bond buyers.
i o Pledge of revenues of a known, operating system insures that
the users pay for the benefits.
o Can use tap fees5everal assessmentst,esources developer( charges,
fees, standby charges,
etc.)
o Can have future users "pay as you go".
o A direct lien on property through the service charge.
i Disadvantages:
o Limited revenues may not draw highest ratings.
o Requires debt service coverage ratios of at least 1.25 and
therefore higher rates must be imposed.
o Can require large increases in rates to cover debt service
ratios.
General Obligation Bonds
i
Benefits:
o Lowest possible interest rates
o Can use revenues other than sewer revenues if necessary to
make payments.
Disadvantages:
o Can create too many debt burdens without identified
revenues.
0 Can cause owering of
ty
o Limitation lon overall
maximum bondtermi(20dratings.
yearsj
o Limitation on overall General Obligation debt burden (5% of
assessed value).
Fixed _Rate - Logg Term Bonds
Benefits:
o Known payments for entire bond life -
0 Easier to use for longest term issues -
0 Easier to "rate" due to known debt service schedule.
Disadvantages:
o Higher current rates than floating rate and short.term
bonds.
-12- 023/
Vh..:tia:�vvatv.!.... \....a...v.:...!.+.«..w�..::�: ♦'. r���..n����A_..�.��..r..v�...�..v....... r.�.v.vn.vrwrtv��
i
Fixed Rate - short Term Bonds
I
Benefits:
c Allows project funding without a final, known project cost.
o Allows delay of final financing structure decision.
Ii o Allows interest rate markets to move favorably.
o• Allows all engineering costs to be paid by bond issue as
incurred.
I� o Better interest rates on the short term issue.
j Disadvantages:
f o Creates double cost of bond issues for the short and long
term.
o Markets may move the wrong way and cause higher yields.
o More time taken to work on two issues.
Variable Rate - Demand Notes
Benefits:
o Yields 2-4 percentage points lower than long term bonds.
o No fixed redemption schedule for principal.
o Can normally be redeemed early without penalty.
o Lower overall issuance costs.
Disadvantages:
i o All changes in tax exempt interest rate markets over entire
bond issue are reflected in payments.
o Payments vary and can cause budgeting difficulties.
o Requires credit insurance for AAA rating and Letter of
Credit for "liquidity" on bond repurchase/sale.
o Requires Letter of Credit which cannot be issued for the
i, City under Iowa law.
Zero Coupon Bonds
Benefits:
o Defers principal and interest to the future.
o Makes future users of the system potentially more equal to
present users in making system payments.
Disadvantages:
o Can have slightly higher bond yields.
o Requires constant monitoring of investment in sinking fund.
o Whole.of unpaid future debt can be seen as current bond
principal.
-13-
'231
r
0
ti
.........a........vf..0 ..v.....----.......ew...'.w� w
Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds
Benefits:
o See Zero Coupon Bonds.
o Slightly lower bond yields for longer term bonds.
Disadvantages:
o New to the market, requires some sales effort.
o See Zero Coupon Bonds.
Lease Purchase
Benefits:
o Creates debt which can be repaid from any City determined -
source.
o Payments can be stopped by future City Councils if budgets
show shortfalls.
Disadvantages:
o -Higher cost than similar debt.
o Harder to obtain a high credit rating.
o Is a General Obligation Debt for Iowa State law
determination of debt versus assessed value.
Privatization
Benefits:
o 'Significant lower annual payments.
o Faster "drawing board to project" completion time.
o . Lower overall project costs.
o Can be bid to a pre -qualified list of subcontractors for
better, more reliable work.
o Normally not seen as debt by rating agencies or the state.
o Puts burden of operational skills and shortfalls on a
private company.
Disadvantages:
o Lack of direct City control of all phases of engineering,
construction and operation.
o Lack of easy method to expand services in the future.
o Lack of known purchase price for.the plant or future service
costs.
o Difficult contractual procedures.
o Subject to federal law changes and unknown tax benefits.
C .
-14-
023 /
THE METCALF & EDDY
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS REPORT
A part of our contract requires examination of the Financial
Analysis Report prepared by the Metcalf & Eddy Project team. We
received this report in its final form on January 10, 1986
We believe the report is very professional and accurately states
the information it contains.
You will notice, however, that our report and theirs have
substantial differences in the rate increases required, the
detail on bond issues supplied and the detail on future years
impact of various alternatives. We also examined (and
recommended) the use of Zero Coupon Revenue Bonds which they did
not report upon.
We have provided the detail of each alternative in the last
Section of this report. In some cases our recommended rate
increase is 3 - 4 times lower than those recommended by Metcalf
& Eddy. Much of the lower rate increases in our report are due
to a phased versus one time increase in sewer user charges, the
use of all earnings from all bond reserve funds to lower debt
service
lower
the
overall
issue
cash flow,and the refunding
ofoutstanding city debt tolevelize
We attempted to "normalize" most factors to make a comparison
easier. The major factor that was not normalized in the Metcalf
& Eddy report was the term. The term varied from 20 years
(General Obligation Bonds) to 30 years (Revenue Bonds).
Privatization had a 25 year life. We also
used 2.5 yearsld be no as
the
engineering construction time during which
was tot
allowefor lengineering e costs asappart ofethe year
original
issue.
We did not give Privatization the 5% construction cost benefit
shown in'the Metcalf & Eddy Second Case. We assumed that a fast
track could be used by the City
theif tthey
hire
eda Construction
Manager during engineering.
recommends either Privatization or a combination of General
Obligation/Revenue Bond municipal bonds. We recommend a use of
long term revenue and zero coupon bonds. We find very little
cash flow advantage in the use of General Obligation debt. The
imposition of a sewer user fee is a direct lien on property in
Iowa. This gives the revenue bond holder assurance of payment
just as would be the case with a General Obligation.
Additionally the City is limited in General Obligation debt
amounts and we would like to leave this opportunity free for
other se. The ed
(20
years)uins
General iObligation bonds tcauses rhigher ter be
early year's
payments.
-15- 173(
...............::,::::.......... R
PRIVATIZATION
Because privatization is a new financing form that is currently
being used by only a few cities, it needs a more in depth
explanation than the other financing forms.
A private company contracts with a city to provide the service
of wastewater treatment and/or collection. The contract lasts
for the term of the bonds needed to finance the project
(typically 20-30 years). The private company builds the plant
on land leased from the city. It uses tax exempt Industrial
Development Bonds to build the project.
The city is charged a two part annual fee: a capital charge for
the cost of the plant and an operating charge for the
operational expenses. The capital charge is typically based on
a known cost for construction and agreed costs for the bond
issue to build the facility. The construction cost is arrived
at in two or more ways. The city and private company either
agree to a fixed price contract or a bid contract to sub
contractors.
The current tax advantages are: investing tax credits and 5
year depreciation on 90-95% bf plant costs and interest costs
for annual payments. The private company agrees to lower the
normal bond issue payments for the project by a stated amount
(20-30% of the eligible project costs) or to pay these amounts
directly to the city. This represents the present value of the
tax advantages of•private project ownership. (See table that
follows).
The private company and city agree to a method of fairly
determining operating costs annually. This is typically either
a cost plus agreement or a bid/cost sharing arrangement.
At the and of the contract term the city has three choices: 1)
renew the contract and continue to make payments for services,
2) buy the plant for "fair market value" and operate it itself,
3) walk away.
The private companies that .are in this business are engineers
and project management firms. This is an ideal way for them to
capture more business and they made additional profit from
operating the plants and/or sale of tax benefits.
These financings require careful attention to contracts to
insure a twenty to thirty year good business relationship.
Many issues come up that are not at first thought to be
questions. The contracts can and do work. The agreement can be
good for both sides. The important decision is whether or not
to use a private company in this role.
-16-
073/
9
Vp
Privatization may be impacted by changes in the federal tax laws
currently under study in the Senate. If Iowa City is going to
use this means of financing it is important that they choose a
firm and negotiate a contract as soon as possible. It may be
essential that a contract is signed before the bill passes the
Senate, if it does.
This bill could eliminate many of the tax advantages that would
be passed through to the City in the form of lower annual
payments. It may also severely limit the number of "non
essential bonds" that can be issued in every state. The last on
the list of statewide priorities may be private Industrial
Development Bonds. Congress will not act on this proposal until
at least August, 1986. Until then, the future of this type of
financing will be unknown.
-i7-
i
�(laal ave .0 anal sea N tv'.\ uv sass .Yutu.uN.vN. I..... a ..aaa avuaM�A-..^.�i..'i...uvh .a..v�.•. ..r�...lyv.vav�.vuti .ul
ea?31 .
v
SAMPLE CASH
PLOW STATEMENT
TAY BENEFITS OP PRIVATE OWNER OF A PROJECT
'PRIVATISATION'
Year
Annual
5 Yr
18 Yr
interest
Taxable ITC
Net Taxes
Present
-
City
Deprec.
Deprec.
Expense
Income
Saved or
Value of
Payments
Deductions
(Payed)
Tax Sense
1906
1967
10,003,082
1908.
2,346.802
2,422,500
166,667
2,400,000
(2,642,365) 3,400,000
4,721,163
1989
2,346,802
7,106,000
333,333
2,356,256
(7,448,788)
3,724,394
1990
2,346,802
6.783,000
333,333
2,309,887
(7,079,419)
3,539,709
1991
2.346,802
6,783,000
333,333
2,260,736
(7.030,268)
3.515,134
1992
2,346,802
6,783,000
333.333
2.208,636
(6.978.166)
3.489,084
1993
2,346,802
2.422.500
333.333
2,153,410
(2.562.4421
1,201.221
1994
2.346,802
333.333
2,094,871
(61,403)
40,701
1995
2.346,802
333.333
2,032,819
(19,351)
9,675
1996
2.346.802
333.333
1.967,044
46.424
(23.212)
1997
2,346,602
333.333
1,897,322
116.146
(58.073)
1998
2,346.002
133.333
1.823,418
190,051.
(95,025)
1999
2.346.002
333,333
1,745,079
268,390
(134,195)
2000
2,346,802
333,333
1,662,039
351,429
(175,715)
2001
2,346,802
333,333
1,574,017
439.451
(219,725)
2002
2,346,602
333,333
1,480,714
532,754
(266,377)
2001
2.346.802
333,333
1,381,813
631,655
(115.6201
2004
2.346,802
333.333
1,276.976
736.490•
(368,245)
2005
2.346.802
166.667
1,165,852
1.014.283
(507.141)
2006
2,346.802
1,048,059
1.296,742
(649,371)
2007
2,346.802
923.199
1.423,603
(711.001)
2008
2.348.802
790,847
1,555,955
(777,977)
2009
2.346.802
650.553
1.696,248
(848,124)
2010
2.346,802
501,842
1,844.959
(922,480)
2011
2.346.002
344,209
2.002,593
(1.001,296)
2012
2,34d.002
177,117
2.169.684
(1,084,842)
58,670,039
32,300,000
5,666.667
38,226,718
(17.523.346) 3,400,000
12,161,673
10,003,082
Nates
840,000,000
-Total Project Coat.
856
a5 Year Property
106
-Percent
ITC, and reduces basis
by 1/2 of
the ITC taken.
6.004
-interest
rate on debt (including
tort for
letterm of credit).
5.04
Sof. mount sold as cost to sell
the tax benefits.
50.01
-Combined
corporate
tax tate.
291
e6ate of
Return an investment
required by
Corporate buyer of tax benefits
ea?31 .
v
L. < ............................... ..
IOWA CITY - CURRENTLY
The Iowa City wastewater system has projected income of
$1,467,172 from approximately 13,500 customers for Fiscal year
1986. Revenue and General Obligation bond payments currently
due in each year for past system improvements are shown on the
following Table. Operating expenses are projected to be
$984,000 in Fiscal Year 1986. This will cause a operating loss
of approximately $32,000. .An additional $36,000 must be paid to
special bond accounts, a total loss of $68;000 in Fiscal Year
1986. This will be deducted from the $495,000 that is the
approximate balance of the operating fund.
For projection purposes we have shown fee income rising only
1.1% to match the population growth rata. This assumes no rate
increase. we have assumed a 6% annual escalation in system
operating expenses to match inflation for chemicals, supplies,
fuel, etc. and to account for salary increases.
Iowa City currently has a bimonthly minimum bill for residential
customers of $3.25. This includes sewer usage of the first 400
cubic feet (3000 gallons). The combined rate for all usage
above 400 cubic feet per month is $.355 per 100 cubic feet.
Industrial users are charged an additional $.06/pound of B.O.D.
above a preset level and $.035/pound of suspended solids.
There is no tap fee for new users of the system. This was ruled
unlawful in a court suit. There can be special assessments of
property made for new sewer extension. Developers must pay for
new lateral sewer lines in a subdivision, however oversizing
trunk sewers to accommodate future growth is not charged back.
The Tables which show no change or slight changes in revenues
are meant to show the current situation prior to any new
expenditures for the Project.
The City has several limitations on debt under state law,
however many provisions are useful. General Obligation bonds
are limited to 5% of total assessed valuation in the City,
however projects such as this one are for an "Essential'
Corporate Purpose" and do not require voter approval.
Revenue bonds must be "pure", they can only use the revenues
derived from the wastewater system. However monthly billings
are a direct lien on the property just as if there were a
special assessment made. This gives credit reviewing agencies a
greater comfort in Iowa Revenue Bonds than those of other
states. Other than the ability to use other tax sources there
is very little credit difference between General Obligation
bonds and Revenue bonds.
-19-
.............. H.......,.,.,.. ., _ ...... ...,.. ,,.... ...
Iowa Cities are currently unable to take advantage of a very
common type of bond used throughout the rest of the country.
This is a floating rate, Seven Day Demand Note. It carries
interest rates 3-4 points below the long term fixed rate bonds.
Iowa law, however, prohibits cities from using Letters of Credit
or other standby credit supports from banks. Seven Day Demand
Notes require a bond to issue a Letter of Credit assuring the
bond holder of repurchase of the bond within seven days of
notice. In every case to date, for billions of dollars in
bonds, the remarketing agent/ investment banker has remarketed
the bonds and the credit is not used. The necessity of the
Letter of Credit is a requirement of the rating agencies.
The City's bond counsel, has said that some Iowa cities may be
interested in attempting to change this law in the current
session of the Iowa legislature.
-ZQ-
.?3/ '
1,411,438 2,512,143 67,431,662 47,805,085 (23,550,157)
NOTE: Deficit Revenues in the early years may be made up from the
balance of the $495,000 that currently exists in the Sewer
Operating Fund.
IOWA CITY, IOWA
CURRENT WASTEWATER
SYSTEM
PROFORMA WITH NO
CHANGE IN SERVICES
SYSTEM EXPENSES RISE @
68 PER YEAR,
NEW HOOKUPS
INCREASE REVENUES @ 1.18
PER YEAR
YEAR
CURRENT
CURRENT SYSTEM
SYSTEM
NET
REVENUE
- G.O. OPERATING
REVENUES
INCOME
BOND
BOND EXPENSES
PAYMENTS
PAYMENTS
1986
136,638
414,514 984,000
1,467,172
(67,979)
1987
139,205
398,467 1,043,040
1,483,311
(97,401)
1988
136,610
382,419 1,105,622
1,499,627
(125,024)
1989
134,015•
366,237' 1,171,960
1,516,123
(156,088)
1990
131,420
334,683 1,242,277
1,532,801
(175,580)
1991
153,825
316,915 1,316,814
1,549,661
(237,893)
1992
150,275
298,908 1,395,823
1,566,708
(278,298)
1993
146,725
0 1,479,572
1,583,941
(42,356)
1994
143,150
1,568,347
1,601,365
(110,132)
1995
139,575
1,662,447
1,618,980
(183,042)
1996
0
1,762,194
1,636,789
(125,406)
1997
1,867,926
1,654,793
(213,133)
1998
11980,001
1,672,996
(307,005)
1999
2,098,801
1,691,399
(407,402)
2000
2,224,729
1,710,004
(514,725)
2001
2,358,213
1,728,814.
'(629499)
2002
2,499,706
1,747,831
(751,875)
2003
2,649,688
1,767,057
(882,631)
2004
2,808,670
1,786,495
(1,022,175)
2005
2,977,190
1,806,147
(1,171,043)
2006
3,155,821
1,826,014
(1,329,807)
2007
3,345,171
1,846,100
(1,499,070)
2008
3,545,881
1,866,407
(1,679,473)
2009
3,758,634
1,886,938
(1,871,696)
2010
3,984,152
1,907,694
(2,076,457)
2011
4,223,201
1,928,679
(2,294,522)
2012
4,476,593
1,949,894
(2,526,699)
2013
4,745,188
1,971,343
(2,773,845)
1,411,438 2,512,143 67,431,662 47,805,085 (23,550,157)
NOTE: Deficit Revenues in the early years may be made up from the
balance of the $495,000 that currently exists in the Sewer
Operating Fund.
IOWA CITY, IOWA
WASTEWATERCURRENT SYSTEM
ASSUMES 6% ANNUAL INCREASE INEXPENSES AND
1.18 GROWTH RATE PLUS ANNUAL RATE INCREASE TO COVER ALL EXPENSES
EAR CURRENT CURRENT SYSTEM EXISTING PERCENT NEW
REVENUE G.O. OPERATING SYSTEM REVENUES REVENUENET
BOND BOND EXPENSES INCOME
REVENUES MUST
I
PAYMENTS PAYMENTS BASE
INCREASE
386
r 387
136,638
139,205
414,514
398,467
984,000
1,043,040
1,467,172
0.08
1,467,172
(67,979)
388
136,610
382,419
1,105,622
1,483,311
1,499,627
6.68
1,581,209
498
390
196o
31,420
366,237
334,683
1,2421015
,277
IPS16,123
1.88
1-9%
1,625,483
1,672,622
832
411
392
150,825
275
316,915
298,908
1,326,814
1,532,801
1.18
3'78
1,708,416
1,787,858
36
393
146,725
0
1,395,823
1,479,572
1,566,661 708
1,583,941
2.28
1,845,069
303
64
394
395
143,150
575
139,70,659
1,568,347
1,662,447
1,601,365
0.08
0-0%
1,863,520
lr882,155
237,223
198,954
396
397
0
1,762,194
1,618,980
1,636,789
0.08
0.08
1,900,977
1,919x986
398
1,867,926
1,980,001
1,654,793
0.08
1,939,186
157,792
71,261
399
2,098,801
1,672,996
1,691,399
5.08
1,980,879
2,099,132
877
)01
2,224,729
2,358,213
1,710,004
1,728,814
5.08
2,225,715
930
986
)02
)03
2,499,706
1,747,831
5.08
5.08
2,359,258
2,500,814
1,045
11108
)04
2,649,688
2,808,670
1,767,057
1,786,495
5.08
2,650,863
1,174
k 105
106
2,877.190
1,806,147
5.08
5.08.
2,809,914
2,978,509
1,245
)07
3,155,821
3,345,171
1,826,014
1,846,100
5.08
3,157,220
1,319
1,399
)08
109
3,545,881
1,866,407
5.08
5.08
3046,653
3,547,452
1,482
1,571
3,758,634
3:984,152
1,886,938
1,907,694
5.08
3,760,299
1,666
i )11
)12
41223401
1,928,679
5.08
5.08
3,985,917
4,225,072
1,766
1,872
J13
4,476,593
4,745,188
1,949,894
1,971,343
5.08
4,478,577
1,984
5.08
4,747,291
2,103
1,411,438
2,512,143
67,431,662
47,805,085
-------
72,047,821 692,579
-22- a3/
I
COMPARATIVE SEWER USER CHARGES
On the table that follows we have displayed the two most
important components of sewer user revenues in each of the
fourteen Iowa cities we surveyed. This was a random sample done
in December and January and includes cities larger and smaller
than Iowa City. We believe it is a representative sample.
There is a wide range of each type of charge. Some cities are
high on one and low on the other. Other cities are high on
each.
The average minimum monthly charge is 2.7 times higher than the
$1.625 charged by Iowa City. The average charge for water is
2.9 times higher than the $.355 charged by Iowa City. This
indicates that rate increases can be tolerable in Iowa City and
not be abnormal for the state.
-23-
i
023/
t. 1
1
C O M P A R A T I V E S E W E R U S E R C H A R G E S
City
Minimum
Monthly
Bill
Residential
Charge for
100 cu. ft.
of water used
Ames
$ 3.00
$1.70 all over 100
cu. ft.
Bettendorf
$ 1.60
$ .998 per 100 cu.
ft.
Burlington
$ 3.25
S .975
Cedar Falls
$ 7.65
81.18 all over 200
cu, ft.
Cedar Rapids
$ 1.22
$ .58 per 106 cu. ft.
Clinton
$ 2.00
$1.95
Des Moines
$ 2.94
$cu65ffort.paallmovernth
450
Dubuque
$ 2.52
$1.26ffort.paallmover
200
cu.Keokuk
$ 6.55
$ .9375 for all over 700
cu. ft. per month
Mason City
$ 1.75
to
f .72 for all over
240
cu. ft. per month
Marshalltown
$ 6.25
$ .50
Muscatine
$ 5.37
$ .58 for all over
300
cu. ft.
Sioux City
$10.92
$1.26 for all over
200
cu. ft.
Waterloo
S 6.00 (avg.)
$ .95 for all over
300
cu. ft.
Average S 4.35 $1.02
Iowa City $ 1.625 520055 for all usage over
-24-
d
�''Ya tal aaa/.aaaala
SELECTED CASH FLOWS
We have created a model of'the project to be used in examining
the impact on rates charged of various financing cash flow
schedules from each type of financing we studied.
Our goal was to minimize the rate increases necessary to pay for
the Project. In doing so we have had to work within the
Parameters of known facts of the Project and the requirements of
credit rating agencies.
The following table summarizes our assumption on each type of
financing used.
Following the assumption sheet are bond cash flow and overall
sewer system cash flows for each type of financing studied.
Note:
In each bond issue we included the present value (i2,180,000j of
Iowa City's outstanding sewer debt ($2,827,000). We anticipate
either calling and paying off these bonds or placing money in
bond payments. This is done to normalize cash flow in all years
rather than allowing current bond payments to cause user rates
to be raised abnormally. We believe this will hold down rate
increases. If a private company is owner, the proceeds of a
sale of facilities or a•lease on the land would pay off the
existing bonds.
-25-
I
5'
------- ....._...A-...., ................
v:.......:..v:.v.:w..v...,.�
I
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN BONDS AND REVENUES
-26-
�3l
Zero Coupon
City
(and Conver-
Revenue
Bonds
tible)
Revenue Bonds
$26,085,000
$26,086,000
Construction Cost
3,913,000
3,913,000
Additional Engineering Cost
3,913,000
3,913,000
Construction Contingency
1,077,000'
926,970
Bond Issuance Costs
Amount
4,265,000
4,775,000
Debt Service Reserve
Capitalized Interest Fund
2,434,031
0
Present Value of Payoff
2,180,000
2,180,000
of Current Bonds
0
0
Annual Liquidity Fee
0
0
Annual Remarketing Fee
353,800
337,000 +
Bond Insurance Cost
Construction Fund Interest Rate
7.75%
7.75%
Capitalized Interest
7.75%
7.75%
Fund Earning Fee
Debt Service Reserve Fund
9.00%
9.00%
Earning Rate
8.53%
8.75%+
Bond Debt Rate
Construction Fund
3,810,749
3,799,626
Earnings on
Earnings on Capitalized
297,421
0
Interest Fund
Annual Earnings on Debt*
191,925
214,875
Service Reserve Fund
26.5 Years
27.0 Years
Bond Maturity
Engineerinq/Construction Time
3,873,000
1,880,000+
Annual Net Payments
44,225,000
421135,000*
Total Bond Size
1,1%/year
1.1%/Year
City Growth Rate
6.0%/Year
6.0%/Year
System Expense Growth Rate
Earning Rate
7.75%
7.75%
Excess Net Revenues
*Zro coupon are
BThesamount at
aof
iscthetpresent
the
valueioflvalue
the
atematurity.
principal of the bonds.
-26-
�3l
I
�K aaaiaa..ava\a'a'.aaa .\ata\a�Itaa..i.M...V.v:::
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN BONDS AND REVENUES, continued
Construction Cost
Additional Engineering Cost
Construction Contingency
Bond Issuance Costs
Debt Service Reserve Amount
Capitalized Interest Fund
Present Value of Payoff
of Current Bonds
Annual Liquidity Fee
Annual Remarketing Fee
Bond Insurance Cost
Construction Fund Interest Rate
Capitalized Interest
Fund Earning Fee
DS Reserve Fund Earning Rate
Bond Debt Rate
Earnings on Construction Fund
Earnings on Capitalized
Interest Fund
Annual Earnings on Debt
Service Reserve Fund
Bond Maturity,
Engineering/Construction Time
Annual Net Payments
Total Bond Size
City Growth Rate
System Expense Growth Rate
Excess Net Revenues Earning Rate
-27-
Fixed
Rate
Privatization
$26,085,000
3,913,000
3,913,000
1,077,000
4,265,000
2,434,031
2,180,000
0
0
353,800
7.75%
7.75%
8.55%
8.53%
3,810,749
297,421
182,329
26.5 Years
2.5 Years
3,114,000
44,'225,000
1.1%/Year
6.0%/Year
7.75%
Variable
Rate
Privatization
$26,085,000
3,913,000
3,913,000
927,960
3,253,000
1,567,262
2,180,000
3/8%
1/8%
337,440
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
6.00%
(includes
fees)
2,950,257
153,721
97,590
26.5 Years
2.5 Years
2,450,000
42,180,000
1.1%/Year
6.0%/Year
7.75%
.�31
l
0
i
IW city. IW
YY)W.L)W Nal" WINv[Wos
IIWNW rLw N rum 3 wNNa
Um.,
p
Ilural
Nil NININL CWNY IY»N3) loom Watrytest 1111,19 WYRfY(tIN Its,"Y{iMKl10Y "Mall" Yfa 46611111" YR
66111111 Ni 9WIgYY3 NN NIN1yN rm "9 CatalystNW[OYYa INlml 9Yi
YWIi1 #311[1 "IM YNIm YYm to. Y1.1m rum 99"W9 aY11tt
1/1/N 1.]11.191 • . t 131#11.691 a 1,111.•11
HI/N Lfn.17f 1 21.11! UI,,]% IlI.0 Ir IILbI 1,111.111 411931111 19A11,611 94.310 111.111 11203.81 0
VIM 1131.175 1.411.174 Illus 191. R. IdIl.001 1.122,949 laud» 31.111.190 1,.415 IS)a91 11211.117 0
I/1q) 1111.654 1.4651411 Illus 111 a 21 121,.166 IU.III 11111,966 19.111.166 IL iD 111.651 LIl3.gs 9
.2/1/N 111101 1121.115 1111224 111,»4 IA65.00a 1111215 N:n t IIdO 1.111.33.5 1 s
NI/u ,91.11 3.1» 1651651 611]. of IN.Na Nlnf IA»A 91 I • • I
I/IA0 1.166.661 1.401.01 11,.174 111664 1121.966 1.166.300
111.111 1.10,1.1.1.111 1,1.1» 111.173 1126{.101
I/1/N 1.»1.,13 1.191.4•" 11,,915 UI Ia L1Il.000 3.111.110
/1/N )13.... 6.191 1.111.1113 2.411.•11 IlI.II. 1{1.1]1 11211.090
/1/O 1.111.m 1.1{{.664 151.411 111.911 4.2».111 ' ).»1.661
1/1/•1 )13.101 1.101 1,151,12• 1.111,1 it 111.113 1#1.,11 I, IIf 1000
1/1/N 1.)19.1,1 L1l1.lU 191.111 IIID» 11211.04
3/1/92 111.4{1 1.111 I,)I, I se 1.111,111 61 is 111,173 4.115.100
l/1/11 1.)1,.171 1.111.171 101.1,1 111.011 4.1{1,011
t/i/It ULN. ].194 IaU.172 ld>LI11 111.11, 1#1.114 11231661
I/1/II 1166.01 b4n.111 IILOS IN a Id IfA01
t/1/11 171.000 1121, 1.114663 1.1111 111.174 111,17S 4 HIMN
HI/11 1117.09 1661.10 111.191 Illus 11217.#00
9/1/N 1.691.9.0 L41s 1.114.61# 3.911.•13 111,111 191112,9 11211.100
)13 1.9.1.611 sea is is 1.1.1,1 III.u1
t/I/M ImAN 1J0,3.411.111 117.663 I17.N1 41265.000
Ta', 1.{11,111 1.661.111 191.:13 151.921 4.119,09,
3/1/1, Id 15.166 1,311 1111,9.1#6 1,131#166 1#1.921 II1 3 1.)11.000
l/1/01 111,1.651 I.f14,lla 101 a 113 1#1.011 1.115.)19
1/1/M 1663.,11 1.U1 I.NI.NI. 32.1)1, R Illus 111.119 LN6N1
)/1/19 1.415 63 401,192 Is 0 Ill12)1 11211,1,1
t/1/II 1,)1,.10 1.60, 111»AU 1.01,90) 191.12, IIIr92S Ia1f.N9
Inn 11,31266 !.man 1,1.165 .men 1,966.166
HoIf a I.1U,eM 4661,90 111111191 III,Rt Ill.pl Ia1b196
I.M1.1a1 1 , 4.166 IN Is 111.921 1.111.11,
1/H1 1,911.659 6.663 I,w6N6 116 UI AIf IIL is 11211.40
3/43 I.1 Ia11.9N 191.922 111.16 4.111.41,
t/Itl 1,166.,66 6111 1651.966 Lg1.1is 191921 IILNf 4.191.100
1/Iq 1.11112){ laflalf !0).923 sit as 41165.101
6/1/1 1 171 111 1 166
1/1/1
J/092
• •
1111151
111fIJM
I,In,lq
11U,Nf
1911#"
166.911
Illus
6315.106
1%V1
2.115.664 9.191
{.3.
).1,1.661
111.921
191 A/5
111925
12{5.661
11211.4,)
1.671.11,
IA/s
1/1/9.
],]19,61. 610,
1.19#.659
2,661664
1.111,120
Ida.17e
111.1]1
IILIN
III.IIa
IO,uf
1.]ILIo•
6311.04
1,171.616
1/1/4
1/1/I
1.194.414 9.141
01,1461
111.119
11111"
).is,"as
111.131
IILIN
III Jif
IILNf
I, 111.661
LNI.Is4
].9».174
1/1/1
LBO{965 LU,
111J1,
IN JN
1,1""
1411,11,
"""a
111.666
191.919
111.,2.
1.]14.{90
),17).1,1
1/10
1/t/a
2.941.199 0.11,
11].664
f s as
66219
)111.419
191.414
141.916
111111
Ia1{, 090
12{1911
3.111.616
1/41
1/1/t
),111,61, 6.901
10,01
66f.13a
OLItt
I.)1,, 114
04921
191.92{
111,111
1149211
#1211,666
11266.4.
1.172.]1)
1/1/14
1/411
11661,661 60,
661,171
Nl.NS
5,1.111
111,191
111,1]1
141.115
1.313.61)
4.26t.ffe
1.170.1{,9
11)111111 1.0,1
141.af)
49661111
111./11
111,111
141.17,
IOJn
111,664
1111.06
1,911.990
1.11],)11
M1/VII
AI,
1/1/u
111.141
1911221
1.171.11)
IN
141.17!
110 .
1.]II1109
I,1,>.Ne 0.11,
161121#
1121
1.111.131
'i
lal,uf
111.91.
III.Na
Id»,O9f
115.1.11
].Ind!•
)r#13.617
II 1165.10 II,In Au
19.111.17E
211111111 1/.661.111 V^»•- 111,111 2,111.111
-28-
IOWA CITY, IOWA
NEW WASTEWATER SYSTEM WITH ALL IMPROVEMENTS
PROFORMA FOR NEW REVENUES NEEDED
CITY REVENUE BOND ISSUE
171,599,266
76,398,732
96,825,000
39,891,159
M
(-)
(-)
M
FISCAL
OPERATING
NEW
NEW
EXCESS
% ANNUAL
DEBT
YEAR
FEE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
REVENUES &
INCREASE
SERVICE
INCOME
OPERATING
BOND
EARNINGS
NEEDED FOR
COVERAGE
EXPENSES
PAYMENTS
COVERAGE
RATIO
1986
1,467,172
984,000
0
483,172
0%
N/A
1987
3,095,733
1,043,040
0
2,569,687
110%
N/A
1988
3,126,690
1,105,622
0
4,770,633
0%
N/A
1989
3,157,957
1,335,400
3,873,000
3,054,134
0%
126%
1990
4,136,924
1,415,524
3,873,000
2,116,324
30%
125%
1991
4,757,462
1,500,455
3,873,000
1,648,473
14%
127%
1992
5,090,485
1,590,483
3,873,000
1,390,868
6%
126%
1993
5,294,104
1,685,912
3,873,000
1,223,422
3%
125%
1994
5,505,868
1,787,066
3,873,000
1,154,863
3%
126%
1995
5,671,044
1,894,290
3,873,000
1,139,458
2%
127%
1996
5,784,465
2,007,948
3,873,000
1,122,737
1%
126%
1997
5,957,999
2,128,425
3,873,000
1,157,903
2%
129%
1998
6,017,579
2,256,130
3,873,000
11127,406
0%
126%
1999
6,198,107
2,391,498
3,873,000
1,139,933
2%
128%
2000
6,322,069
2,534,988
3,873,000
1,133,809
1%
127%
2001
6,448,510
2,687,087
3,873,000
1,101,598
1%
126%
2002
6,641,965
2,848,312
3,873,000
1,099,363
21
126%
2003
6,841,224
3,019,211
3,873,000
1,125,332
2%
128%
2004
6,978,049
3,200,364
3,873,000
1,108,790
1%
126%
2005
7,187,390
3,392,386
3,873,000
1,108,411
2%
127%
2006
7,403,012
3,595,929
3,873,000
1,120,083
2%
127%
2007
7,625,102
3,811,685
3,873,000
1,138,906
2%
128%
2008
.7,853,856
4,040,386
3,873,000
1,159,100
2%
128%
2009
8,089,471
4,282,809
3,873,000
1,173,899
2%
129%
2010
8,332,155
4,539,777
3,873,000
1,175,450
2%
128%
2011
8,582,120
4,812,164
3,873,000
1,154,688
2%
127%
2012
8,839,584
5,100,894
3,873,000
1,101,206
2%
125%
2013
9,193,167
5,406,947
3,873,000
1,091,510
3%
126%
171,599,266
76,398,732
96,825,000
39,891,159
The Zero Coupon and Revenue Bond Tables that follow show all
bonds maturing in 2013. The revenue, cash flow tables show
"Special Bond Redemption Payments" of amounts of "excess city
revenues" from rate increases. The final maturity of the Zero's
is shown at their present value at the time of issuance and the
interest rate is shown as 0%. We have calculated the internal
interest rate on these bonds at 9.25% and show their
appreciation on the Proforma for New Revenues Needed sheets.
The Proforma of Funds and Earnings sheet is not affected by the
Zero Coupon,Bonds until they are called.
The Proforma for New Revenues Needed does not specifically show
the use of Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds (Convertible
Zero's). These are the bonds which convert to pay interest at a
preselected future date. Much of the early year's payments from
the "Special Bond Redemption Payments" will in fact pay the
interest on the preselected amount of Zero Coupon Bonds that are
convertibles.
-30-
_...... 073/.
r %
�i'alvvavatal.ivv\teN av viv:i ♦tt!tva.�nwii.v l: l: ::.viv♦
011.110 !,lot131.161
131.161 3
Il{.601 q.101
IelJNII{
lf 1
.2011616 1.105
111,:0
b1AU 1
NI.NO I.Iot
141.11{
11111!1 1
115.116 LIOt
le{11
10111)10 1
b401.N0 LII)
1466:
116.166 1
11106.:0 4.3o1
611.115
1:11)1 !
Y1{}N\TY IT{lY 1asI
161161)
101 dif 1
1.50,198, e.11S
511 1911
111.1 if 1
61n.W 0.401
M.
41611s1 1
11541.:1 4.111
415,111
4611114 1
IJM.OM 3.015
I4'J10
11.116 3
111.1163.911:111111,
r LSF
Usf(
n IYir { tW
1.001.010 1.555
11111)3
I II.IN 1
11116.116 1.115
1 O.4is
101113) L
16.&_061: 1.05
.
'
]1.1111111 01
BE.
1[p (p1pY W LN[pt NIDI
s
YIG
NIYLIIY [npY
1\11LYT
Ilrp
rG1YYI
WNL
low
N{I
I[([N[
Cer{NeGTIN fOr{TIU(l1DY LOLITNRIn
GN{{
tW1.6
a. {.
by ,
rum
YYY[[
rrr 1 :UT SLAV nom
no
NGT
F{T YYYLL
p(ST
my
us" n Iei1
"Lt M [0.&31[110
1/1/M
YiISM O A.wa.
SOME
{
14'40 Yltr N 41NwIM
111111/011
1.110.010
1/1/11
VVO
111.111
111.111
111.111
)11.11)
1.111.110
1.1)5.111
1 t 1]11661{
1
1
row Iwrl: I...m rw0
IY1r1ew0 441
1.113.001
1/1/I1'
111.161
IflJ61
15).111
111.111
111.115
4.1)3.111
1.111.111 1.111.121 )1.111.4{1
1.11!.1 2,1 1.311,111
e11.11f
111
1.101
11131:4 YNY144 1.211
111.011
Vital
111.111
111.1
611.11310.11)
211.614
216113
LA6O0
2,),I11.[11
wall IIJ 61,US :111[1:
111.113
�1
nt1Y11:1 Iuunt rn1
111.11,
{
I/1/IS
A6N1 6101
3111
1.11.111
!164'1
1.4'1.610
:::
:1,111 11.NIJ21 t
.111:5
IU
MW NS 11.31
L:I
t/1/01
3/1/11
111,111 1.101
111.1:
Ill
1{111:
11141.641
111.111
i14.11{
114.111
II
1.111.111
1 t
I.U5.111
111.113
1.141.111
__
I:.I)>,e01
l/1/Il
UI/N
.0:
616.141
111.511
211.111
111.111
111.11{
MIR
1.111.110
1.111.111
-1.1:.100
1/1/11
311.00 I.IIS
111.511
IJS4.fsf
114.611
116111
11t1f.111
Llll.11r
110.311
Jsajel
1/VII
010.101 6.81l
611.01
11).111
111.011
is? oil
311.1)1
11
110.11{
Ia61.W
b2.1O
1.611.11,
01
I/1/I1
41{.801 1.005
111.111
[11.03{
.911
114.114
111.:1
)14.111
41111.10
1:111,110
6$11.011
1511nS tr NF1
Is
111.111
61l.IIs
1.111.011
Iis.111
111.[11
111.111
61)1.1,1
111.111
1.114.011
1.1:.ISI
1411 Nlr U.
11,115.041
I/U91
110.010 1.115
611.1:
l.)M.116
!11.111
111.114
111.1)1
1.)15.111
t71.6M
11111.11!
:tel'. M trlt[rtlro Lr1
3-161.011
t1
1/1/01
SIM" 1.115
111.111
111.111
111.111
1.111.011
111.113
111.1)1
111.111
1.113.110
4.113.110
1.111.0:
111.111
111SS.111
•--151014.611
'
1/1/00
I/1/II
511.0,0 1.101
011.111
113.010
111.111
111.1[1
111.111
!11.11{
1.))3.111
1.10.111
!.11[.111
w11r[ Nr .&YIN fST1
1.601
1/1/N
1is.411
111.111
I.IIIr441
114.1)1
211.115
1.11!,111
I:.111
1.115.111
1.,11.111
NY 2,m Nr :YIN To
2.135
I/1/N
511.010 1140)
411.311
0is.t11
1.111.111
311.111
111.01i
Irll4.111
011.2,11
1.111.011
YrllYtim IN{ t rur Y1GIN 1 1.745
11,
:1110
011511
111.01
111.111
1.111.:0
1.111.111
H
.:0.50 l.OYt
10111)
LIn.0n
ii 1'111
110.114
1.11{.:0
151.345
1.11[.:1
011.110 !,lot131.161
131.161 3
Il{.601 q.101
IelJNII{
lf 1
.2011616 1.105
111,:0
b1AU 1
NI.NO I.Iot
141.11{
11111!1 1
115.116 LIOt
le{11
10111)10 1
b401.N0 LII)
1466:
116.166 1
11106.:0 4.3o1
611.115
1:11)1 !
111:11: 6,161
161161)
101 dif 1
1.50,198, e.11S
511 1911
111.1 if 1
61n.W 0.401
M.
41611s1 1
11541.:1 4.111
415,111
4611114 1
IJM.OM 3.015
I4'J10
11.116 3
111.1163.911:111111,
110:.111 1.101.
311.:3
)13.1)1 f
1.001.010 1.555
11111)3
I II.IN 1
11116.116 1.115
1 O.4is
101113) L
16.&_061: 1.05
5
N.11510M
]1.1111111 01
I
i
I
1
I
W
i
N
v
i
u
r
IOWA CITY, IOWA
NEN WASTEWATER SYSTEM WITH ALL IMPROVEMENTS
PROPORMA FOR NEW REVENUES NEEDED
SERO COUPON AND REVEHUC BONDS
RAIE
FISCAL OPERATING NEW NEW EXCESS ACRO COATED SERO COUPON SPECIAL 9 ANNUALCREASE ORV7
YEAR PCE SYSTEM SYSTEM NET REVENUES 'PRINCIPAL*
ANNUAL BONG INCREASE SVERIGE
INCOME OPERATING BONG PLUS EARNINGS 'PRINCIPAL• INCOST REDEMPTION MELDED GE COVERAGE
TIO
• E%PLNSC6 PAYMENTS VALUE C067 PAYMENTS COVERAGE RATIO
1996
1967
1966
1969
1990
1991
1991
1991
1996
1999
1996
1997
1999
1999
1000
1001
1001
1001
1004
1009
1006
1007
1006
1009
1010
1011
1011
30131
1014
is
LP
RR
L\
CASE
A'
r� ;
i
� 1
W
n
IOWA CITY, IOWA
NEN WASTEWATER SYSTEM WITH ALL IMPROVEMENTS
PROrow FOR NEN REVENUES NEEDED
ZERO COUPON AND Revenue BONDS
'
FISCAL
RAIE
OPERATING NG NEN
EXCESS
ACRO COUPON
SERO COUPON
SPECIAL
8 ANNUAL
DEBT
TGR
PLL SYSTEM
sNEWystem
BYOTLN
NCT REVENUES
ACCUMULATED
ANNUAL
INCRENEEDED
OVERAGE
INCOME OPERATING
BOND
PLUS EARNINGS
'PRINCIPAL'
INTEREST
REDEMPTION
PEDEMENTS
NCOVED FOR
COVERAGE
EZPLNfiL6
MYNCN75
VALUE
COST
PAYMENTS
GE
COVERAGE
RATIO
'1916
1,667,172 986,000
0
413,172
18,635.000
0.06
N/A
1917
2,721,940 1,063,060
0
2,206,510
20,140,238
1,705,738
8S.06
N/A
1981
2.915,599 1,105,622
0
6,187,500
22.003,209
1,862,972
5.841
N/A
1989
7,115,026 1,335,600
1.810.000
6,611,658
21,038,506
2,035,297
3,000,000
5.811
3291
1990
31721,094 1.615,536
1,060,000
1.786,131
21.616.566
1,966.062
1.500.000
5.141
1971
1991
•3,535,736 1,500,655
1,810,000
599,877
22,872,054
1.987,327
599.837
5.041
1611 '
1992
3,799.960 1.590,403
1,810,000
376,953
26.612,766
2.115,665
376,953
5.841
1371
1991
4,051,796 1,685,912
1,160,000
521,963
26,367,506
2,276,681
521,963
5.111
1561
1994
6.136,618 117871066
1,810,000
709,602
28,096,696
2.438,994
709,102
5.816
1731
1995
4.633.029 1.894,290
1,110,000
913,760
29,781,192
2,598,966
913,768
5.941
1911
1996
6.919.921 3.007.968
1,000,000
1.132.796
31,403.921
2,756.825.
1,132,796
5.841
2171
1997
5.280.503 2.128,625
1.810.000
1,367,870
32.940.916
2,901.863
1.367,870
5.161
2411
1998
5.650.237 2,256,130
1.610,000
11620,117
36,367.832
3.067,035
1,620.117
5.816
2671
1119
6,02!.717 3.791,6!8
1.810,000
1,600,774
35,056,017
3.179,026
1.810,776
5.811
2941
2000
6.619,626 2,516,918
1.880.000
2,181,171
36,773.099
3,298,106
2.111,171
5.861
3241
2001
6,190,770 2.667.067
1.880.000
2.692,732
37,681,076
3.601,512
2,692,732
5.861
3561
7002
7.162,100 2,669,312
1,110,000
2.126.982
30.360,470
3,495.574
2,826,982
5.80
3901
2003
7,165,676 3,019,211
1.860,000
3,1/5,556
38,701,608
3,566,693
3.185.SS6
5.111
6271
2004
6,603.618 1,200,766
1.160.000
3,570,205
3/,711,083
3,579.880
3.570,205
5.111
6676
2005
1.978,500 3.392,386
11180,000
3.982,806
78,309,053
3,580.775
3.902,106
5.816
5091
2006
9,592,630 31595,929
1,810,000
6,625,360
37,677,272
3,563,597
4:42S,367
5.841
ss41
2007
10,241,799 3,611,665
1,810,000
6,900,067
35,989,267
3,662,023
6.900,00
5.141
6031
2001
10.941.761 6,040,386
1.980.000
51109.169
33.902.103
3.329.005
5.609,141
5.811
65S1
2009
11,691,766 4,282,109
1.080,000
5.955.147
31,090,569
3.136,592
5,955.147
5.861
7111
2010
12.490,940 4,539,777
1,880,000
6.5/0,687
27,425.777
2,875,176
6,540.687
5.861
7711
1011
13,353,868 4,012.164
1.880,000
7,168,607
22,794,011
2,536.881
7,168.607
5.811
0361
1012
14,267,273 51100,894•
1.6101000
7.941,946
17,060.511
2:101,446
7.841,946
S.86k
9051
2017
15.263,154 5.406,947
1,110,000
8,563.957
10,074,650
1,570,097
8.563,957
5.841
9791
1014
16,213,786 5.731,364___
0
11,219,128
(211,5731
931,905
11.219,121
5.141
N/A
215,952,658 83,130,096
47,000.000
102,469,307
75,20,756
93.894529
special Bond Redemption paynnts aoe early cells on Zero Coupon Donde outstanding and
not due until FY 2011. The [undo age taken from the excess Net Revenue account.
earnings on escrowed Excess Net Revenues Is 0 7.751.
CASE /2
L...........
Privatization
Privatization Bond Issues
In each of the Privatization cases that follow, several
assumptions have been made. In each case, we assumed that the
tax benefits were worth 25% 'of total project cost (including
bond issue costs). We assumed that approximately 80% of the
total project was personal property eligible for Investment Tax
Credits and accelerated depreciation. The net benefit, then,
was a 20% reduction from the debt service paid by the private
company in the Capital Charge paid by the City.
In all other aspects, these bond issues look like a similar
municipal revenue bond. The floating rate bond was calculated
at 6.0% interest for the entire term. This includes a 3/8%
annual charge for "liquidity protection" of the bond holder - to
allow them to be paid in'full should they exercise the option to
demand repurchase of the bonds. It also includes a 1/8% fee to
remarket bonds assuming they must be remarketed only one per
year.
The present difficulties resulting from the pending federal tax
bill were discussed earlier. The outcome of this legislation
could dramatically reduce the value of a private owner. In
particular the difficulties involved in issuing tax exempt
Industrial Development Bonds may severely limit the type of tax
exempt issue. The elimination of many tax benefits could reduce
the savings below the debt cost.
The variable rate bond issue will change debt service charges
monthly. The actual debt service may be higher or lower than
that shown. It is impossible to predict the future of interest
rates for the next 27 years.
We have shown no payment to acquire the plant at the end of the
contract period (26.5 years). The City may choose to abandon to
plant or to renew the existing contract. Any purchase of the
facilities in the future will be at "fair market value". If the
City intends to purchase the facilities it should immediately
begin to accumulate additional funds in an escrow account for
future purchase. This would offset a small part of the annual
savings of private ownership.
A private owner may also be required to
the facilities. We did not show these
be borne by the City as a pass through.
this tax may be waived for a period of
-34-
pay real estate taxes on
costs although they would
In some jurisdictions
time.
0231
a
j 2113 cm. Iwa
YYTIYYCr al]OY IY]Y'IY{IIH
i rroraNa tme n rwof t Y
,Ivan 4,00112421 - mu me 661ed uwa
W» ralKil" CW Nr I.M., reed Y]YVa IW] Y&",a YYTYLi1H Me COTNCTIM GIITRIIY 1Y. Y011LL119. Was WPITN.
IYIIYT run Wos ell low NN vla 6 .1 FORM YaaaYT WMi." INaaYT ."I CIYCC To
LYIKf rLLIKa alY1K3 YYKa Ni Santos 1.8, a s {YYlca Ip4 CIT)
a I/IbI t 4.115.38, t t 31.611.133 t 11»4.01 t
1.131.411 »1.121 111.811 4.241.8,° 113».8» 4.704.111 11.»1.°00 IL11, 311.m M ,pl t
413 114 loss 111 0 0
1/1/II IAn.u] 1.614.912
- 0/1/41 1.6)gOf 1.614.,73
ULNs
U1.611
111.931
13.811
Idll.Oe
4dO.HP
4U].141
N6.111
1.114.111 81.111.181
14.114.116 70.1/1rLe
Il Us
11.370
1»all
1:111.08
0
I.sls ;IS
1/1/It 1.11.111
UL»]
111.921
1]45.011
141311
11.311.f1f t
4111{
1.141.pS
t
e
0
!IMM
Vale 414.66. 6.60, 1.01,»I 2.1411,75
33.111
111.1»
1.160.110
1
1
4
]
9
).111411
1111.>f4'
F
I/1/8, 1.911.6» 1.31115
//1/11 191.601 440, 11,1.611 ].6{1.913
2221»I•
181.»I
8,1.111
111.931
4.10.616
1.664.000
101311
111101
2.111.111 11.111.111
0/IRl 1111.000 1.601 4.!.1.111 1133110
14.111
1.692.161
).ludo
..
l/1/11 IAN.601 1.111.060
112.31
IN.1»
4.6..
I/1/Is LIIf.Ue 1.7" 1414 ab 2.119.121
181.111.
111.111
4.10,111
1/1/11 1.47$ is) 1.111.93
111.111
r/1/M lls dsl 611, LIMAis I.411.6a4
1411321
13.111
4.t11.U°
13.111
13.116
1,211.11°
1/1/t
l.U1d41
3.114.111
1.111.111
I/IRI 1.114.110 1.764.620
MAI 111.601 4.91, 1.1{4.121 1.414.411
111.111
IN131.
111.13
Ill. )il
44».11!
4dN.U°
4.115.011
3/1/1 1,114.111 IAILUI
12.1 i1
IR 1311
).114.112
1.1111450
VI/1 1.610.0.0 4.N. 4.141.118 1111.06
2/1/3 L151.1f0 1411.1 SI
md3
111.98,
1.611.111
)/ IR IdI1.U3 1.611.611
113.111
112.211
110.001
t/IR 1.f 3.341 2.1°4 1.8,1.111 1.031.8,2
i
192.131
13.)11
01 MM, 7.06,1.1)1.110 2.81100
111.1]°
102.3°
Lllf.1°°
191.111
4.18,.111
I/1/t $Ms.e1, 3.3., 1.111 31, 1.101.215
181.311
2.111.U4
3.113.374
3.611,15)
1/1/41 140133 1.119.915
0/1/0l Nf.be 430, 11311.111 2.570.911
111.111
161.111
191.131
141.31
41245.006
1111.011
5.112.0°°11314.4's3.2.411
1/1/16 1.13.111 1.619.233
192.111
161!31
1,211.114
I.sls ;IS
6/1/14 4181..0 1dR 1.»6.I If 2.941. as
192.31
.13.1{°
4,211.111
),214.145
/IRS 1.611,919 IAedd a
181.121
181.38
4.111.641
2.111.111
6/1/11 I.IIs•Is, 1.Is, 1.445.11° 1.6».616
141.131
11].]11
4.114.600
-
)/1/N 1.646.116 1.611.18,
161.13
192.36
].8,f del
1821111
lea 111
- t/1/M 1148,1640 1.11, 1.481.110 3.48,.981
18].1]1
112.311
1,211.011
filll.m
1/1/II 18,1181 4.8,1.141
LLIII
101311
111101
2.111.111 11.111.111
0/IRl 1111.000 1.601 4.!.1.111 1133110
14.111
211.111
1,23,000
..
]/IM 118,1.114 1.34.124
114.111
13.13
430.011
I/1/Is LIIf.Ue 1.7" 1414 ab 2.119.121
181.111.
111.111
4.10,111
1/1/11 1.47$ is) 1.111.93
111.111
1:1311
4.145,818
t/1/M 4.111.01 1.8,4 4.31.111 2.03.18,
13.111
13.116
1,211.11°
1/1/t
31.1)1
161.]11
1.111.111
1/1/4 13.IUd11 ).O, 1.43011 2.13.]{t
13.121
IH J21
4.115.011
3/1/1 1,114.111 IAILUI
12.1 i1
IR 1311
Lf».NI
VI/1 1.610.0.0 4.N. 4.141.118 1111.06
121.111
11].111
1,21110.
)/ IR IdI1.U3 1.611.611
113.111
112.211
110.001
t/IR 1.f 3.341 2.1°4 1.8,1.111 1.031.8,2
i
192.131
13.)11
1.111.118
1/1/I 1'614.18, 1.31.31
112.121
191.111
4.18,.111
I/1/t $Ms.e1, 3.3., 1.111 31, 1.101.215
181.311
1]].36
4411.111
4.31.]3 434.941
111.216
11).131
1,211.810
1/1/6 21616.1.6 4138, 1.114412 3.18I.S11
181.131
112.111
4.112.111
3.611,15)
31113.911
' 5.911.011
1.111.»1
5.000.131
5.112.0°°11314.4's3.2.411
)1114.»6
1,I14.s
11,13.151
11114.241
I.sls ;IS
3.13.5»
I.6»,101
1.111.115
5.8»�I»
),214.145
).819.111
1,112 .6101
1.13.111
1.114.110
2.111.111
I,1».III
I/1/I 1118,..11 1.111 .11,111 1.111.]11
181,131
116.31
VIR 4916113 1.070.320
I/1/1 OWI 1.611.111 1.110.31
a/1/f tlI.IH 611.)81
1».121
Li.»I
6421321
Iq.811
112.3)1
18, Jf1
1.614.418
4.111.611
4,270.U0
a. U1.141
)1114.»6
112411
t/1// 2.660.8,6 4.58, 11"1 3.381.518
111.111
IH.11,
41111.670
3.6»,»°
adll.11f
113,111
iii;iii
:.'YI
I/1/I 9114U 03.191
111.111
U3.311
4.Itf.606
I/1/I 1118,..11 1.111 .11,111 1.111.]11
181,131
112.»1
1.111.045
I.aN 1311
3.111.111
1.611.61)
11111 iiiiii afi.til
..,•
- - 1 tll 68,
1821111
lea 111
162.111
102 111
1.1151119
1 f1{ IN
.
) 111 401
a III.»,
116.31
113.111
111.111
413{1.811
1.181.01
112411
L2211
1411.101
)l1U.lf1
irl3.11i
{1411{
I��:iii
122.222
111;111
113,111
iii;iii
4.f1Ir001
1;111;1.1
� 2.611,116
2,111.11{
1./14611
124411
U51311
1.614.111
1.611.61)
LI11.D3
111.10
L141I
16043
Id11.1U
4601138,
filll.m
^2.611.111
2.111.111 11.111.111
11.111 x116
115.68,.641
1.111.111
6,111.111
11.111.111
111.111
-35-
1
1, .
kj
u
a
i
FISCAL
YEAR
198
198
198
198
199
199
199
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PROFORMA ANNUAL RATE INCREASES NEEDED TO MEET
PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE COMPANY - FIXED RATE BONDS
M
OPERATING
FEE
INCOME
6 1,467,17
7 2,950,48
8 2,982,93
9 3,015,75
0 3,048,92
1 3,570,29
2 4,145,106
4,480,860
4,709,384
4,949,562
5,053,503
5,210,162
5,319,575
5,484,482
5,654,501
5,773,246
5,952,216
6,136,735
6,326,974
6,459,840
6,660,095
6,866,558
7,148,087
7,369,678
7,598,138
7,909,661
8,233,957
8,489,210
152,967,088
H
NEW
SYSTEM
OPE"TING
EXPENSES
2 94,000
3 1,043,040
8 1,105,622
1 1,335,400
4 1,415,524
0 1,500,455
1,590,483
1,685,912
1,787,066
1,894,290
2,007,948
2,128,425
2,256,130
2,391,498
2,534,988
2,687,087
2,848,312
3,019,211
3,200,364
3,392,386
3,595,929
3,811,685
4,040,386
4,282,809
4,539,777
4,812,164
5,100,894
5,406,947
76,398,732
H
ANNUAL
PAYMENTS
TO PRIVATE
COMPANY
0
3,114,00
3,114,00
3,114,00
3,114,00
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
3,114,000
77,850,000
EXCESS
REVENUES
6 EARNINGS
- PAYMENTS
483,172
0
0 2,426,853
4,486,183
0 3,388,997
0 2,162,571
0 1,280,598
0 817,267
559,510
409,791
381,797
341,988
335,374
309,972
312,204
341,132
338,876
354,195
384,283
425,714
411,098
392,096
362,377
383,257
384,870
358,096
368,450
415,148
414,547
23,030,415
6 ANNUAL
INCREASE
NEEDED FOR
COVERAGE
08
1008
08
08
08
166
156
76
46
46
16
26
16
26
26
16
26
26
26
16
26
26
36•
26
26
36
36
26
DEBT
SERVICE
COVERAGE
RATIO
N/A
N/A
N/A
1638
1228
1086
1086
1086
1076
1108
1096
1106
1086
1096
1116
1106
1116
1126
1146
1126
1116
1106
1126
1116
1106
1116
1146
1126
,�h.vMilvvavay.a avv la v.vvv .v a.a vvv .av�.w..w.V ....a
%4
'
1
1
600, 1;IIbH1
101. 0,)l. IPA,
'1/11
1/IS
1X4121
600, 1;IIbH1
101. 0,)l. IPA,
1..501
])iii
1 iii 000
1/11
1,110.101
LIu.g1
401. 1.118,119
1JI8,IN
l.Il1:43
O, 1
N.0
:9553
XN:
412.400
1X4400
1/1.
1.111.000
a4T{NNI starts 3"Aa toom
!.111.156
).311.1{1
111111
IIrIN
01.10
N.l9I
41.1.001
1.151,011
1/11
1/I1
11$14000
1,111.20
1.684 1,111.133
3,141,13:
4311,26
111111
91,1.1
:1.390
N,NI
)431.000
1,131100
1/II
1/II
twom ILO] " NMN I UNI"{
I.NS,IN
1,011 1.46,
4113,61.
S: 812"Al
,1$N
N,{21
11.]11
1..1::
1.111.100
),154011
1/11
)/11
L16.61
146,110
6.691 911.116
AS .161
3,31111.
91.901
1111
N.10o
1.111
3.151.000
1,252.800
NIMH{ O ortU)N - fusion NTa 10101
1.604,00
12.NO
6.804 N1.
..IN
11a J."..1so
I1.34
O1.{99
911$14
I1.f06
411001
),1f1.N0
1/t
I1411N
840118
6110
NN
161"164
(OONM
I.BuT ai 14tH, LU{
1)61.1)
NM.1 µ 10
LU1
MSIVICT1N
UIIiU11N
LUa
UIITMIIN
BIT Imu"
].NON
116,146
6001 111.168
01{,611
101.IH
91.$69
Ods
ILIIOMt fon ONIOOMN
LO"
NnNNCdML
1.131.X1
Nn 00
larts"T
0NM00YMs
IMTLLLL)
a..,
UI.LGN
Id69dao
ll3,If*
6400 111.!4
21411
!.469,166
tUq"6
1W,MU
UNI",
'1/1,
'1/f
1L U"{
r.0 ULMI",
{II.IN
3,,51,140
run 0,U"{
1{11119
M ]ITT
'1/11
3.069,14
6N,1{I
6.1.1 f1
NI.IN
M 3.3I1.N
3
aI.IOf
4,fN
01.51.
1. SO
1,111.111
:.19,408
'1/f
'1/1
4116661
6.005 N
.1so 1.11),111
91;199
OAfi
'1/Il
41
191
3.1,51$4
6
LN""a !,10166 1..311 16.fN
3.3)Id40
1.311.110
0
1,011,111
1
0.104111
32,011.118
301$11.195
a
0.111
5211ea
1.111.11,
11111.191
1/11
1.114141 1-213.00, N.f1, 01.100
1.214111
).21.00
111.1
111!!. 91
21.111.10,
42,tll
253.20
1.211.111
t
0
'1/11
1113.110 ❑.190 0.190
1-211110
).),11.000
713.131
-11311.911
11.1)).301
31.115
111.4
152,411
901
)sa.,ee
1.,1.
1, 65. 1.6 1. As 1.1.6
1,11,414 3,114418
]311.061
315.100
19.01.01
t
:1112
II1d 11
t
t
t
1/11
0.190 I? as
130,111 1,116,41
laN.09,
t
t
,
t
1
1/11
)01.000
LOa9
N.UI N,f00
1,11Ims K 11.40
3.111.0,
3.00.11.
LNe.I11
11
111$1: 0,110
1.2141.0 4211. So
3.211.010
1/11
68$.00,
1.69,
11.516 11)1.
2311156 LOSS
1251.910
101111,
3,11,1411
'1/II
91.169 91.f0
I,I1,L6 1,101,166
3.aN,N1
1/11
191.010
1.041
11.519 N.MO
]III1104 2.606.110
),151.000
/,01..110
LOO, OL
1/to
16.11. II.fN
1.1111$51 1.111.111
31311.681
'1/N
If1,a00
1.08,
01.11! 0.310
1.116.0%1 3.111.131
1.21.600
3.00.)10
LN1,191
1/32
11.11. Il.SN
1 111 lf1 I IN IN N f1.
3.]{1,600
'1/11
1/IS
1X4121
600, 1;IIbH1
i.IU;Ifo
1..501
])iii
1 iii 000
1/11
1,110.101
LIu.g1
401. 1.118,119
1JI8,IN
l.Il1:43
O, 1
N.0
:9553
XN:
412.400
1X4400
1/1.
1.111.000
1111$31
6,00, 1:113x111
!.111.156
).311.1{1
111111
IIrIN
01.10
N.l9I
41.1.001
1.151,011
1/11
1/I1
11$14000
1,111.20
1.684 1,111.133
3,141,13:
4311,26
111111
91,1.1
:1.390
N,NI
)431.000
1,131100
1/II
1/II
1,311.006
I.NS,IN
1,011 1.46,
4113,61.
S: 812"Al
,1$N
N,{21
11.]11
1..1::
1.111.100
),154011
1/11
)/11
L16.61
146,110
6.691 911.116
AS .161
3,31111.
91.901
1111
N.10o
1.111
3.151.000
1,252.800
VII
1/11
1.604,00
12.NO
6.804 N1.
..IN
11a J."..1so
I1.34
O1.{99
911$14
I1.f06
411001
),1f1.N0
1/t
I1411N
840118
6110
O40dN
11{69
a? IS'"'
4311.X1
'1/1
.... ..........
11.111,198 14414)1
III1110
1,152.169
N.SM
O.f6
3.111111
1/!
b{11101
116,146
6001 111.168
01{,611
101.IH
91.$69
Ods
61.1.1
N.fN
3,11401:
1!11.696
'IN
1.131.X1
1X.140
6.069 191)fo
111,311
3,31.111
So.,"
01.111
Il.UO
1110
1,114018
6.111400
1
Id69dao
ll3,If*
6400 111.!4
21411
!.469,166
52.14
611tH
81 Is
01.910
LlSl dal
1:331
'1/1,
'1/f
1.N60,O
Na.110
468, 04151'
{II.IN
3,,51,140
N.fM
II.IAS
Mail
01$0
1.311.111
)414690
'1/I
3.069,14
6N,1{I
6.1.1 f1
NI.IN
M 3.3I1.N
3
aI.IOf
4,fN
01.51.
1. SO
1,111.111
:.19,408
'1/f
'1/1
4116661
6.005 N
.1so 1.11),111
91;199
OAfi
1.111 i0,
41
191
3.1,51$4
19
6.X1 X3,611
41., ,5411.
!,1)1.140
1.11
91.10
II,U1
:111.
1152,211
1.291119
1140.426 1.I16.OIf
),,11436 3,040,Nf
1,4440 1.!4.41 .
I,e1..u6 1,NO.Nt
3.O1..N8 6,4141
)11.,110 LIN 9511
).01..1)0 3.450.114
6.40,178 3.416.49,
614.44 2,451.2,
111..00 :100.44
1.01140 2.111,11{
1.04 5.010 14:1011
1.695149 1.42.:11
1.41,795 1.451.116
3.911110 I.,5I.Nf
1/1
3,01..111
1.101
42.169 IN.iN
111.11 1.013.349
N.SM
1.%"
61.169
at.IN
).f51.ON
)1$51.118
3.944.116
21151.111
1/I
1/5
1.IN.NO
LIN
10,110 aN.16
IO AN 1.11).516
1.10
17d06
1.114
1.118
31211.160
1411.091
),III.N1
i,ltl.11f
1/18
VII
- 3,10,14
LNI
I IN HO.3N
30.14 )111111
Mila
X111
fI.SN
IlrfX
1111.110
3.1191$11
31$4146
1.111.111
All
I/ 1
1918.108
1.001
181.391 111.211
111.191 3.146481
Mul
1.111
aI.SI0
Ods
1,111.6,1
l.H1IN
1.191410
adlf.11{
1/11
91 .11, !41N
..1$N
N.3X
3.351.408
1.214156
21,51,91
1.114111
.L
1.069
1....101
11.111
1.1$16
3,1)4101
..........
N.INd00
............
.... ..........
11.111,198 14414)1
6.111.16
1.41118
�........ 1111«1111. ......�_..
1,116.111 X.011,01
����.. �......� .........� 111,111
121.111 1.11481
3.14411
--
1!.01499
{1.131.01
-37_
i
w
m
All
U1
FISCAL
YEAR
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PROFORMA ANNUAL RATE INCREASES NEEDED TO MEET
PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE COMPANY - FLOATING RATE BONDS
M
OPERATING
FEE
INCOME
1,467,172
2,363,614
2,389,614
2,415,900
3,070,608
3,534,270
3,749,861
3,978,602
4,141,725
4,270,118
4,402,492
4,538,969
4,634,288
4,731,608
4,925,604
5,078,297
5,235,725
5,398,032
5,565,371
5,737,898
5,973,151
6,218,051
6,472,991
6,673,653
6,880,537
7,162,639
7,527,933
7,836,578
136,375,300
NEW
SYSTEM
OPERATING
EXPENSES
984,000
1,043,040
1,105,622
1,335,400
1,415,524
1,500,455
1,590,483
1,685,912
1,787,066
1,894,290
2,007,948
2,128,425
2,256,130
2,391,498
2,534,988
2,687,087
2,848,312
3,019,211
3,200,364
3,392,386
3,595,929
3,811,685
4,040,386
4,282,809
4,539,777
4,812,164
5,100,894
5,406,947
76,398,732
H
ANNUAL
PAYMENTS
TO PRIVATE
COMPANY
0
0
0
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,450,000
2,525,000
61,325,000
EXCESS
REVENUES
& EARNINGS
- PAYMENTS
483,172
1,839,984
3,261,974
2,137,122
1,502,490
1,198,992
998,294
915,857
889,205
881,723
892,397
919,871
917,019
875,905
882,214
889,590
893,721
889,571
871,296
832,155
821,790
839,790
885,379
892,627
850,334
614,583
852,717
821,301
29,751,074
9 ANNUAL
INCREASE
NEEDED FOR
COVERAGE
08
608
08
08
269
149
59
59
39
29
29
29
19
19
39
29
29
29
29
29
39
39
39
29
29
39
49
39
DEBT
SERVICE
COVERAGE
RATIO
N/A .
N/A
N/A
1318
1299
1329
1299
1319
1329
1339
1349
1369
1349
131%-
134%
1349
1349
1339
1329
1309
1319
1329
1359
1349
1309
1299
1349
1299
r
DAN LHUDSON, ASSESSOR
CAROLYN R.BURKE.DER TY
DENNIS J. BALDRIDGE, DEPUTY
OFFICEOF
;I �Cltp �$1iC�gOC
COURTHOUSE
P.O. BOX 1546
IOWA CITY. IA 52244
January 20, 1986
I
Dear Conference Board Member:
The annual meeting of the Iowa City Conference Board for the consideration
of the Iowa City Assessors- FY 1987 budget is scheduled for Monday,
January 27, 1986, at 6:30 P.M. at the Iowa City Civic Center. Enclosed,
so you may review the information before the meeting are:
1. The agenda.
2. The proposed budget.
3. The 1985 Annual Report which includes the program division
statement.
4. A copy of February 25, 1985 minutes.
5. A copy of Application for Board of Review position.
Please note that the amount to be raised by taxation is only $4,822 more
than required last year, only a 211:% increase. The increase consists
mostly of:
a. $ 4,500 for assessment rolls and postage for same.
b. $ 8,000 for a car for field work.
c. $ 3,720 for a modest 3% cost of living increase in salaries..
$16,220 Total increase
This increase is nearly offset by the following decreases:
d. $ 4,739 unused balance transferred from the Special Appraisers
Fund.
e. $ 3,500 for two court cases which will be tried during FY 86.
f. $ 3,559 more in the unencumbered balance.
$11,798 Total decrease
The levy rate will be going down from .18905 to .17637, a reduction of
nearly 7%. The new construction that will be taxed for the first time
in FY 87 will produce over $5,600, which is more than the increase
needed for this proposed budget.
.If you have any specific questions or wish to look at any of the supporting
documents for this budget, feel free to call me at work at 338-2231 or at
my home at 338-6176.
SiX:
V
Dan L. Hudson
Iowa City Assessor
l
i
vMrAti\M taa✓..a\'aa\\\\rr\aat\i valla\u�µv NJ:..Nv\\Y.ar'..M....t- -----rvw'.\�vN.v/M1 ..vm'I..aaYnv.Mv.H�
January 20, 1986
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Iowa City.Conference Board will meet at 6:30 P.M. on Monday,
January 27, 1986 at the Iowa City Civic Center. The purpose
of the meeting is to discuss the Iowa City Assessors' proposed
budget for fiscal year 1987.
AGENDA:
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11
12
Call meeting to order by the Chairperson.
Roll Call by taxing body.
Act on minutes of February 29, 1986 Conference
Board meeting.
Assessor presents proposed budget.
Discuss proposed budget.
Conference Board acts on proposed budget.
Set date for public hearing.
Appoint Board of Review member:
Appoint Examining Board member.
Transfer of fund from Special Appraisers Fund to
Assessment Expense Fund for purchase of vehicle.
Other business.
Adjourn.
Dan L. Hudson
Clark, Conference Board
J
i
I
c
I�
i
I
I
I
l
i
vMrAti\M taa✓..a\'aa\\\\rr\aat\i valla\u�µv NJ:..Nv\\Y.ar'..M....t- -----rvw'.\�vN.v/M1 ..vm'I..aaYnv.Mv.H�
January 20, 1986
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Iowa City.Conference Board will meet at 6:30 P.M. on Monday,
January 27, 1986 at the Iowa City Civic Center. The purpose
of the meeting is to discuss the Iowa City Assessors' proposed
budget for fiscal year 1987.
AGENDA:
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11
12
Call meeting to order by the Chairperson.
Roll Call by taxing body.
Act on minutes of February 29, 1986 Conference
Board meeting.
Assessor presents proposed budget.
Discuss proposed budget.
Conference Board acts on proposed budget.
Set date for public hearing.
Appoint Board of Review member:
Appoint Examining Board member.
Transfer of fund from Special Appraisers Fund to
Assessment Expense Fund for purchase of vehicle.
Other business.
Adjourn.
Dan L. Hudson
Clark, Conference Board
J
i
i
4
�'Q a\avaa!away\awHaawpacv�aw!a�ww�+....: _n:w wiw��aw.n+..�.........u�✓.ww.w ..aw.v�....w.ui..wvn•.�mn�.v�
ITEMIZED BUDGET - ASSESSMENT EXPENSE FUND
ITEM NO. EXPENDITURE FY 86 FY 87
SALARIES
31
City Assessor
$ 35,200
$ 36,25C
32
First Deputy
28,160
29,000
32
Second Deputy
24,640
25,380
35
Plat Supervisor
21,050
21,680
35
Clerk
15,210
15,670
Total Salaries
$124,260
$127,980
OTHER EXPENDITURES
34
Board of Review
$ 91000
$ '91000
36
Employer Share: FICA
8,700
9,000
37
Employer Share: IPERS
5,800
6,000
38
Mileage & Travel
1,000
8,500
39
Office Supplies, Post. & Tele.
8,500
13,000
40
Publications, Subscr. & Dues
750
750
41
Bonds & Workman's Comp.
1,500
1,100
42
Equipment Maintenance
200
200
43
Appraisal Service
400
400
44
Insurance
12,500
13,300
45
Continuing Education
1,500
1,500
46
Appeals to Court
60,000
56,500
47
Schools & Conferences
3,000
3,000
48
Legal
2,000
2,000
49
Unemployment
2,000
2,000
50
Conference Board
0
0
51
Examining Board
30
30
52
Computer Charge
6,000
6,000
Total Other Expenditures
$122,880
$132,280
TOTAL BUDGET
$247,140
$260,260
UNENCUMBERED BALANCE
- 65,182
- 68,741
TRANSFER FROM SPEC. APPR. FUND
- 0
- 4,739
TO BE RAISED BY TAXATION
$181,958
$186,780
MAXIMUM LEVY ALLOWED
t Maximum assessment expense fund 1,058,998,090 x .00027= $ 285,930
IPERS & FICA Funds = 15,000
jUnemployment Compensation & Tort Liability = 4,000
Maximum for assessment expense fund =$ 304,930
Maximum special appraisers fund 1,058,998,090 x.000405=$ 428,890
Maximum allowed without State approval =$-7TTTEU
Maximum emergency fund 1,058,998,090 x .00027 =$ 285,930
(Which requires State Appeal Board approval)
Maximum that could be raised by taxation for FY 187 =$1,019,750
LEVIES AND RATES SINCE 1980
Assessment
Expense Fund
Special Appraiser's
Fund
Fiscal Year Amount Levied
Levy Rate
Amount Levied
Levy Rate
1979-80 $
146,050
.26746
-------------
---------
1980-81
175,930
.29593
-------------
---------
1981-82
184,145
.30081
$ 61,000
.09592
1982-83
192,960
.28004
15,000
.02177
1983-84
201,186
.27000
98,868
.13000
1984-85
200,278
.22454
73,890
.08284
1985-86
181,958
.18905
-------------
---------
1986-87
186,780
.17637
-------------
---------
r
i
s
ivaaN[aa\\l\\Fwai1\'a\ia\aCaanwM ,l....ta1\aaw.nN..n.(a..�ifffffen.a'vf.tiw.vf.. f. M1.vFµvAWv�.wwV+
II i
V•
t'tllt'\tt �� V\i \il`NV V4\'tt�iia�i.uviA'nMINaJ: >YfA-N tiiwnwW..w//e/ti AwI..M'.vY/vAW.t'I`A�NAY�rWAyiV'
1985 REPORT
OFFICE OF IOWA CITY ASSESSOR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Iowa City Conference Board
i
Staff of City Assessor's Office, Members of
Board of Review and Examining Board
Report of City Assessor
Personal Property Phaseout
Abstract for 1985 Iowa City Assessments
Exempt Property as of July 1, 1985
Comparison of Values with Rollback Applied
- Comparison of Residential, Commercial and Industrial
Values
' Top Taxpayers for Iowa City
Comparative Mlllage Rates
i
�
1
E
3
4-6
7
8
8
9-10
11-12
13
14
_.. Iowa City Assessors Program Division Statement FY '87
is
1
I
y..
�M1a�'l4\ilala!�iai\\\lYl\\\aca\\a!axwMlN. J. � r. J�+\a\suarwW�..r.�w/�J. t.vw� .x+W.w. Nm1MYAMwv.a�nw
IOWA CITY CONFERENCE BOARD
IOWA CITY - CITY COUNCIL
John McDonald, Mayor
William Ambrisco
Larry Balser
Darrel Courtney
Kate Dickson
George Strait
Ernest Zuber
IOWA CITY SCHOOL BOARD
Ellen Widiss, President
Lynne Cannon
Craig Glcrde
Kathleen Hiratzks
Randy Jordison
Kathryn Penningroth
David Wooldrick
JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Dennis Langenberg, Chairman
Harold Donnelly
Richard Myers
Betty 00..enfels
Donald Sehr
IOWA STATE DEPARTME14T OF REVENUE
Gerald.D. Bair - Director Iowa State Department of Revenue
Gene Elch - Director Property Tax Division
Brian Bruner - Administrator Property Tax Division
Z
r
■
( STAFF OF CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
I
MEMBERS OF BOARD OF REVIEW AND EXAMINING BOARD
I
IOWA CITY, IOWA
1985
Dan L. Hudson
City Assessor
- Dennis J. Baldridge
First Deputy
Carolyn R. Burke
Second Deputy
t:
Jerry L. Denison
Plat Supervisor
Dorothy F. Gerdes
Clerk
IOWA CITY BOARD OF REVIEW
Keith A. Wymore, Chairman Appt. 1980 through 1985
William J. Doherty Appt. 1985 through 1990
Gregory J. Downes Appt. 1983 through 1988
Charles A. McComas, Jr. Appt. 1984 through 1989-
. '.
i Jack L. Yonaush Appt. 1982 through 1987
William F. White, Clerk j
IOWA CITY EXAMINING BOARD
Alan R. Bohanan Appt. 1982 through 1987
D. Keith Borchert Appt. 1982 through 1987 j
Patricia Sueppel Appt. 1980 through 1985
1 I
f LEGAL COUNSEL
Terrence L. Timmins - City Attorney
I
I
i
,. 3
9
5'
...................s.,,,............,...........,.,.,,......a..,_..........,........Y..........,+......,..-
T0: Members of the Iowa City Conference Board
FROM: Dan L. Hudson, Iowa City Assessor
SUBJECT: 1985 Annual Report - Issued Dec. 27, 1985
The following report covers the activities of this office
from January 1, 1985 to date of issue.
VALUATIONS
1985 was a real estate revaluation year. The residential
property was revalued by Vanguard Appraisals. This
i
reappraisal was not initiated due to poor performance I
measurements, but mostly to get an on site inspection of all
residential properties along •with the land value being
brought up to the current market. Another result of the
reappraisal was to equalize values among neighborhoods.
This residential revaluation resulted in an increase of 28.3
million dollars to go along with nearly 12 million dollars
of new construction. At the and of the third quarter of
1985, these new residential values were at 96.5% of the
selling 'price for 387 normal deed sales.
The commercial and industrial properties were revalued in
house using the new Iowa Real Property Appraisal Manual
issued by the Iowa State Department of Revenue. This
commercial and .industrial revaluation resulted in an
increase of 15 million dollars to go along with 23.5 million
dollars of new construction.
These increases in value were once again substantiated by
the fact that the Department of Revenue did not issue
equalization orders for Iowa City.
COURT CASES
There were 5 new appeals to District Court filed in 1985
Involving 3 residential, 2 commercial and one personal
property. Of the 17 appeals involving 32 parcels filed in
1984, 11 appeals Involving 16 parcels were refiled in 1985. i
One appeal consisting of 2 residential parcels was heard on
December 10, 1985. No results have been received at this -
i
time. One other appeal of one commercial parcel has been
scheduled for May 1986. No court dates have been set at
this time on the other 14 appeals involving 19 parcels.
STATE EQUALIZATION ORDERS
Iowa City received no equalization orders for 1985 on any
class of property. This means that our median sales ratio
is within plus or minus S% of the state mandated 100%
assessment level.
4 �3�
Kms.:....•.,...,,. ......
BOARD OF REVIEW
The Board of Review was In session from May 1 through May 31,
the day of adjournment. The Board had 164 protests filed
with 88 being upheld and 76 denied. The total value of real
estate being protested was $77,784,695 with a total
requested reduction of $119185,030. The Board allowed a
total reduction of $3,518,740. The Board did not have to
meet in October for an equalization session because the
Department of Revenue Issued no orders for Iowa City.
CONTINUING EDUCATION
Continuing education is a requirement for the assessor and
deputies for their reappointment to their positions. I feel
It is also good for the other employees to attend some
classes so they can adequately respond to inquiries and
questions. During 1985 all five employees in the office
attended a course on public relations and complaint handling
given by the Institute of Public Affairs.
The Assessor attended the following courses and conferences
during 1985:
NCRAAO Conference C.E. C.E. hrs.
ISAA Annual School of Instruction 10.S C.E. hrs.
IAAO Conference --------
The First Deputy attended the following courses and conferences
during 1985: -
NCRAAO Conference 7.S C.E. hrs.
ISAA Annual School of Instruction 10.5 C.E. hrs.
The Second Deputy attended .the following courses and conferences
during 1985:
IOR Basic Assessment School 21.0 C.E. hrs.
ISAA Annual School of Instruction 10.5 C.E. hrs.
The Clerk attended the following course during 1985:
IDR Basic Assessment School 21.0 C.E. hrs.
S •y�'�
3
i
NEW LEGISLATION
SF 3S9 - Requires easessors to retain copies of declaration
of value forms for 3 calendar years following the year in
which the sale took place.
SF 355 - This large tax related bill included in part:
-The elimination of the tax on personal property.
-To make permanent the pollution control exemption
which previously had been limited to a period of
10 years.
-To allow computers and industrial machinery and
equipment to continue to be assessed at 30% of
acquisition cost, but to ,eliminate the provision
for the State to reimburse the local governments
for the revenues lost between the normal depreciated
value and the 30% value.
-To eliminate from assessment "point of sales computer
equipment".
SF 452 - Changes requirements for converting mobile homes to
real estate and permits reconversion to a mobile home.
SF 505 - once again changes the personnel to inspect and
methods for inspecting forest and fruit tree reservations.
SF 576 - Modifies the partial industrial property tax
exemption for industrial, warehouses and distribution
centers to now include research -service facilities.
APPRECIATION
Ny staff and I would like to thank the Conference Board, the Board
of Review, the City Attorney and his assistants, and the City
Staff for their assistance, cooperation and confidence during the
wouldpast year. I ] to recognize and
at
tills time for their part in a thank staff establishing and maintaining
professional standards of the offlce.
I�.:isn::a.aJ,,.i,.,.u......i...!�w.w...n.w.::::::..+,....�.�..,..A......................n.......n..f.......nv.r..w..
PERS014AL PROPERTY PHASEOUT
In 1973 the Iowa State Legislature began a program to phase out
the assessment of personal properly over a period of ten years. In
the program, 1973 was established as a base year and all
subsequent values must be reduced to a level equal to the 1973
base year. All 1985 personal property values were reduced by
60.30497% to achieve this.
After the reduction is made, the actual taxable value is further
reduced by the application of personal property tax credits. The
current credits total $350,000. Only one such credit may be
claimed in the state of Iowa. For this reason most of the actual
taxes received from the personal property assessments are paid by
the laroer taxpayers to the district or by chain store operations
who exceed the credit in personal property valuation. The
deadline for filing such a credit is July 1, in the year of the
assessemont.
New legislation males 1985 the last year for assessing
personal properly. The last payments on personal property
will be paid In 1986-87 based on the 1985 assessment. This
completes the phase out started in 1973.
The assessment of computers and industrial machinery is often done
through reports similar to the assessment of personal property.
However, neither one is subject to personal property credits or
the real estate rollbacks. The assessed value Is fully taxable.
7 a
r
I�.:isn::a.aJ,,.i,.,.u......i...!�w.w...n.w.::::::..+,....�.�..,..A......................n.......n..f.......nv.r..w..
PERS014AL PROPERTY PHASEOUT
In 1973 the Iowa State Legislature began a program to phase out
the assessment of personal properly over a period of ten years. In
the program, 1973 was established as a base year and all
subsequent values must be reduced to a level equal to the 1973
base year. All 1985 personal property values were reduced by
60.30497% to achieve this.
After the reduction is made, the actual taxable value is further
reduced by the application of personal property tax credits. The
current credits total $350,000. Only one such credit may be
claimed in the state of Iowa. For this reason most of the actual
taxes received from the personal property assessments are paid by
the laroer taxpayers to the district or by chain store operations
who exceed the credit in personal property valuation. The
deadline for filing such a credit is July 1, in the year of the
assessemont.
New legislation males 1985 the last year for assessing
personal properly. The last payments on personal property
will be paid In 1986-87 based on the 1985 assessment. This
completes the phase out started in 1973.
The assessment of computers and industrial machinery is often done
through reports similar to the assessment of personal property.
However, neither one is subject to personal property credits or
the real estate rollbacks. The assessed value Is fully taxable.
7 a
t.
19B5 ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENT FOR IOWA CITY
Value of Agricultural Land and Structures $ 3,503,787
Value of Residential Dwellings on
Agricultural Realty 1,269,610
Value of Residential Lots 6 Buildings 724, 508, 730
Value of Commercial Lots & Buildings 369,476,553
Value of Industrial Lots 6 Buildings 29,145,510
Value of Industrial Machinery 8 Commercial
Equipment as Real Estate 29,306,071
-Actual Value of all Real Estate 1,157,210,261
Total
Personal
Property
after Reduction
31,127,932
*Total
Real and
Personal
Property
$1,188,338,193
• All the above values are based on the 1985 abstract as
reported to the Iowa State Department of Revenue July i, 1985.
The 1985 values for Railroad and Utility Property are supplied
to the Auditor by the Iowa State Department of Revenue, and are .
,not available at. this time. The value of utilities and
railroads in Iowa City for 1984 was $SB,492,411.
EXEMPT PROPERTY IN IOWA CITY FOR 1985
Religious Institutions $ 25,529,240
Charitable and Benevolent Societies 31,202,530
Educational Institutions 88,780
Low Rent Housing 3,927,420
Associations of War Veterans 195,060
Pollution Control 61,017
Forest and Fruit 242,069
Partial Industrial 567,850
University of Iowa (As reported by SUI) 352,941,851
%4
9
i
i
k
1I
j VALUE COMPARISONS WITH ROLLBACKS APPLIED
STATE STATE ADJ.
YEAR ORDERS TYPE VALUE ROLLBACK VALUE
1978- Agricultural $ 2,168,341 .962480 $ 2,086,985
Ag Dwellings 766,750 .962480 737,982
Residential 362,260,123 .782516 ZB3,474,342
Commercial 174,322,260 1.0 174,322,260
Industrial 13,864,630 1.0 13,864,630
M. & E. 16,112,131 1.0 16,112,131
TOTAL $569,494,235 $490,598,330
1979 - 8% Agricultural 2,033,486 .946706 1,925,113
- 8% Ag Dwellings 707,627 .946706 669,915
+34% Residential 500,939,124 .643801 322,505,109
+ 92 Commercial 197,369,090 .889872 175,633,227
Industrial 14,286,490 1.0 14,286,490
11. & E. 20,434,123. 1.0 20,434,123
TOTAL $735,769,940 $535,453,977
J980 Agricultural 1,951,348 .990951 1,933,690
Ag Dwellings 676,859 .990951 670,734
Residential 517,484,797 .667355 345,346,067
Commercial 203,280,646 .931854 189,427,883
Industrial 14,SS7,630 1.0 14,557,630
M. & E. 23,844,555 1.0 23,844,555
TOTAL $761,795,835 $575,780,559
1981• +272 Agricultural 2,709,516 .957039 2,593,112
Ag Dwellings 1,282,450 .647793 830,762
Residential 567,708,490 .647793 367,757,586
Commercial 241,461,259 .878423 212,105,124
Industrial 18,061,000 .969619 17,512,289
11. & E. 23,896,352 1.0 23,896,352
TOTAL $855,119,067 $624,695,225
138,: Agricultural 2,715,327 .995711 2,703,681
Ag Dwellings 1,273,010 .672223 855,747
Residential 578,185,848 .672223 388,669,825
Commercial 248,471,689 .916331 227,682,311
Industrial 19,037,660 1.0 19,037,660
11. & E. 33,688,245 1.0 33,688,245
TOTAL $883,371,779 $672,637,469
9
VALUE COMPARISONS CONT.
STATE
YEAR ORDER TYPE
1983• +56%
1984
Agricultural
Ag Dwellings
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
••1.1. 8 E.
TOTAL
Agricultural
Ag Dwellings
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
••it. 8 E.
TOTAL
STATE
VALUE ROLLBACK
3,687,530 .865024
1,458,620 .698754
665,822,880 .698754
309,092,490 .917230
27,788,340 .974567
31,053,824 1.0
$1,038,903,684
3,585,908 .900058
1,480,680 .724832
686,797,678 .724832
334,805,992 .954242
28,430,500 1.0
28,913,025 1.0
$1,084,013,783
ADJ.
VALUE
3,189,802
1,019,217
465,246,401
283,508,905
.27,081,599
31,053,824
$811,099,748
3,227,525
1,073,244
497,812,935
319,485,939
28,430,500
28,913,025
$878,943,168
1985• Agricultural
3,503,787
i I
I
3,279,271
VALUE COMPARISONS CONT.
STATE
YEAR ORDER TYPE
1983• +56%
1984
Agricultural
Ag Dwellings
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
••1.1. 8 E.
TOTAL
Agricultural
Ag Dwellings
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
••it. 8 E.
TOTAL
STATE
VALUE ROLLBACK
3,687,530 .865024
1,458,620 .698754
665,822,880 .698754
309,092,490 .917230
27,788,340 .974567
31,053,824 1.0
$1,038,903,684
3,585,908 .900058
1,480,680 .724832
686,797,678 .724832
334,805,992 .954242
28,430,500 1.0
28,913,025 1.0
$1,084,013,783
ADJ.
VALUE
3,189,802
1,019,217
465,246,401
283,508,905
.27,081,599
31,053,824
$811,099,748
3,227,525
1,073,244
497,812,935
319,485,939
28,430,500
28,913,025
$878,943,168
1985• Agricultural
3,503,787
.935922
3,279,271
Ag Dwellings
1,269,610
.756481
960,435
Residential
724,508,730
.756481
548,077,089
Commercial
369,476,553
.987948
365,023,621
Industrial
29,145,510
1.0
29,145,510
••1•I. 8 E.
29,306,071
1.0
29,306,071
TOTAL
$1,157,210,261
$975,791,998
The adj. values given are
not exact but
are meant
to give a
representation of the growth of Iowa City's tax
base.
• Reassessment year
--New acquisitions of computers and industrial machinery assessed at
302 of cost beginning In 1983.
H
■
COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL
ASSESSED VALUES
•Prior to 1982 the breakdown of commercial opt. and commercial other is not
aaa-
APT
OTHER
YEAR
RESIDENTIAL
X
COMMERCIAL
%
COMMERCIAL
X
! 1978
362,250,123
60.3
1979
500,939,124
65.3
1980
517,484,797
65.3
1981
567,708,490
64.1
91,073,108
12.9
136,609,203
19.4
1982
578,185,848
63.2
99,388,876
10.9
149,082,813
16.3
1983
665,822,880
62.2
125,352,040
11.7
183,740,450
17.2
1984 .,
686,797,678
61.0
141,599,710
12.6
193,206,282
17.2
1985
724,508,730
60.2
162,129,009
13.5
207,347,544
17.2
•Prior to 1982 the breakdown of commercial opt. and commercial other is not
aaa-
TAXABLE VALUES
1978
283,474,342
54.3
1979
322,505,109
56.9
1960
345,346,067
56.9
1361
.367,757,586
56.1
1982
388,669,825
55.2
91,073,108
12.9
136,609,203
19.4
1983-
465,246,401
55.2
114,976,652
13.7
168,532,253
20.0
1984
497,812,935
54.1
135,120,390
14.7
184,365,549
20.0
1985
548,077,089
53.6
160,175,030
15.7
204,848,591
20.0
•Prior to 1982 the breakdown of commercial opt. and commercial other is not
aaa-
■
I
1:
l
I
tit
1i\iaacaJnaN .w.:rrr..........w.....tw........v.v..w.w...uvm4.�n.vnv.vr.•.v
AND INDUSTRIAL VALUES
TOTAL
COMMERCIAL 7
174,322,260 29.0
197,369,090 25.8
203,280,646 25.6
241,461,259 27.2
248,471,689 27.2
309,092,490 28.9
.334,805,992 29.8
369,476,553 30.7
174,322,260 33.4
175,633,227 31.0
189.427,883 31.2
212,105,124 32.3
227,6B2,311 32.3
M,S08,905 33.7
319,48S,939 34.7
365,023,621- 35.7
INDUSTRIAL
%
OTHER
6.8
25,863,855
4.3
38,176,534
6.4
29,942,864
3.9
38,647,401
5.0
31,514,293
4.0
40,644,636
5.1
33,244,551
3.8
43,861,768
4.9
42,764,895
4.7
45,128,282
4.9
51,406,480
4.8
43,709,714
4.1
60,793,394
5.4
42,534,924
3.8
67,615,591
5.6
41,954,152
3.5
25,863,855 5.0 38,066,410 7.3
29,942,864.
5.3
38,501,316
6.8
31,514,293
5.2
40,620,853
6.7
32,695,840
5.0
43,293,676
6.6
42,764,895
6.1
44,699,373
6.4
50,699,739
6.0
42,772,586
5.1
60,793,394
6.6
42,176,541
4.6
67,615,591
6.6
41,420,462
4.1
available, total commercial value Is shown.
I
12 �
0?43 z
I,
i
I
iAti is to J..+\\l\Y\Ml\\a\�\laCua+i:.AV.v t:.YtYY\aww.n...M..�.�Ini//.Aw+hY+.w!/+.+.YaY'MYAY.M+aY��
l
EXCLUDING UTILITIES ASSESSED BY THE
STATE
RA14K
i
k4
EXCLUDING UTILITIES ASSESSED BY THE
STATE
RA14K
NAME
TAXABLE VALUE
I
Procter & Gamble
814,355,764
- 2
i
James & Loretta Clark.
13,987,179
3
Old Capitol Center Mall
11,650,130
4
Owens Brush
10,643,019
5
American College Testing
9,648,551
6
Holiday.Inn
7,989,784
7
Seville Corporation
6,974,060
8
H.J. Heinz
6,678,053
9
Sheller—Globe
6,S23,03S
10
Thomas & Betts
6,339,639
11
NCS Learning Corporation
5,839,230
_ 12
Southgate Development
5,592,374
13
H.P. Smith
5,438,331
14
Mocre Business Forms
5,340,782
IS
Sycamore Mall
4,623,172
- I6
Mark TU Investors
4,448,078
17
Bon -Aire & Tom Alberliesky
4,394,851
18
Hy Vee
4,338,822
19
Hawkeye Real Estate Investment
4,181,979
20
Lakeside Apartments
3,951,792
21
Iowa State Bank
3,774,613
22
Edwin & Ethel Barker
3,388,642
23
Kon, Shirley & Kurt Renshaw
3,348,276
24
Towncrest Investment Association
3,347,501
25
Plaza Centre One
3,213,953
i
k4
1:
4
Av.«�✓..x:�. �t:.:.:.�:.�.!�..n.:..N..i: r:: r: r.s�. a.+....`._.R..:..�...... nvwnx.vn•...v.whn•.�: nyxv..•r�
1 COMPARISON
OF TAX RATE PER
THOUSAND AS COMPILED BY
THE CITY
ASSESSOR'S
OFFICE, DES MOINES, IOWA.
CITY
TAX RATE PAYABLE IN,
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
AI•IES
26.27133
25.BB125
26.91170
- BOONE
33.43154
38.22322
35.25653
CEDAR RAPIDS
31.91058
32.13690
31.43024
CLI14TO14
30.96677
31.54276
31.14527
DAVENPORT
33.02418
34.05818
34.00984
DES 110INE9
36.55262
36.86194
37.60348
. DUBUQUE
32.51865
33.77372
33.74401
F7. DODGE
31.90753
32.26694
31.95539
FT. IIADIS014
27.57293
28.40058
28.91496
. IOWA CITY
31.50201
27.64801
27.48065
KEOKUK
.32.98862
33.64070
32.71196
. I•IARSHALLTOW14
31.97133
32.89499
32.06193
MASON CITY
27.40689
28.01799
28.53992
14EWT014
29.13261
30.61077
30.06012
SIOUX CITY
38.20779
38.10312
37.85616
WATERLOO
31.13641
32.019B4
32.18182
14 t
1
i
q{
AAtivaaavri.•\\ \alliv4\\.valva!vaan.vw:.vJJ:: rrvv`.vvaaw.vww...(.:.:...:�wri..w•mv.w.vr....ve.uYwxvnvwwi.v
IOWA CITY ASSESSORS PROGRAM DIVISION STATEMENT FY '87
DIV151014 PURPOSE:
The purpose of the Iowa City Assessors Office is to find, list
end value for tax purposes, all real and personal property in
Iowa City and maintain records for all parcels in Iowa City.
DIVISIONGOALS:
To establish values on all commercial-, agricultural, and
residential property within the City of Iowa City in the most
equitable manner based on actual physical aspects of the property
and all the pertinent sales data available; to improve the
efficiency: by which these assessments are made; to provide prompt
and courteous response toall inquiries for information.
GENERAL DIVISIO14 OBJECTIVES:
1• Receive calls and inquiries and dispense Information
efficiently and on a timely basis.
�• Complete all daily record changes and related duties as
received.
3• On a quarterly basis, review In the field all new con—
struction and demolitions and by January 1, 1987, make
final review -of said construction and demolition.
4. Prepare forms and get signatures for all new homestead
and military credits by July 1, 1987.
S. Remove all homestead and military credits from the
permanent file for those who are no longer to receive
the credlt'by July 1, 1987.
6. Prepare and get signatures on all other new annual forms,
making sure they are In compliance with all laws and
rules, by their statutory dales.
7. Accept formal written protests for the Board of Review
from April 16 to flay 5, 1987, and coordinate the Board
or Review meetings during May 1987.
15
i
i
4
tt i
�+1ti\a'aa \aa!aa\a\a\Na\\\ ♦a�\aa!awwwi.v:: xrvv\\a\a\sawn....u�..n✓:Hr.vnrvw\�.w.w..v.�....n1m\.nwyµ..y.+�
GENERAL DIVISION OBJECTIVES CONT
8. Hold preliminary meetings and public hearings to adopt
the annual budget by March 15, 1987.
9. Prepare and submit annual abstract by July 1, 1987.
10. Prepare and distribute to Conference Board members the
annual report by December 31, 1986.
NEW DIVISION OBJECTIVES:
1. Continue the program started in 1985 In which we are
Physically inspecting the properties which Vanguard
was unable to inspect on the Interior.
2. Input property record card data on the new valuation
program so that in the future our residential
computations can be computer generated.
3. Design and implement programs on the office micro—
computer.
4. Review sales as they occur for all classes of property
so we may complete our biennial reassessment for 1987,
making sure our values stay at the mandated level.
f
l
waM1UMAi+.l tau!'.Ylt\�\\uuaY\vaivuu�uuuwWN: JS:T.'+YYYi auu�w.:.ern.'i"..+il��.uYi/.vi.wA..wr'.'I'MYM1uwuuwN�.'
PERFORIIA14CE MEASUREMENTS:
The median sales ratio (median) is the middle sales ratio and a
measure of the % of our assessment to the actual sales prices.
The coefficient of dispersion (C.O.D.) Is a measure of assessment -
uniformity based on the degree to which individual sales ratios
vary from the median sales ratio.
The goal of the Iowa City Assessor is to keep this C.O.D.
below 10. A C.D.D. of 10 is considered excellent and
attained each year by only 3 to 5% of the 115 assessing
Jurisdictions In Iowa.
The following table shows the median, C.O.D., and the number of
deed sales for Iowa City residential property since the
assessments went to the 100% level in 1975.
YEAR MEDIAN C.O.D. NO. OF SALES
Assessment year 1975 87.10 10.36 682
1976 76.30 11.38 681 "
1977 65.10 12.10 640
Assessment year 1978 74.70 9.83 639
State orders 1979 91.80 9.40 551
1980 87.85 8.69 394
Assessment year 1981 88.90 8.74 393
.1982 87.30 9.38 299
Assessment year 1983 94.00 7.19 544
1984 92.65 7.97 447
Assessment year *1985 96.48 8.83 387
•Date based on 1st 9 months only.
17 a� Z
I.,
�+Ki�\yaaaJ.v aai\ai\iyii\\aaaaaLananwnn.Y+.n.�..:++»aiaa�ww�...(.:.:'i.+:w�++•.+ww.n•.w..�v.�.yaMµvnveyw.•r+
�r
• � 1
j
I
The Following Ss a tabulation of }he commercial properties !
for the same period,
DIVISIO14 ANALYSIS:
While the program division statement is on the fiscal year, the
remainder of the annual report is based on the assessment year
which Is the calender year. The annual report has more meaning
when based on the assessment year, since the state equalization
orders come In a different fiscal 'year than the biennial
reappraisal which the orders are to equalize.
18
o?3-z
J
YEAR.
MEDIAN
C.0•D•
NO, OF SALES
Assessment year
1975
84.30
19.75
I
14
_
1976
72.30
13.19
18
1977
62.90
28.20
27
Assessment year
1978
84.60
13.49
12
State orders
1979
78.00
16.66
15
".
1980
80.85
22.69
12
Assessment year
1981
87.55
10.07
14
. 1982
78.00
10.25
8
Assessment year
1983
87.85
10.S8
26
1984
80.32
18.16
14
" Assessment year
•1985
84.30
13.63
17
*First 9 months
only.
Because of the
small number of
sales, one or two had
sales
" can greatly
influence the
performance measurements,
therefore creating
more fluctuation
in
the measurements.
When adding the
state appraisals to the
sales data,
the
median Is raised
to the point
where no orders were needed
in
the equalization
process for 1985.
DIVISIO14 ANALYSIS:
While the program division statement is on the fiscal year, the
remainder of the annual report is based on the assessment year
which Is the calender year. The annual report has more meaning
when based on the assessment year, since the state equalization
orders come In a different fiscal 'year than the biennial
reappraisal which the orders are to equalize.
18
o?3-z
J
s
I
CITY CONFERENCE BOARD
FEBRUARY 25, 1985
City Conference Board: February 25, 1985, 6:35 P.M. in the
Council Chambers at toe Civic Center. Mayor John McDonald
presiding.
Iowa City Councilmembers Present: Baker, Dickson, Erdahl,
RMnaid trait, Luber.
Johnson County Supervisors Present: Langenberg, Ockenfels.
School Board Members Present: None.
Others Present: Hudson, Berlin, Karr, Melling, Jansen
Tape Recorded: Reel 85-C20, Side 1, Beg. 145.
Mayor McDonald stated that a quorum was present.
The City moved to accept the minutes of the last Conference
Board meeting, January 14, 1985, County seconded, and it was
;passed, 2/0.
McDonald declared the public hearing open. There being no
comment the public hearing was declared closed.
The City moved to adopt the proposed budget, it was
seconded by the County. Mayor McDonald declared the motion
carried, 2/0.
The vacancy on the Board of Reveiw was advertised. There was
one application from William F. Doherty. It was moved by the
City, seconded by the County to appoint Mr. Doherty to fill
the Board of Review position for a six year term ending
December 31, 1990. The motion was carried unanimously, 2/0.
There being no further business, it was moved by the County,
seconded by the City, to adjourn at 6:40 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously, 2/0.
Z
L.
.o
Clerk,
Conference Board
r -I
t
J
I
CITY CONFERENCE BOARD
FEBRUARY 25, 1985
City Conference Board: February 25, 1985, 6:35 P.M. in the
Council Chambers at toe Civic Center. Mayor John McDonald
presiding.
Iowa City Councilmembers Present: Baker, Dickson, Erdahl,
RMnaid trait, Luber.
Johnson County Supervisors Present: Langenberg, Ockenfels.
School Board Members Present: None.
Others Present: Hudson, Berlin, Karr, Melling, Jansen
Tape Recorded: Reel 85-C20, Side 1, Beg. 145.
Mayor McDonald stated that a quorum was present.
The City moved to accept the minutes of the last Conference
Board meeting, January 14, 1985, County seconded, and it was
;passed, 2/0.
McDonald declared the public hearing open. There being no
comment the public hearing was declared closed.
The City moved to adopt the proposed budget, it was
seconded by the County. Mayor McDonald declared the motion
carried, 2/0.
The vacancy on the Board of Reveiw was advertised. There was
one application from William F. Doherty. It was moved by the
City, seconded by the County to appoint Mr. Doherty to fill
the Board of Review position for a six year term ending
December 31, 1990. The motion was carried unanimously, 2/0.
There being no further business, it was moved by the County,
seconded by the City, to adjourn at 6:40 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously, 2/0.
281
aa�. I
Z
L.
Hudson
Clerk,
Conference Board
281
aa�. I
}
C
�M::..:C0.<.aiaJ...ala.aHv.aa.aa. a.!v..._::: ra...a...a.........4..:...:.....r.,.w�r..v.w:, n.w..rn�.n...,�+......w�
(Current members: 5/M 0/F)
i'
i
January 27, 1985
BOARD OF REVIEW - One vacancy - Six-year term
January 27, 1986 - December 31, 1991
Keith A. Wymore
2711 Ferndale Drive (served from Jan. 1, 1980 to December 31, 1985)
a 3-Z
i
i!
i
(Current members: 5/M 0/F)
i'
i
January 27, 1985
BOARD OF REVIEW - One vacancy - Six-year term
January 27, 1986 - December 31, 1991
Keith A. Wymore
2711 Ferndale Drive (served from Jan. 1, 1980 to December 31, 1985)
a 3-Z
- CITY OF IOWA CITY -
ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM
Individuals serving on Boards/Commissions play an important role in advising the
Council on matters of interest to our community and its future. Applicants must reside
in Iowa City.
The City Council announces Advisory Board/Commission vacancies 90 days prior .to the
date the appointment will be made. This period provides for a 30 -day advertising period
and a 60 -day training period for new members. The training period allows new members to
become familiar with the responsibilities and duties of the advisory board/commission
before becoming a full voting member.
After a vacancy has been announced and the 30 -day advertising period has expired, the
Council reviews all applications during the informal work session. The appointment is
announced at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers.
Council prefers that all applications must be submitted to the City Clerk no later
than one week prior to the announced appointment date. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN.
THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR
THE PUBLIC. THIS APPLICATION WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR 3 MONTHS ONLY.
ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION NAME�f_,,,.)ss C+113e420AFRrylje tTERM�aI-�EAR,
NAMEETEI A, L )N MD ft C HOME ADDRESS 27uFfRNDAI EINV Fill V F
Is your home addresss(listed above) within the corporate limits of Iowa City? I.IE_S
OCCUPATION & 7— RFjj EMPLOYER T—
PHONE NUMBERS: HOME X38 3 503 BUSINESS �-
EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALITY YOU FOR THIS POSITION: S)Z
THE PAST 13 jrARS A4 MtMQrR nF "HE ZnL)A CiT� L3oARD nF
BfVihe GRADjalF nF 1e - ell ra „<ousJiNES$ PASTOwNER
OF KFaRaL_CMALI Aua:(rEXPFR;,FW-E. XNi SALES
SALE44u0ER✓isieA' �VEa1lS ADMiNi STR81%V6 6E6CU 1 VA AE61O 1TAL
WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THIS ADVISORY BOARD? ,'i )(-OARS f-&";r_�F
S"VLYG r,N 44C9 `7-TaA PITY /3OARD SFEY1G j. ).
f WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS 00 YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THIS ADVISORY BOARD (OR STATE REASON
i( FOR APPLYING)?,fFpp-r4Vj*T j 11,gV� F�(PFRiiNrF Rslc.0.AnuhD
4!92/!F TNS D iC'ONS �ffq% AipF igE911; 0412 69'TyG ROA.ja MfMRfaS
f
OF aE'COL•YA l'. % n A R 0 OF REV1gtd,
Specific attention should be directed to possible conflict of interest as defined in
[ Chapters 362.6, 403A.22 of the Code of Iowa. Should you be uncertain whether or not a
C potential conflict of interest exists, contact the Legal Dept. Will you have a conflict
of interest? ,_YES V NO
If you are not selected, do you want to be notified? )i YES MQ
This application will be kept on file for 3 months. D
F ruary 1903
OCT 4 -1985
MARIAN K. KARR
I CITY CLERK (1)