HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-12 Transcription Page 1
May 12, 2003 Special Council Work Session 6:30 PM
Council: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilbum
Staff: Atkins, Helling, Dilkes, O'Malley, Herting, Craig, Mansfield,
Winkelhake, Karr
TAPES: 03-41, SIDE TWO; 03-44, BOTH SIDES; 03-45, SIDE ONE
BUDGET REDUCTION PLAN
Lehman: Steve why don't you start out...
Atkins: Okay.
Lehman: ...and I think you did a good job of preamble. If you just want to go
through what we're doing...
Atkins: Summarize it for you. Sure.
Lehman: ...why we have to do it, the timeframe that we have to do it in, this
sort of thing. And then what I'd like to do is go through your
recommendations and get a feel from Council as to which ones are
acceptable without debate, which ones are going to get beat up and
which ones are going to get eliminated.
Atkins: I hear you.
Lehman: Okay.
Atkins: Okay. I don't recall the exact date, but on or around April 28, 29 the
state legislature approved a budget bill which substantially
eliminates...that is the law was repelled for what's called our
consolidated payments. And that involves reimbursement for
property....personal property tax, monies and credits. They also
incorporated the bank franchise fees. Quite frankly what it's all from
is almost irrelevant. The bottom line is it's about a million dollar
shortfall that was created by that act of the legislature. It is on the
Governor's desk. He has not signed the legislation yet. There are a
few gyrations that are apparently underway that may have some
impact on it. But I think anybody who saw the letter that he sent to
you all - that "Dear Local Official." They don't have the money and I
think there's every intention that the Governor will sign the legislation.
What I'd like to do is just quickly go through the policy issue and
that's what the first part of the memorandum - the narrative. It is a
million dollar shortfall for the budget that you adopted in March of this
year to take effect in July. There's another element that I think is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 2
important that you have to consider and that's why I'm suggesting that
we make this review with the understanding that both fiscal years '04
and the projected year '05 are being considered. We are at our
maximum taxing authority. We just can't raise property taxes. And
there's every indication from the state and from the Iowa League of
Cities that the residential roll back will decline further from 51.3% to
47% in fiscal '05. That has the effect of about 9% of our residential
value would go away with that move. We had little time - about 7 to 8
working days in order to assemble information in order for you to deal
with this issue. It was rather intense with respect to the Departments
and the short timeframe. We have listed for you a number of
proposals. I believe there are 30 of them as well as about I think
there's 17 options. More work is being done and I'll fill you in as we
go on this issue. I think the most critical element besides the fact that
we have to make up this shortfall is that what I'm proposing is that any
reductions that are acceptable to Council be phased in over a period of
18 months. Simply spoken trying to incorporate the concept of
managed attrition, that is we'll manage our way out of this
circumstance hopefully by phasing reductions. We will not have to go
through what I think some communities are going to experience and
that is the knee-jerk layoff cutback. I'm not convinced of the wisdom
of that. That doesn't eliminate that the reductions we have to make are
permanent and that we really have no choice. I listed a number of
principals and I'm looking for a balanced approach. That we would
try to phase these reductions has an added benefit of minimizing our
unemployment compensation. Remember for in effect every dollar
that you would experience in layoff you're going to have to make a
piece of that with unemployment compensation. We're trying to avoid
that cost. With managed attrition - and I'll give you a few details in
just a moment - we look at retirement patterns, turnover, a number of
other factors associated with our employment changes. We can use
our cash reserves over historically we have I believe wisely and that
has a great deal to do with preserving our credit rating. We've been
able to keep reserves that allow us quite frankly to deal with this type
ora crisis particularly on short-term basis which I believe 18 months
is. But one of the more notable issues and often thought of at times
that when we were participating in federal programs, the employees
were hired under those programs or in effect hired under soft money.
We were never quite sure from year to year where we were going to be
with those funds. The irony of all of this I think is this state clearly
demonstrated to us that we are vulnerable and that we operate our local
government with soft money. They simply can make the choice,
stroke of the legislative pen, that state financial policies will be and we
will live with the consequences of that. Departments would be given
goals and direction would be established in order to fulfill the
necessary reductions. I would note to you that county governments in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 3
our case are substantial in the sense of the monies they provide to us.
They also were reduced. What they choose to do I don't know. They
could in effect do another Senior Center on us and reduce their
contribution for the library and/or the Senior Center. That has not
been factored in and we'll have to consider that. I do not propose any
wage freezes or anything associated with that type of terminology. I
believe it's unfair to single out a group of employees to satisfy
something that the state government imposed upon us. For us to do it
locally simply says to the state that there you can take care of your
problems based upon the financial goals that they put forth for us. I
did not change enterprise funds in the sense that this type of reduction
does not directly affect that. The critical issues I think are summarized
in this memorandum...in this overhead. And they are that we must
assume that we have a permanent loss of state aid. The law has been
repealed. It will not be coming back. That any changes we make, any
adjustments that we have to make on our public services, they must be
permanent or assume to be permanent. I cannot comprehend the state
providing us more money in the future. We've done our best in their
proposal to minimize the disruption of public services and try to
balance our reductions. We've used several measures and methods to
arrive at the list of proposals we gave you. For example I did a five
year history of employment - where we've added employees, new
hires over the last five years, trying to preserve some of those
additions, trying to preserve some of the work, the accomplishments
that went with those additional staff people. That was considered. An
example is in our fire service in 2002 we added six fire fighters.
We're proposing that it would have to be reduced by three plus one -
the one we're running over. Bottom line is we would at least be able
to preserve three of the new hires. In the Police over the last five years
we've added 8. Again we would reduce by 5, again trying to preserve.
We assessed, or we looked at our community initiatives. There's
much debate over the issues associated with it, but the bottom line is
our community approved a substantial increase in the library and if
we're going to fulfill that commitment they have staff obligations.
I've tried to assess some of the current commitments we have. And by
commitments pointing out the fact that the airport while it's on the
option list there is a business plan pending. Their subsidy has gone up
dramatically. We're all aware of that. We dealt with that during the
budget. I did not propose any changes in the first 30
recommendations, but I think, you know, we're sort of stuck waiting
for this business plan to see what they're going to propose. Public
power - substantially the same thing. We're out for a pending study.
If the study is pending we should have it shortly to give us some idea
of whether we're going to proceed with this issue. The deer kill - we
started this three years ago. We're now doing it every other year. Is it
a policy you need to rethink? Wherever practical - and I've had a call
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 4
from virtually every group that's supposed to get a fee increase and
nobody likes it and says give it to the other guy, but we're trying to
fullest extent practical to determine whether we could cover the cost of
the service by fee increase. We did the turnover and retirement
analysis. We looked at revenues from others - that is cable television
revenues that we receive from subscribers who pay to Mediacom who
pay to us, hotel/motel tax, the distribution formula and then of course
the county where we do receive monies for the Senior Center and for
the library. With that I'd like to move to the list of reductions for
discussion. This information comes directly from your memorandum.
Now before we start, it's not...excuse me...I want to jump ahead to
item 18. Item 18 was a proposal to eliminate Saturday bus service.
You will recall last year we changed from an enterprise fund and
incorporated transit into the general fund. The goal was that instead of
employee benefits being charged against our general levy - the $8.10 -
by incorporating it into the general fund we would be able to charge
those employee benefits against enterprise. It worked. We were
notified Friday, confirmed today, that we will receive about an
additional $100,000 in state and federal aid for the transit system. It
has the effect of transit being financed by state, federal, fair box and
transit levy. Preliminary projections indicate we will not have to put
any $8.10 or general levy monies into the transit system. The bottom
line is this is off the table. Now the problem is it pokes an $180,000
hole in our proposals. Are you with me?
Kanner: What you're saying if we were to go with your proposal we would lose
that $100,0007
Atkins: You would have...it would have an effect on it Steven and what you
would be doing is reducing the transit levy, not the general levy
because we can finance the transit system by the change we made last
year - we've been able to project and with the additional money. Now
the difficulty the feds or state next year may not give us the money and
we may be back here discussing transit circumstances again. But for
the time being I can't recommend a reduction when the $8.10 levy is
what we're trying to take on and not the transit levy. So I'm
suggesting that that come off the table, that it's not a proposal. Yes,
Irvin?
Pfab: So you're saying that even if we pass charge a fee for it, it really won't
help.
Atkins: No.
Vanderhoefi So you're saying this is back into an enterprise fund?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 5
Atkins: No. It is...you cannot reduce transit, unless you choose to reduce the
transit levy. And the transit levy is not affected by the actions of the
state in their reductions. Our $8.10 levy, transit you'll recall is a 95
cent levy specifically set aside for the purposes of financing public
transportation. Now later on there's a 25 cent fair proposal for the
shuttle. That's okay. In your options there's an elimination of the
shuttle service. That would be off the table also because unless you
choose to...if you choose to reduce those services for the purpose of
tax reduction they have no direct effect on our 810 problem. You're
all familiar with that many, many times.
Vanderhoefi While you're talking about...
Atkins: Yep.
Vanderhoef: ...these things it crossed my mind this afternoon when I was going
over there another time and I was looking specifically at the
transportation dollars for road and so forth and road use tax.
Atkins: Right. Road use tax is generally health.
Vanderhoef: How much do we have to match on road use tax?
Atkins: Nothing.
Vanderhoef: So conceivably we could have a savings if we eliminated from capital
improvement projects something that was being funded by road use
tax and put it into another project where we were putting some general
fund dollars or GO dollars.
Atkins: Yes. For capital purposes the answer is yes. Road use tax is specified
by the constitution on what it can be used for.
Vanderhoef: Okay.
Atkins: It cannot be used for public transit for example. It can be used for
roads, right-of-way improvements things such as that.
Vanderhoefi But if it's GO then...
Atkins: Yeah. You can substitute it as long as it meets the road use tax
definition.
Vanderhoef: Right. Which still doesn't help our general fund.
Atkins: No it doesn't help the general fund.
Vanderhoef: But it lowers our tax asking.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 6
Atkins: That's correct.
Lehman: Well I think tonight we're really worried about general fund.
Champion: Right.
Atkins: Tonight is your $8.10 levy is critical. And I'm telling you that to the
best of my knowledge this moment with the additional state aid and
federal aid that we would hopefully receive then this proposal - the
Saturday elimination is off the table.
Lehman: Transit is off the table. Alright. Let's go back to start over.
O'Donnell: Good.
Wilburn: So we haven't even done anything and we're already $180,000...
Atkins: You haven't done anything and you're $180,000 in the hole.
Lehman: Mathematics are perfect Ross.
Wilburn: Well there you go.
Vanderhoefi Well then that means SEATS is off the table too.
Atkins: Not necessarily. Very limited because SEATS is paid for substantially
by the transit levy that's correct.
Vanderhoefi But if we offer service then we're mandated to provide the other.
Atkins: Yes. That's correct.
Vanderhoef: So basically...
Atkins: It's practically off the table.
O'Donnell: It is off the table.
Pfab: There's one point...
Vanderhoef: Sunday would be the only time.
Pfab: ...I didn't get...
Vanderhoefi Sunday service.
Pfab: ...and Dee and you were discussing here. You talk about in number
three budget reductions which is the PIN grants and you talked about
fight-of-way improvements etc.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 7
Atkins: Right.
Pfab: Is there...is that someplace where the funds coming from the
state...road use tax is there a way to put any of that money to...?
Atkins: Yes there is. And I'll go over that when we come to number three.
Lehman: Let's start and go through these. And then we'll go back and discuss
the ones that we have questions on.
Atkins: Okay. Now I'm going to move, you know, fairly quickly. I think the
important thing is that particularly those that if there's a lot of
disagreement on...and remember what we don't approve we've got to
find somewhere else. And we're already poked a hole in it.
Lehman: Steve, before...
Atkins: Sure.
Lehman: At what point do we have to have found this 1.8 million dollars?
Atkins: March of next year. But all it does is accumulate. My point is that
you need to figure this out now. If we're going to phase this and stage
it over a period of 18 months. I need to know right away.
Lehman: But you would like to start the phasing prior to the first of July?
Atkins: Let me give you a...yeah maybe...let me give you an example. In the
original Saturday busing proposal we currently have in transit three
vacancies - soon to be three vacancies. So run Saturday service is
three people. So we would have been able if you choose to do so
eliminate the Saturday service, eliminate the positions. Nobody get
laid off. No unemployment expense. Now since transit if off the table
I would be instructing Joe you may go ahead and recruit, hire, fill
those positions because right now we're running that service in effect
at more expensive time - call backs over time. That's managed
attrition. As you know the people you want to quit don't. So there
would be cimumstances where we would go ahead and plan to fill
positions. And the transit cimumstance is really truly was coincidental
that we had two quits and another one coming up very shortly. Yes,
Steve?
Karmer: And part of your plan might be that if there are these three openings
perhaps there's people in other departments that have a license that
could drive a bus...
Atkins: That's correct Steve.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 8
Kanner: ...then you might encourage them to move into those three positions.
Atkins: If you give me the heads up on these we will post those internally.
And I believe that's our requirement for labor agreements anyway
Steven. So the folks that might feel some jeopardy to their
employment could be looking at these. It works in the same...that's
the basic principle. You've got it. That's how we want to make this
work. Okay. Ernie you know it's one of those things where you can
take as long as you want. But it's just going to get more and more
painful because we are going to be spending money we don't have.
Lehman: Well no, no.
Atkins: We spend down our reserves for a short period of time with the
understanding that the bottom line our expenses are ultimately in 18
months going to be reduced by 1.8 million dollars because we have got
to have a balanced budget. You have no choice in that matter.
Lehman: But do we have to take some sort action prior to the first of July?
Because the budget we certified obviously is not an accurate budget
anymore.
Atkins: Oh, yes it is. No, the budget you certified is certified. The state has
not undone any of that. That's all done.
Lehman: But the income side has got to be...
Atkins: Well that's where they get to choose.
Lehman: Oh, alright. Go ahead. We're just batting our gums. Let's move
along.
Champion: Yeah, let's go.
Atkins: Well I like to think of batting your gums...
Lehman: You've got more teeth than I do. Go ahead.
Atkins: Anyway the first proposal was that we would eliminate an Associate
Planner position. It will result in some delay in the Comprehensive
Code Update. We had anticipated that this position would likely be
vacated in the fiscal year '04 because of the circumstances surrounding
doing the Code. It's simply fortuitous for us and let's take advantage
of it. The second item is the neighborhood newsletters, printing,
mailing. We have...it's not a large budget, but it's an instrument that
the neighborhoods have used. Some of them are quite good about
getting their newsletters themselves. They do their own fundraisers.
We would be encouraging the web page use. Each neighborhood is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 9
going to be a little different. This is an unfortunate one, but. Three -
we have PIN grants. You're all familiar with those projects in
neighborhoods. It came from the general fund. Many of the
projects...or I should say some of the natures of the projects could
likely be funded with a road use tax monies, street right-of-way, trails,
bikeways, things of that nature. I would be proposing to you that if
you do agree to eliminate the general fund contribution that we will go
back and see if we can redesign that. It's a very popular program as
you all know and see that it would be strictly street related. Four is our
ICAD contribution. We pay $50,000 year as a contribution. It's been
that way for at least 10 years. I want you to note that we've relied
more and more on ICAD for our economic development policy.
We've already had one position empty in the Planning Department that
we did not fill. Transfer those responsibilities to our Community
Development Coordinator. I don't think this is a major issue in the
sense of our not getting our dollars worth from ICAD, but it is
symbolic of the fact that we are pecking away at economic
development policy in the wrong direction. Five, six, seven and eight
were a group of proposals that the Library Director and I worked out
together. They are other than the full-time position, they're not large
numbers, but the importance is they create new bases. An example
might be the library and materials budget which traditionally ran about
$350,000 a year would be reduced to $335,000 and in the future that
would become the new base for inflation adjusted. So we bring it
down, keep it down and then it can grow later on. Nine is a little
unusual and it's going to take some more work. A suggestion was
made that the library commercial space, that is that additional space
you'll recall was built in for future expansion - instead of the income
from that space when it's fully leased that it be applied to the general
fund and not to our debt service fund. We already have the debt in
place. This is one of those issues that it just simple new income to
general fund if you were to accept it. It shows zero in the first year
simply because it's not ready. And as our best guess on '05. Steve?
Kanner: So our debt payment does not include these lease payments, proposed
lease payments and also do they not include the fundraising efforts by
the foundation?
Atkins: Fundraising effort would...yeah there's still a fundraising effort
underway by the foundation to help pay down a portion of the library's
debt.
Kanner: But so far our payments do not...
Atkins: Our payments are in the debt service.
Kanner: ...do not include an assumption of getting those.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 10
Atkins: That's correct. We're working on how to do that about the time the
legislature decided to do with it.
Wilbum: Then we had to presume that it wouldn't be...at least that there would
be no income, that you incur the debt and if we have the benefit of
leasing it out.
Atkins: You lost me. Try me again Ross.
Wilburn: Didn't we presume that that debt is going to be them and if there's able
to be fundraising and if we're able to lease it out then...
Atkins: Yes. The library debt is fixed. We've sold the bonds. It's in place.
It's in your debt service. It's being paid for. The library as a board
stepped up and said we will be contributing also to it. This then was
an addition.
Wilburn: I remember that conversation.
Atkins: Okay.
Vanderhoef: Excuse me.
Atkins: Yes.
Vanderhoef: Can you go to number 7 and just clarify for me?
Atkins: Yes.
Vanderhoef: You say eliminate one FTE position.
Atkins: Yes.
Vanderhoef: Does that mean one of the two that were added in the present?
Atkins: Yes. They will go down one position.
Vanderhoefi So you're saying that library is still getting one new FTE?
Atkins: Yes they would. Yes.
Kanner: And technically these have to be approved by their board - the library
board.
Atkins: Yeah. I didn't and I apologize for that. Thank you Steve for pointing
that out. I did not run these by boards. We just simply did not have
the time to get this information assembled. I'm pretty sure Susan
spoke with members of her Board when she was putting together her
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 11
proposals. And I don't believe they've officially taken action on the
thing. They were just simply notified of what was going on. And the
answer is yes I'm sure Susan will be reviewing her staff and making
whatever decision she has to make, but ultimately has to be blessed by
her board. Susan is nodding her head yes. Item 10 a program began in
2000 -that's the parking reimbursement. We all know Susan's
consistent complaint that is not her consistent complaint, but the
complaint that is consistent to Susan is about downtown parking.
They had a program whereby they were providing an elimination of
reimbursement. 11 - we would reduce the compliment of Police
Officer personnel by 5. We currently have 74 uniformed officers. We
have I believe 5 CSOs. What I had the Chief do and remember these
are worse case scenarios that if through reductions in other positions
they can accomplish the $250,000 projected reduction we will consider
that. The same with additional revenues. We believe the immediate
impact with the vacancies that we have and those that are pending are
that the DARE program would be gone. We would not do that
anymore. That much of our community relation activities would be
eliminated. We have reduced patrol strength as well as investigative
work. The Department is currently working on as are all of the
departments that have full-time - that's Parks and Rec, Finance I've
given them the option of trying to put together other possibilities to
help, but it has to be a permanent reduction. Yes Dee.
Vanderhoef: Okay. When you say the DARE program. It's only available right
now in Regina.
Atkins: That's right. It's gone.
Vanderhoef: But when you talk about community relations you're talking also
about officers going in for that Michigan program.
Atkins: Yes, neighborhood watch, Michigan model, yeah R.J. is nodding. It
has another name - the Michigan model is the term the school district
uses now for their DARE training.
Vanderhoef: So it's equivalent of the...
Atkins: It's an equivalency. Yes. Thank you.
Vanderhoef: Okay. So they both go away.
Atkins: Yes.
Vanderhoef: Okay.
Atkins: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 12
O'Donnell: Steve you're talking reduced patrol strength and investigative work.
Atkins: Yeah.
O'Donnell: That's a concern of mine.
Atkins: Okay and I don't doubt that it is. I mean...
O'Donnell: And I'll note that.
Atkins: In five years ago we were able to raise our compliment of officers.
We're now...well we're losing ground in virtually all of our operating
departments. Again just like on the next one where it says Parks and
Recreation Terry the Department Director has a 2 FTE reduction he
has to make or $80,000 - show me other options. We can bring those
back to you. I mean I prefer being able to move fairly quickly on
some of these things as they come along. But I've given the directors
goals. If you can't get me this is the consequence. This is what you
have to do is reduce personnel to this extent. It is...so you know
there's 21 positions in the general fund that could eventually be
eliminated.
Vanderhoefi Steve?
Atkins: Yes.
Vanderhoefi On the police officers I just read recently that it appears that the COPS
program is going to get reinstated in the new budget.
Atkins: Yep.
Vanderhoef: If we were to have reductions by attrition and the COPS program
showed up again is that a possibility?
Atkins: It is a possibility. Traditionally the feds don't like - they use the word
supplant, offset what would normally be our expense with their
money. We will have a hard time matching it. As I think many cities
will have a hard time.
Vanderhoef: It's 25/75 - is that what it is?
Atkins: 25/75 yes R.J. is nodding yes it is.
Kanner: That didn't include benefits. It was actually closer probably to 60/40.
Atkins: 60/40. Yeah. That was the old program. If they've got a new
program I've picked up smattering of information.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 13
Vanderhoefi I have too.
Atkins: It will be difficult for us to participate in that because once you hire the
folks you have an obligation to demonstrate to the Federal government
that they receive a priority in your funding.
Kanner: And this might not just sworn police officers, but other personnel
possibly?
Atkins: Yes. I've given R.J. the option of looking at other possibilities, but he
knows full well that we have to go to the $250,000 goal in permanent
reductions anddor it translates into five uniformed personnel. That
would be the worst case scenario. Same for Terry...for Parks and
Recreation - two full time equivalents. They're going through the
process of trying to figure out where they might come from. Moving
on reduce all Community Events and Aid to Agencies by 10%. We
recently sent out letter just before the legislature did their thing. I'm
proposing that we would send another letter out and if we agreed to
pay $750 we would have to pay them $675. That's what that means.
14 - Public Works - same basic principle as Parks and Rec and the
Police. 15 - same principle. 16- Housing Authority...
Kanner: Steve?
Atkins: Yes.
Kanncr: So you're saying for like Aid to Agencies (can't hear) 10% this year
and then after that total we do another 10%.
Atkins: That creates a new base, pulls it down again. That's correct.
Kanner: Almost 20%.
Atkins: It's almost 20% over 2 years. That's right Steve. 16 is the Housing
Authority is going to be charged for housing...this is a...the £ederal
government requires housing inspections. They're called Housing
Quality Standards. We are going to be billing for part of the clerical
time to the feds which is our Housing Authority which is as you know
99% federally funded. Item number 17 is Housing Inspection. There
are two options shown here. I show in our total the first option
recalling about two years ago or only a year ago we increased fees 20
plus percent. If we were to increase them by 42% or an additional
$93,000 a year the Housing Inspection Division would be fully self-
supporting. There is an option on the table for the additional inspector
which you've talked about. That would require 66% increase. I've
only shown the $90,000 for budget balancing purposes. 18 we skip.
19 is pretty straight forward. Yes?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 14
Lehman: Just a minute. If$145,000 represents two-thirds of the inspection
budget is that what I'm reading here?
Champion: The increase.
Atkins: Increase it - an increase of 60% in the fee itself Emie. We wouldn't...
Lehman: Oh never mind.
Atkins: ...to fully fund it and hire a new person we...
Lehman: Apparently we're not coming close to covering our costs.
Atkins: No. It's been...no the Housing program is about 70/30 - 70/30 fees.
Now building inspection has always paid its way.
Lehman: Alright.
Atkins: Yes Sir.
Pfab: How much if we fully funded that what would be a cost for a rental
unit?
Atkins: W~aat number is that again I'm on? Excuse me.
Kanner: 17.
Lehman: 17.
Pfab: It looks like you'd have $145,000 divided by 1200... 12,000... 1200
whatever.
Atkins: The current fee schedule is $78 per structure. The proposed fee
schedule would take it to $110.
Pfab: That is including...
Atkins: That's option 1.
Pfab: Okay.
Atkins: Option 2...
Pfab: Which is the $145,000.
Atkins: ...is the bigger one.
Pfab: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 15
Lehman: That's per structure.
Pfab: Right.
Kanner: Are you talking about the building or...
Atkins: Structure, the building itself. Yeah.
Kanner: So are we talking about rental inspections?
Atkins: Yeah.
Lehman: That fee is the same for a duplex as it is for an apartment building of
24 units?
Atkins: Now we can move single families and duplexes from three year to two
year cycles. We can do a number of things.
Lehman: But the building inspection fee is the same regardless of the size of the
building?
Atkins: Building inspection...you mean housing inspection.
O'Donnell: Duplex versus 24-plex.
Lehman: You just said the building fee.
Atkins: I'm sorry. I meant to say the current housing inspection fee.
Lehman: Right, but that...
Atkins: ...is $78...
Lehman: ...you said per building.
Atkins: Okay. for Housing Inspection Division to be fully funded by the
revenue for staffing level to remain the same the division would need
to increase its fees by 41% - $93,000 current fee, schedule for housing
$78 per structure, 11.50 per unit or $2.75 per bedroom.
Lehman: But there is a per structure fee and apparently that's the same whether
it's a duplex or it's a 16-plex.
Champion: (Can't hear).
Lehman: No, I know that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 16
Atkins: Current - I mean I can get this in a lot more detail - current fees
assessed for the typical 12-plex structure with four bedrooms is $348
every two years.
Pfab: And it would be 66% increase. It would go from where to what?
O'Donnell: From $93 to $145.
P fab: No.
Champion: That's how much money we would make.
O'Donnell: That's what the 66% is.
Atkins: We can go to option 2.
Lehman: $572 from $360 Irvin.
Atkins: We can go to option 2 also by rescheduling and putting all single
family and duplex schedules on a two year inspection cycle which we
could do with the additional inspector. So you create more money by
going to two years rather than three years. How about I put this
together in a little more detail.
Lehman: Yes.
Vanderhoef: I think so. Thank you.
Pfab: But I guess the question is is there an interest in having the Housing
Inspection Division be something full funded.
Lehman: Self supported?
Atkins: Yeah I think that's a question you need to ask yourself once we get
through all these because that is the bottom line question Irvin is will it
pay for itself. Okay - 25 cent fare on the downtown shuttle. It
generates about $30,000 a year. All of our training and education
policies will be redone. This effects virtually all operations -
everybody. That training and education we will be encouraging
participation in programs where they are called train the trainer.
Which is we can have our folks trained, bring them back. Review all
out-of-state travel with respect to training and education. We will be
discouraging city participation in leadership roles in professional
associations by our employees. We feel $75,000 is conservative. We
could probably do better. 22 - building inspection fees...
Kaimer: What's the current figure on that?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 17
Atkins: Our total travel and training budget Steve?
Kanner: Yeah.
Atkins: I don't know.
Helling: It's approaching $500,000.
Atkins: Is it?
Helling: Total. Yeah.
Atklns: For all funds?
Helling: Right for everything.
Atkins: Okay.
Champion: Does that include like policeman and fireman?
Atkins: Everybody.
Lehman: Everybody.
Atkins: Everybody.
Kanner: And City Council.
Atkins: Yes.
Helling: Yes I think about 75 - 80 percent of that would be general funded.
Atkins: We can get you a specific number on that. Increase building
inspection fees by $70,000. As I said that's a division that has
traditionally funded itself or been a money maker because our billing
activity has been as good as it is.
Champion: Steve can you just tell me what the difference between Housing
Inspector and a Building Inspector?
Atkins: Yes. Building Inspector is construction related.
Champion: Oh. So when I build my porch and they come out.
Atkins: You get a building inspector. If you have a rental housing unit it's a
different code. Many cities have building codes Connie and do not
have housing codes. That's...I mean it's fairly common now, but they
are very distinct with respect to their responsibilities.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 18
Kanner: And you're saying we're bringing in more than 100% of the cost?
Atkins: Yes.
Kanner: Could you give us eventually those figures to?
Atkins: Sure. Hang on a second Steve I'll get that for you. What number is
that?
Kanner: 22.
Atkins: 22.
Champion: Is that included when you get the building permit then?
Lehman: Right.
Atkins: Yep
Champion: Okay.
Atkins: That will give you some idea. With the new rates we are still very
comfortable with respect to all of the other communities. Ours are not
extraordinary rates.
Kanner: Where's our current?
Lehman: Next to the bottom line up there.
Kanner: Oh. Hold that up. Iowa City's current is 860 for all...
Atkins: Current for $150,000 house is $1160. We propose to go to $1360. I'll
give you this chart.
Vanderhoefi Okay.
O'Dormell: Steve 21 just a quick question. Does this travel does that include
Council travel?
Atkins: I'm making the assumption. You'll decide on how you want to do
that, but I'm assuming that you will make similar reductions that
everybody else will.
Champion: If we charged 25 cents for the shuttle, can that go into the general
fund.
Atkins: Yes.
Champion: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 19
Atkins: We're not sure on that number. We've also noticed...it's getting close
to the point where we're not even sure we need to run the north route
anymore. We just simply don't get hardly any traffic. The south route
is packed all the time.
Vanderhoefi So that could eliminate one bus when we...
Atkins: I'm not sure exactly how it would work. I just asked Joe to try to
figure that out for me - that there might be some way he can do that.
Vanderhoefi Because at least at peak time didn't we add a second one going south?
Atkins: Yeah we had to. They were stuffed in there yeah. It's a popular
service.
Vanderhoef: And we are stopping it for the summer again?
Atkins: Yes. We've stopped for the summer. Yeah routinely we do that.
Okay where was I? Okay Saturday night concerts I'm going to ask
that that get pulled off as well. They have entered into a contract for
Saturday night concerts and they would have to pay a penalty. We can
drop it for fiscal year '05. I think we have...I just believe we have an
obligation that they in good faith went out and entered into those
agreements.
Champion: Just the Saturday night concerts.
Atkins: Yes. The Friday night is still go. This is the Saturday night concerts.
Lehman: And it comes off in '04.
Champion: It starts in '05.
Atkins: No it would have come off...we had it budgeted for '04 at $8,000. I'm
saying leave it in.
Lehman: For '04.
Atkins: Take it off in '05.
Lehman: Right so it comes off '04.
Kanner: When we budget $8,000 for '04 does that figuring that's the whole
summer? How do we have '03 figured in because we split the series.
Atkins: Well there's two distinct programs Steve. There's a Friday night
concert series and then there's a Saturday night. Saturday night is I
think it's $8600. I see Kevin is nodding his head. I remembered that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 20
number. $8600 and it is intended for the Just Jazz Saturday night only.
It does not have an effect on Friday.
Kanner: No, no but I'm talking about our budget year goes right in the middle
of the summer.
Atkins: Oh.
Kanner: And so when we say $8,000 in '04 are we planning that covers the
whole year starting in June? Starting a month earlier when the series
starts.
Atkins: The '04 expense of $8,000 we permit them as we historically have
done to commit it prior to the beginning of the budget. July lSt...July
1st the budget officially begins. And we permit them to go ahead. We
will in effect cover that because we've routinely done the thing. It's
always a couple months behind.
Kanner: So our '04 budget is covering their '03 their whole season.
Atkins: Yes. You've got it. Okay. 24 - we have a Parkland Acquisition Fund
$320,000. I'm proposing it be reduced to $50,000. These funds then
would become a general fund revenue in '04, '05 and '06 in the
amount of $100,000, $100,000 and $70,000 respectively. This
eliminates the certain capital project contributions and it means
financing the Master Plan proposed for Parks and Recreation. Yes
Sir?
Pfab: That brings up something. Was there a change enacted into law with
the Governor's signature that changed some gifts to certain
organizations from tax deductible?
Atkins: I'm not aware of it Irvin. I mean...
Pfab: There's something going on.
Atkins: If you think of it more specifically. I don't recall anything like that.
Pfab: It either takes away the tax benefit to the giver or I don't know.
Lehman: Steve? Go ahead.
Pfab: No.
Atkins: If you think of it we can certainly run it up for you.
Lehman: Item 24 is not a permanent sort of thing. This only gives us $100,000
each of the next two years and $70,000 the third year.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 21
Atkins: That's right.
Lehman: I mean this is sort of a stopgap until you can find something else. I
mean really is that not correct?
Atkins: Yeah it is.
Lehman: Okay.
Atkins: And you'll see that in a couple of the others that aren't the same flow
of income. Now in one of our options we do repay the Parkland
Acquisition Fund for some internal borrowing and that monies would
continue to accumulate bringing it back up. Item 25...
Kanner: Wait and what was the cost of the Parks and Rcc Master Plan?
Atkins: 60...$60,000.
Kanner: So you're saying this would eliminate...
(End of Tape 03-41, Beginning of Tape 03-44)
Atkins: ...the state legislature authorizes the increase. They've given us...they
took the $5 cap off. There were staff discussions about raising parking
tickets to $10.
Champion: I don't think so.
Atkins: I didn't think so either. And so we thought $5 would be a good
proposal for you. There are some other changes in the laws about our
escalating clauses we have to change our ordinances on that. Many of
these will require you to make some changes. Yes Sir?
Pfab: When was the last time our parking fees were adjusted...parking
fines?
Atkins: Well they've been...oh I can't remember.
Pfab: Maybe a rather substantial thing may be in order.
Atkins: Well there was...
Pfab: To catch up with inflation
Atkins: There was one group of thought when we were discussing this as a
Staff that why do you care what a parking fine is as long as you pay
the meter...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 22
P fab: Right.
Atkins: ...you're not exposed to it.
Pfab: Because the meter funds would increase.
Atkins: Well...
Champion: But there's more to it than that.
Atkins: And there was more to it than that and that group didn't prevail in the
discussion. Connie wasn't there.
Champion: This isn't Chicago.
Vanderhoef: It also though encourages people to use the ramps.
Atkins: Ramps. Yes it does.
Lehman: Or other communities.
O'Donnell: That's a good point.
Champion: Well, you know, it's not easy to get into ramps about 11:00 in the
morning. Both ramps are really full.
Atkins: Item 26 the hotel/motel tax contribution we are proposing that it be
reduced from 25% to approximately 20% or $37,000. Item 27 - we
funded the public power study - the one we currently have underway
from fiscal year '03 monies. We had $50,000 in for any future studies
or any follow up particularly such as litigation if you chose to consider
this proposal any further. Item 28...
Vanderhoef: Excuse me.
Atkins: Yes.
Vanderhoef: Would... since we had in the '03 budget the $50,000.
Atkins: No we did not have anything in '03.
Lehman: We didn't have anything.
Atkins: Zero in '03. We had to go to contingency because that contract.
Remember that?
Vanderhoefi That's right. Okay. So if we hold it at the $18,000 then we have
$32,000 plus?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 23
Lehman: No.
Atkins: No, you have $50,000 budgeted in '04.
Lehman: We budgeted it.
Vanderhoef: Additional?
Atkins: Yes.
Lehman: Right.
Vanderhoefi Above the $18,000.
Atkins: Because remember the budget was happening about the same time the
study was happening.
Vanderhoef: But I thought the $18,000 came out of the $50,000 that we budgeted.
Lehman: No.
Champion: No.
Atkins: No it did not. Indirectly you can say it did. But we...there was
$50,000 inthe budget. That's what was there.
Kanner: Just a follow-up on what Dee was saying. So in fiscal year '03 and '04
there was $68,000 essentially in the budget?
Atkins: Essentially yes from the contingency plus the appropriation. That's
fight.
Kanner: There was no plan to pay back that $18,000?
Atkins: No, I did not put that in. Cable revenues paid to the general fund
during the course of the budget year we are going to budget...current
budget review for the '04 we proposed a small amount of money
coming from there. I proposing that the increased from $30,000 to
$100,000.
O'Donnell: Steve what's the total budget there?
Atkins: $600,000. 29 - reduce fire staff from 59 to 55. The Department is
currently one over staff. We have an authorized strength of 58. In '02
we hired six new firefighters in anticipation of the 9 we were going to
have for the fourth station. The station is now on indefinite hold. And
we would propose a reduction of the one over staff plus three or four
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 24
personnel. Again with the same principle we're still trying to stay a
little bit ahead. We had been at 52. This would put us at 55.
Champion: This is...have we purchased the land for the fire...?
Atkins: No we have not. I've asked Andy to continue pursuing that. I believe
at the very least we should purchase the land in anticipation it may not
be this Council, but somebody will need to deal with that. And we are
doing sketches on...for it. And 30 is we're going to get great bids and
it's going to not snow for awhile and assorted other things and we're
going to save some more money.
Champion: No flooding.
Atkins: No flooding.
Champion: No wind storms.
Atkins: Nope. Not going to happen. Not going to happen.
Kanner: On cable revenue what are their reserves looking like. How much are
they putting away?
Atkins: Kevin would you...can you look that up for me? Kevin is looking it
up. Okay that's the 30...the meat and potatoes of it.
Lehman: Well why don't we go back and go through these and one by one
decide which ones are going to be acceptable and which ones we need
to discuss. I mean we've all read these and now we've gone through
them one more time. Let's start out with the first one.
O'Donnell: What a good idea.
Lehman: Well yeah we haven't done anything yet.
O'Donnell: You're right.
Lehman: The Associate Planner is the first one.
Pfab: If you start out with one is that somebody that has to be laid off?.
Atkins: No.
Champion: No.
Atkins: No we're not anticipating that.
Pfab: (Can't hear).
· ° n
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcnptio of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 25
Lehman: Irvin I think the whole concept of this entire plan is not laying
anybody off.
Atkins: Can I summarize this for you if I could please?
Lehman: Yes.
Atkins: What we're doing is different than I think all the other cities are doing.
We're making the assumption that because of our financial strength
we're going to manage our way out of this. We're not going to rush.
That doesn't mean that you don't have to make the difficult decisions.
But with a little luck and some forethought we can accomplish the
reductions that have to made. But it does require a little luck and it
does require you giving me and the department directors certain
discretion with respect to for example filling vacancies. Okay. I mean
for example we anticipate 25 retirees in the next...or will be eligible.
We can't make them retire. But clearly that got factored in. Our
turnover rate - our turnover rate has declined. Three years ago it was
in the 7 - 8 percent. That's changes employment. As the economy got
worse, turnover dropped. We're in the 5 - 5 ½ now. But that still
means that during the course of the year in our general fund about 30
positions become vacant - positions. Some of them will have to be
filled. Yes Sir.
Karmer: In regards to number 1. You're talking about the Comprehensive Plan
review where at first we went to an outside...
Atkins: Yes.
Kanner: ...independent contractor and we decided to do this in-house.
Atkins: Yes.
Kanner: Will this also affect our work on the Comprehensive Plan - the
different sections, the districts?
Atkins: It should not. We're making a deliberate effort not to do that. Now if
the review process for the Code begins to take on extraordinary
amounts of time and you request additional reports and such
information we may have to assign some time. But our hope is not to
affect our district planning process. That's our desire.
Lehman: Number one really is the retirement of the extra person that we've
hired to do...
Atkins: In effect.
Lehman: ...the Code. So it really does not reflect a reduction in Planning.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 26
Vanderhoef: Well we still have the one that we rolled together.
Lehman: I mean really...
Atkins: Yeah okay Emie. I understand your point.
Lehman: ...this is person we hired for a job. The job is going to be done.
They're going to be gone anyway.
Atkins: I can accept that. I can accept that. Yes Sir?
Pfab: Is there any way - and I'm not discussing this one here - but is there a
way for this department to generate funds either in general fund or to
themselves.
Atkins: Yes. And when we want to do the options we talk about that. We can
generate income in there by planned developed fees and things like
that.
Lehman: Are we all in concurrence on number one?
Champion: Yes.
Lehman: Which all it does is mean when the job is done the person who did the
job will no longer be required. Alright. Number 2.
O'Donnell: Fine.
Kaimer: I think I mostly agree with eliminating this, but I just wanted to clarify.
We got a memo about where the process is...
Atkins: Yep just recently.
Lehman: Right.
Kanner: ...maybe two or three sections where at P&Z a few were at draft, a
few were getting ready to be sent to Council. Are we saying that
we're going to finish those out - all those?
Atkins: Yes.
Kanner: Or are we going to stop right where it's at?
Atkins: No, we're not going to stop date it. We're going to finish that out for
you.
Lehman: We may drag it out.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 27
Atkins: And then when you have it Steven if you ask a thousand questions and
we have to do...not you in particular, but you know.
Vanderhoef: We've got some that haven't even been started on.
Atkins: Yeah. We'll get it finished. We will get it finished.
Kanner: So it is going to finish then. Okay.
Lehman: The only thing it may take a little longer is what I read here. Alright
number 1 are we in concurrence? Okay. Number 2.
Champion: Well I have a little bit of problems with this because not everybody
has a computer and some of our neighborhoods that have actually
quite active neighborhood newsletters a lot of those people don't have
computers at home. ! think they ought to be allowed. I mean I can see
reducing the amount of money like cutting it in half so at least they can
send out two correspondences a year. It is...I think it's important that
neighborhoods communicate. We've worked a long time - I don't
mean me - I mean the City has worked a long time to build these
neighborhoods and to build these associations and they've become
very effective as a group. They've become very effective. And I think
it would undermine them to eliminate all the neighborhood
newsletters. So I think we should fund part ofit.
Pfab: I'm going to even go a little step farther - not that I don't agree with
you Connie because I think there are some ways that (can't hear).
Let's suppose we don't touch this money. And I would say (can't
hear).
Champion: I'm willing to touch it.
Pfab: Okay.
Champion: But I'm not willing to eliminate it.
Pfab: Okay what. 30%, 40% Connie?
Champion: Cut it in half. I would say in half to $8,000.
Atkins: Can I say? If you can't come to some reasonably quite conclusion you
might want to move on. You can come back.
Vanderhoef: Well let's put that as a possibility because when we get to the options
that's where were going to be able to make some other cuts some other
place.
Atkins: You may be able to make some tradeoffs. Yeah.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 28
O'Donnell: You could do that or either try to make a decision.
Lehman: Well I don't have a problem...I mean I think neighborhoods obviously
the more they talk to each other the more they're going to get done and
I'm not so sure that we couldn't expect people in the neighborhoods to
be visiting with each other and eliminate the newsletter. I don't have
that much of a problem with it.
Atkins: A newsletter is an important element to communicate and I don't mean
to make light of it, but one of the early ideas when we developed this
policy 12, 13 years ago was that my goodness if you're exchanging
recipes and babysitter lists you're at least getting to know each other
and you know who's in your neighborhood. And just that kind of
communication is really...
Champion: And they communicate their neighborhood (can't hear).
Atkins: Yes and some of our neighborhoods are very, very good about that.
Champion: And you know like the Longfellow neighborhood is very active and
they do their garden spring thing. I mean they sent that money to
another neighborhood who didn't have the economic...I mean I think
it's...I don't think it should be totally eliminated.
Atkins: I don't sense consensus on that one Ernie.
Lehman: I don't either.
Atkins: Okay. Three?
Lehman: I have no problem with number three.
Wilbum: Which is you're suggesting really is by going to road use tax it's going
to narrow the type of use.
Atkins: Very narrow focus on what you can do. Yeah and that means it will
eliminate some neighborhoods.
Kanner: Actually...three I think is more important than number 2 because this
is the real empowerment thing for the neighborhoods. In fact I think
ultimately we need to think about how we can increase it and let the
neighborhoods make some decisions. This they have just a few dollars
and they're doing some good things like Longfellow with the free
sidewalk or the help for the sidewalk repair for low-income. But...
Champion: Let's just put a big question mark by those.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 29
Pfab: I would be willing to back offof my objection to the (can't hear) to
protect number 3.
Atkins: I don't sense consensus on that either.
Wilbum: Three would also be one that I would be...
O'Donnell: It's too bad the two can't be combined.
Atkins: Okay. Let's move to 4 then so we can go back. Can you do 4?
Champion: Four I have no problem with.
Wilburn: Okay that's fine.
O'Donnell: Fine.
Pfab: I guess maybe I'd ask that is that adequate or is there more flexibility
there or after $5,000 reduction does it...you start seeing blood running.
Lehman: Well according to a letter we got today from ICAD our funding at
$50,000 is an 80 cent per capita investment. The other six
communities are funding at $1.25 a piece which we're at 3A of what
they are.
Pfab: But is this the case where we're also providing other goods in kind?
Atkins: No.
Lehman: No.
Atkins: No we don't other than Ernie and I serve on the Board Irvin, but that's
just by virtue of our positions.
Champion: But, we also have the most people.
O'Donnell: We're also the largest contributor.
Pfab: I have no objection with this then.
Champion: Right.
Atkins: Well the little green star means you approved it.
Vanderhoefi Per capita may be a better way to look at it.
O'DoImell: I don't think so.
Atkins: Five?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 30
Champion: Well I have problems with 5, 6, 7 and 8 when we have this huge,
wonderful, new library. But since Susan has come up with these as
possibilities I'll go along with it.
Atkins: I'll speak for Susan and the other directors. They all knew they had to
pitch in.
Champion: I know.
Atkins: Okay.
Lehman: But none of them really like it.
Atkins: Nobody likes this. Yeah.
Kanner: And I think with the library you have such heavy usage of people
going there that if there was a newsletter they can pick up newsletters
there and communication there. So I'm not as careful about losing
that.
Lehman: Are we okay with 5, 6, 7 and 8?
Kanner: Well I do have a question...
Vanderhoefi Well I do have a question too.
Kanner: ...about first of all the fines. What are the fines proposed.
Champion: I can tell you they're really cheap - the current ones.
Kanner: No, well what are - the new proposal?
Atkins: We don't have the proposals yet Steven. What we tried to do was just
simply say we will increase the base by some number to generate
$15,000 in income. It may be 13, it may be 16. Susan you're nodding
your head there. We just don't know exactly.
Susan Craig: Just about a little more than 10% of what we bring in right now.
Atkins: Okay it's a little mom than 10% of what we bring in - the $15,000. So
if we bring in about a $150,000 a year this is a 10% increase.
Lehman: Which is pretty minor.
Pfab: That's fine.
Champion: Can you explain what are the fees? It says library fines and fees -
what are the fees?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 31
Atkins: I assume we have certain charges for certain materials that we check.
out and they have to pay a fee for it.
Pfab: Cards.
Craig: Copy machine.
Atkins: Copy machines. I'll answer it. Copy machines says Susan.
Lehman: Alright. Are we okay on those?
Pfab: That's fine.
Karmer: Wait so you're saying all those 5...the library materials budget is...
Atkins: Five and six are expense reductions. 7 is an expense reduction. 8 is a
new revenue.
Kanner: What is 6 percentage reduction?
Atkins: $350,000 is approximately the library materials budget. You're going
to reduce it by $15,000.
Lehman: Not much.
Atkins: So you're talking about 4 ½%. Fair enough Susan? Okay.
Kanner: This traditionally goes up every year so the proposal is it will go up in
the next year?
Atkins: It will be 350. We'll back it off to 335 and then we'll begin to grow
again. It's a new base that's being created.
Vanderhoef: It grows with...
Pfab: I would take the...
Atkins: We have not substantially expanded that lump sum amount of money
for library materials over the last number of years. It's always been in
the $300,000 to $350,000 range. Correct?
Craig: It's had steady growth.
Atkins: It's steady growth.
Kanner: Well one of the reasons I assume we held back perhaps a little is we
didn't have the space to greatly increase the library.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 32
Atkins: Now we have lots more space. You can buy lots more books I suspect.
The timing is lousy.
Vanderhoef: But this is basically going to CPI type increase?
Atkins: Yes. Consumer Price Index. It's grown over the years generally
associated with a cost of particular materials. I assume CPI affects the
cost of a book just like it does a gallon of gas.
Champion: But also the library on their little pledge card has a place for materials
or endowment fund or...isn't that right there's option? I mean I think
they probably get other monies.
Vanderhoefi Well I'm going to mention hem also in a time like this and when we're
still looking for $180,000 and we're not real sure we're going to take
the complete cuts on some of those first ones already. To add a new
employee at this point in time I'm not interested in doing that.
Champion: I think you have to.
Vanderhoef: I've been thinking we had...
Champion: (Can't hear) that library.
Vanderhoefi ...we've been having to do that for quite some time in Parks and
Recreation. We've been needing it in Public Works and other places.
And to add one in this point in time I just don't see how we can afford.
Wilbum: Well those others we also didn't have a referendum where an
overwhelming number of folks said this is something that we want.
So...I see these five or these four as a toss up to offset adding that one
staff person.
Lehman: Well and there's also another one. You know number 10 really goes
into this as well. You're looking at $100,000 if you take 5, 6, 7, 8 and
number 10. $100,000 it's a pretty good hit. That really is a pretty
good hit. I mean that's not a fatal blow, but it's damaging.
Atkins: All of them are damaging.
Kanner: Does the elimination of the one full-time position effect the hours
possibly. Is that off the table?
Atkins: No, that was not on the table. We were going to do our best to
maintain the current hours to the fullest extent we can.
Lehman: I have heard other communities already around I don't know exactly
which ones have already mentioned curtailing library hours. So I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 33
mean if we're able and maintain...gosh it would be kind of a shame to
build an 18 million dollar library and then have it closed.
Wilbum: Yeah.
Pfab: I think our next item should be 11. Move on. I think what's there is
fine. I'm just putting that...
Atkins: Have you agreed to 5, 6, 7 and 8?
Wilbum: Yes.
Atkins: Is that correct Ernie?
Lehman: I think that's correct.
Atkins: Nine?
O'Donnell: Has everybody agreed to 5, 6, 7 and 8?
Atkins: No I don't think everybody has.
Lehman: Consensus.
Vanderhoef: ! think there's consensus.
Atkins: There' s consensus.
O'Donnell: I was hearing a couple...okay.
Atkins: More than four.
Lehman: Well I think there's more than four.
Champion: Yeah we don't operate by consensus. We operate by yes and no.
O'Donnell: Yeah. Fine.
Lehman: Well how many...5, 6, 7, and 8 1 believe we have one objector.
Atkins: Okay.
O'Donnell: It's hard to hear a nine.
Lehman: And I don't disagree with her objection except under the
circumstances ! don't think that we have any choice.
O'Donnell: I agree.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 34
Atkins: Okay.
Lehman: Alright. Is 9 okay?
Atkins: Now that's not going to be an immediate impact.
Lehman: No, I realize that, but it's...
Atkins: But it requires the preparation of an agreement between the City
Council and the library board.
Pfab: I think that's an interesting and valid change.
Lehman: Alright. Do we agree on 9?
O'Donnell: Yes.
Vanderhoef: I agree and if at any time we get so flush that we can pay off our debt
sooner we can do it.
Lehman: Do it right. Number 10 which is basically park and shop.
O'Donnell: Fine.
Atkins: Yeah it is.
Lehman: Are we in agreement on that?
Pfab: Yes.
Lehman: Okay. Number 11.
Champion: Well I'm not going to fight about it.
Lehman: Thank you. We're in agreement.
Champion: No. If we can find another revenue to cover that. Like I think (can't
hear) why don't we keep our meters on until 8:00?
Lehman: Well that's a whole number issue.
Champion: Well I know, but I'm thinking of another way to finance this.
Vanderhoef: Then we have to finance someone to...
Lehman: Meter maids and all that sort of thing.
Vanderhoef: ...finance...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 35
Champion: Well I think probably they (can't hear) parking tickets.
Atkins: There are so many small ones in here. I mean quite frankly folks
that's what we're down too.
Champion: It's the small ones I worry about.
Atkins: And they're the irritants...that's what we got down to.
Vanderhoef: The small ones are the ones that we've tried to save for quite a long
time because they're the things that most popular with the public.
Champion: The public.
Vanderhoef: And it's tough.
O'Donnell: Okay.
Lehman: We're on number 11.
Atkins: Number 11.
Lehman: Steve I believe that when we visited earlier we've added 12 officers in
10 years is that correct?
Atkins: We've added in the last five years...ifI could just stick with five years
because that was...
Lehman: Alright.
Atkins: We added 8 officers.
Lehman: I personally will go along with the recommendation. But my feeling is
that you would not have made this recommendation if there was nay
question whatsoever in our ability to provide emergency service and
take care of the needs of the community.
Atkins: Emie in an emergency we're top cabin.
Lehman: No, I'm saying we're not compromising public safety.
Atkins: No, we're not compromising. But I'm telling you that the
overwhelming majority of the calls are we stack up party complaints
and somebody is not going to get responded to as quickly as
they...when they pick up the phone I want you them and I want the
noise to stop. It doesn't...it won't happen that way. I think the other
thing is that R.J. is going to have to work on, and he's already started
on certain policies for investigation. For example we virtually do
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 36
anybody who's got a bad check we'll check it out. We may have to
draw a limit and say unless it's a dollar figure above...we just
can't...those are the kind of things that we're working on. I've also
R.J. as a director and the other directors is that he knows what that
goal is of $250,000. Now if we can get there by some other means,
but I have got to have so you understand the consequences. This is
sort of the worst case scenario is five uniformed officers. But we have
CSOs, we have dispatchers. We have other positions.
Unfortunately...you know we just signed a contract with University
Heights for some additional income. We were hoping to do some
more dispatch work. We don't think we can now. We'll have to look
at that. Yeah?
Pfab: Okay. We in five years we went...we added 8 officers from what to
what?
Atkins: Well we're at 74 now Irvin so minus 8 - 66 then.
Pfab: And I have a follow-up question on that one. Okay 66 to 74.
Atkins: In the early '90's we did hire another six under the COPS program.
Lehman: Right.
Pfab: Okay now what was our...the total budget increase in those five years?
Atkins: Oh I don't know Irvin. I'd have to calculate that.
Pfab: No, no in the sense that this is...we don't like this, but in the scheme
of things it's probably like you said this may be a worst case scenario.
Atkins: We budget very, very tightly. If you want to look at $250,000 is of the
operating budget of the Police Department it's about 3%.
Pfab: Okay so 3%.
Atkins: Now that doesn't seem like a lot, but folks that's a bunch when you
have so many fixed costs that you have to deal with.
Pfab: Of course we're going to get Homeland Security is going to...
Atkins: Sure we are. That's right Irvin.
Lehman: That's not permanent either.
Atkins: Pigs will fly too some day.
Pfab: If we could just find it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 37
Lehman: What's our pleasure on 11 ?
Champion: Fine.
Vanderhoef: Fine.
Wilbum: I'd say yeah. We're not the only community in the state and well the
country that's looking at reductions in police and fire and you saw that
on the news in the last couple of weeks.
O'Dounell: I have a problem reducing this, but I'm not going to win this one
Emie.
Lehman: I've got a problem with it too. I'm just willing to accept it because I
don't think we're going to compromise any public health and safety
doing it. It may be less convenient. We may be writing more tickets
on the first trip instead of warning to parties.
O'Donnell: I'm not sure that's right. I don't know if we are going to compromise.
Lehman: Well I don't...
Atkins: I can't make you promises folks. I mean other than we've had some
healthy growth in the department that was laid out over a number of
years. And we're going back. But remember, please remember,
courtesy of the state legislature we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for
that.
Champion: I mean if we okay this and problems arise I'm sure the Chief and the
City Manager will let us know that we have to find another place to cut
because this is not working.
Atkins: Yes. We're already working...you know we had a short period of
time to prepare it. We are working on other options. I mean one of
the things we're thinking about is citing under local ordinances
opposed to state where monies that would normally go to the state and
to the courts would come back to us. What that dollar figure is I don't
know. But that was one of R.J.'s ideas and he's working on it.
Champion: Maybe we can take some away from the state.
Atkins: Well we'll go for that.
Lehman: Okay. Number 12.
Atkins: Similar circumstances. When I did my five year analysis I was a little
surprised because I know the Parks and Recreation has had needs in
parks. But over the last five years we've added 3.9 positions.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 38
Vanderhoefi In Parks?
Atkins: In Parks and Recreation. At Recreation we had a clerk/typist. We had
a maintenance worker at half time at Scanlon. We had a new
maintenance worker for Parks. Then we had what works out to be
almost a full-time custodian which unfortunately...unfortunately is
part of the Parks and Recreation operation.
Vanderhoefi So we've gotten a half time on the maintenance out there on the front
lines where people see what's happening.
Atkins: And one Rec person yeah.
Pfab: I think also there is some good news if you have to get Kevin
Blevins's report of the way they were able to handle on-line...
Atkins: Kevin...oh Kent Blevins. Oh yes you all sawthat.
Pfab: I mean in other words using technology to help to do this. And I
thought that was a very interesting thing and I was glad he took it upon
himself to alert the public to it.
O'Donnell: I'm okay with this Emie.
Atkins: If it's any consultation Irvin I asked him to do that. So it didn't take it
upon himselfi Okay.
Kanner: Steve will this reduce hours anywhere?
Atkins: There is a very real possibility that could occur and that's one of the
options. Terry said I need to have the authority to do...to put that
together for me. And that will...if we do reduce hours...if there's a
dramatic change in service we'll come back to you. We have to
because likely you'll need some sort of ordinance or resolution to do
that.
Lehman: It could also result in some reprioritization. I mean Parks and
Recreation encompasses so much and there's a tremendous amount of
programming.
Atkins: Yes all the directors know that.
Lehman: Right and some of that may go away. And I think that brochure that
we mail out twice a year costs...I thought it cost $60,000. I asked
about that 10 years ago.
Atkins: That's a little high, but that's under consideration to be changed to
something.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 39
Lehman: I mean that's half of what the reduction is. I've been asked that we
take a short break. Right?
Vanderhoef: Right.
O'Donnell: Back at 8:30?
Lehman: Back at 8:00.
Atkins: Number 13. Community events, Aid to Agencies budgets.
Wilbum: I need to...
Lehman: Oh that's right.
Wilbum: Not discuss this due to a conflict of interest.
Vanderhoef: Do you want to split them?
Kanner: Well before you go though number 12.
Vanderhoefi Community events you can talk about.
Lehman: Wait a minute.
Wilbum: But you're talking about...
Kanner: Yeah before we do that...
Wilbum: So I can sit down?
Kanner: Well I'll probably be outvoted. At this time I do have some concerns
especially that's going to affect...it's a good chance it might affect
hours. And so I realize there might be a need for some cutback, but at
this time I'd like to see if there's other options that we could reduce
that. And perhaps you're idea of the brochure.
Champion: I'm sure that will be considered.
Karmer: Well this is talking about full-time...
Champion: No, the equivalent amount of money Steve. The Parks and Rec can
decide how to eliminate that much money from their budget any way
they want to.
Atkins: They've been given the worst case...you need to come up with this. If
you can't you're going to lose two full-time positions. Now they may
propose ideas that are good ideas, but just simply are not of a
permanent nature for whatever circumstance. But Steven for your
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 40
benefit one of the directions to the directors is minimal disruption of
service. And minimal means if the library is open from 10:00 to 6:00
on Tuesdays we're going to do our best to keep the library open from
I0:00 to 6:00. If for some reason all things get to be messy and Susan
has to say 11:00 to 6:00 then we owe you that one. We need to talk to
you about that. But that is a change in public service.
Lehman: We may have to revisit those...
Atkins: Yes you do.
Lehman: ...if we find that the changes are not acceptable.
Atkins: I mean I understand Steven's position of the thing, but just so you
have...that's an overriding principle we try to accomplish.
Kanner: But the reality is from what I've heard you say so far is that in the
library the number one priority is not cutting hours. Hem you're
saying it might not be number one, but it's very high and very likely
that hours would be cut.
Atkins: That's a correct assessment.
Kanner: I think there's a difference there so by going with this we're essentially
saying that we approve that. And I personally at this point in time
have some concems about that.
Vanderhoef: Well I agree with you on that one.
Champion: There are times they could...I mean if they do cut services I think
there are times they can do it. For example they could close the Rec
Center swimming pool on Sundays.
Atkins: We do that now. We did that last year.
Champion: They already did it last year. Because I take my grandchildren
swimming on Sundays and we were the only people there. You know.
Lehman: And when you weren't them it was full.
Champion: So I think there are times when services can be...I mean I miss it not
being open on Sunday because I have to go now to Mercer which I
hate because it's too crowded. But I mean I think there are times you
can do that.
Kanner: There are although opposite of perhaps what you're saying is I was
there when the Englert had their fundraiser. I was volunteering on
New Year's Eve. And they were closing it fairly early like 10:00 or
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 41
11:00 for New Year's Eve and I was thinking wouldn't it be great if
we could expand it actually because there are so many kids out there
that are looking for something to do. And this is a facility that's used
by people of all incomes. And I see it used all the time and by a
variety of people. And I just hate to see the possibility of the Rec
Center cutting back on hours or possibly the pool getting cut back on
hours. And I want to look at other options first before I commit to
this. So we might want to vote on it if that's how we're doing it.
Lehman: Okay. How many are in agreement with cutting the number 12 - the
equivalent of two full-time or approximately $80,000 which could be
in the form of two positions? It could be...my suspicion is if there are
curtailed hours of whatever it's going to come back to us, but...
Atkins: Okay 13 - reduce all Community Events and Aid to Agencies. Ross.
Kanner: Was that four to three?
Atkins: I counted four Steve. Five? Five not counting Irvin.
Lehman: I didn't count Irvin on that one.
O'Donnell: Irvin raised his hand. I think it was 5-2.
Atkins: Okay.
Champion: Who was the other one?
O'Donnell: Kanner and Vanderhoef.
Lehman: Right. Okay.
Wilbum: Speech time conflict of interest.
Lehman: Bye Ross.
Kanner: Although I did want to separate this out actually anyhow because I
have problems with the Agency one more than the community events
one. Can we talk about this in separate issues.
Atkins: It's okay with me.
Lehman: Community events first.
Atkins: Well community events I think you're familiar with what we funded -
Arts Festival, downtown association, Friday night concerts, Saturday
night concerts, Johnson County Historical Society, Jazz Fest. Those
are the things you funded. Those are your community events. And
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 42
then I think you're all familiar with the human service agencies. And I
was proposing the same 10% reduction for both.
Pfab: What was the percentage?
Lehman: 10%
Atkins: Now just to put this on the table you have $15,000 out there for some
youth employment. We have received three proposals. They came in.
I've told the Staff to sit on them until we talk about it.
Kanner: This is Aid to Agencies.
Atkins: That's the 15%.
Kanner: No, no we're doing community events.
Atkins: I'm sorry. You're right
Kanner: Let's hold off on that.
Atkins: It's Ross. I keep talking. Community events.
Champion: I think the community events are popular. People love them. And I
think they're easier for the community events to raise money than it is
for Aid to Agencies to raise money. So I will support the (can't hear)
to community events.
Lehman: How many will support 10% for community events?
Champion: 10% for community events I will support.
Pfab: A 10% reduction.
Lehman: Right.
Pfab: I have no problem with it.
Vanderhoef: And I would encourage them to start passing the hat.
Lehman: Alright.
Atkins: Something.
Wilbum: Yes to this.
Lehman: I counted 7 1 believe.
Atkins: Now Aid to Agencies. What I.~ust said before.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 43
Karmer: Please repeat that.
Atkins: 10%, but I wanted to remind you that you set aside $15,000 for the
youth employment proposals. We've received three. They're sitting
on Jeff's desk. I've told him not to take any action on those. If you
were to not pursue that you could use that $15,000.
Champion: Would we be able to fund the Aid to Agencies with the same?
Atkins: That money is available to you. But then you carmot fulfill your goal
of the youth employment issue.
Pfab: I think we made a promise also. I mean we basically made a promise
to the community that we would...
Kanner: I would agree with you. I had troubles with this in this (can't hear)
and with our economy the way it is. I...again I'd like to look at other
options before I agree to eliminate this.
Pfab: Yeah I agree. I think this is a tougher one.
Vanderhoefi Come back to it?
Pfab: Yeah let's go back to that one.
Atkins: Okay you bought into community events.
Lehman: Community events is okay.
Atkins: Aid to Agencies is still open.
Lehman: Aid to Agencies we don't have any consensus there. Is that right?
O'Donnell: Do we or not?
Atkins: No. I don't think you do.
Vanderhoef: Tell me quickly how much did we fund in the community events.
How much are we...
Lehman: $45,000 if I remember.
Atklns: Yes $45,000.
Vanderhoef: Okay so $4,500.
Lehman: Where did Ross?
Atkins: Ross?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 44
Lehman: Number 14.
Atkins: You know I've been through this. I'm repeating it. Similar principle.
Much of the Department of Public Works - it's our largest department
with 150 employees - only 24 in the general fund. So this is difficult
for them.
Lehman: Now Steve we mention in here inspection related services for capital
and maintenance related projects. Is part of this 2 ½ the person or
persons who we've been using on the sewer and water plant?
Atkins: No.
Lehman: This is like planning.
Atkins: The person we hired to be our on-site superintendent at the library
project. That person is charged to the library. Every other major...
Lehman: The same thing with the sewer and water plant was charged to the...
Atkins: Same as sewer plant. Whenever we had these big capital projects and
big you know anywhere 5, 6 million dollars up. We have found that in
the long pull it's...we put our own representative on the job all the
time. And I think most of our directors who manage these projects -
Susan's nodded very highly. What it means it means a lot smoother
project.
Vanderhoef: And these are independent contractors so...
Atkins: In effect they are. They're City employees, but they're hired with the
understanding that you are a full-time City employee. You're entitled
to all the wages and benefits of any other. But when the project ends,
so does the job.
Lehman: Steve what is this going to mean - 2 1/2 full-time equivalent? How are
we going to manage to get along with 2 ½7
Atkins: It's going to be very difficult. I had initially had it at 2. But they have
so much available to them on other revenues and charges that I though
they might be able to explore that further. We do have certain
positions where we provide services to the public that we could charge
against some of our other funds. I don't know the full extent of it. I
do know that they're working on it. Now this is one of the bigger...I
mean it doesn't look, but it is a bigger hit than some of the other
departments.
Vanderhoefi Say the number again.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 45
Atkins: 150 full-time employees, 24 in the general fund.
Champion: Wow that is a big hit.
Atkins: So this is 2 people. Yes Irvin.
Pfab: What is the potential of increased fees basically to cover?
Atkins: There is some public works fees that we could increase - not as many
as the more traditional building and housing and planning. But not a
whole lot more. They are looking at a few.
Pfab: So that's not a realistic...
Atkins: I don't think it's a realistic option Irvin. If we were to create any it
would be a minimal amount of money.
Pfab: I would say let's move on (can't hear).
Lehman: Well let's not do that yet. You've talked. Obviously you've discussed
this with Chuck and Rick Fosse...
Atkins: Yes.
Lehman: ...and whatever. And that's where we came up with these numbers.
Atkins: Yeah, but the number was imposed upon them.
Lehman: Well I think you imposed these numbers.
Atkins: I imposed them - all of them.
Lehman: I'm willing to accept your number.
Atkins: Okay.
O'Donnell: Which I am too on this one.
Kanner: Can you give an example of what might be cut back? If we call in and
say our alleyway has potholes we might have to delay that a few days?
Atkins: No, no. If it's a public alley...we don't maintain alleys anyway, but if
there's something in the streets those are routine crews.
Kanner: No actually I have called in for the alleyway.
Atkins: Yeah?
Kanner: So you might want to eliminate that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 46
Atkins: I was going to say.
Kanner: There was potholes. Someone came in a week or two later and filled
in the potholes.
Atkins: Okay. Because we're not supposed to do...okay. Anyway. Much of
the stafftime is our engineers. We do a lot of in-house design work.
We do many of our studies in-house. Our inspectors...same thing.
We have somebody who does nothing but right-of-way management
for us. That's one that I very clearly believe that we can make some
charges against if we accept one of the options.
Pfab: So in other words this is connected with an option coming down the
pipe.
Atkins: Well it can be, but they do have the ability - and I'm asking Rick and
Chuck to exhaust how can you charge these against our other
enterprise funds to the fullest extent and still accomplish the reduction
goal that we've set upon them.
Pfab: Does it have to be an enterprise fund or is there any to the public?
Atkins: No oh you mean an actual fee for service? That's open for discussion
Irvin. So it could occur. Yes.
Pfab: It could occur. Okay. I would pursue looking at that.
Lehman: Enterprise funds basically are fees to the public.
Atkins: Yeah.
Lehman: You pay for it in your water bill, your sewer bill.
Atkins: Yeah you do.
Pfab: But that's our own citizens. But some of the other ones may be (can't
hear) public.
Champion: Well we could make it like the bank and charge a fee for everything.
Lehman: Right, but how many...
Atkins: Probably all of those in the budget...in this proposal - this was the
most difficult one. We've grown the engineering staff over the last
couple of years. But we've also had a very enthusiastic capital
improvement program.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 47
Lehman: Although that's going to be a little bit slowed down. Do we have any
consensus on number 14?
Atkins: I would ask for your consensus support with the understanding that
this one is going to be one of the more difficult, one of the more
complex to put together alternate proposals for you.
Pfab: But does that take it off the table if we go along with it now.
Atkins: Virtually Irvin not many of these come off the table particularly if they
have options that are reasonably dramatic.
Pfab: I would like to...let's move on.
Lehman: Well before we move on how many people will support this
recommendation?
Vanderhoef: I will support this one.
Lehman: I see six.
Pfab: Wonderful idea. I just absolutely...
Lehman: Number 15 - Finance and General Administrative support staff 2 ½
full-time.
Atkins: Same basic principle. These are internal controls that we have
programs and policies. These are folks that you don't really see a lot
of. They're important to our overall financial and asset management.
There's a number of things we can look at. We're looking at our
insurance program, our IT program has been something that...we've
done a pretty good job of applying the latest technology all throughout
this organization. All of those things are now going to have to be
considered.
Kanner: How is this going to effect implementing the general accounting
principle 34 rule.
Atkins: It can't because that's (can't hear) 34 we have to do that and Erin will
figure out a way to do that because she has to do that. She doesn't
have a choice.
Kanner: Well it seems it's going to make it difficult.
Atkins: It's going to make it difficult. That's correct.
Kanner: I mean this is big project that we have to do.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 48
Atkins: It's, you know, I don't want to speak for everyone - it's a big project,
but we understand it. We understand the principles behind it. I think
the information gathering is probably the most critical element and
trying to make sure we establish the values of all of the various
properties. Erin has done a good job on our insurance programs, but in
many respects we've done some of that work ahead of time because
we have to value our buildings and we're constantly reviewing our
insurance. As you know a couple...was it two years ago we increased
our deductible because our financial position was strong enough. That
lowered our rates. Many of those things are market driven anyway.
It's not going to be easy Steven, but...I think there's another principle
we apply - the demand on your staff is not going to change. There's
just going to be fewer of us. That's not going to change. People are
still going to have the same expectations of us.
Pfab: Does this have the possibility of generating funds?
Atkins: I doubt it because of they're substantially support - purchasing,
information technology.
Lehman: I've got to take your recommendations. I mean I don't know anything
about...
Atkins: You know of all of these this one you have to because it's all very
internal. For example we have...if we have a retirement in our
accounting do we distribute those duties amongst other accounting
folks? And I don't know the answers to all of those yet.
Lehman: Do we have support for 157
O'Donnell: Yes.
Vanderhoef: Yes.
Wilbum: Yes.
Lehman: I counted 6 yeses and Irvin is in deep thought. What does that mean
Irvin?
(End of Side 1, Tape #03-44, Beginning of Side 2)
Lehman: It's fine. 6 yeses and one (can't hear).
Pfab: I have a certain amount of pain in it, but I guess it's fine. We've got
support.
Atkins: If it's any consultation we appreciate your pain. But we're still going
to have to do this.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 49
Lehman: Number 16.
Atkins: 16 is charge to our Housing Authority. Not a big ticket item, but we
think we can legitimately say our Housing Assistant who performs
certain record keeping for Housing Quality Inspections as a part of the
Section 8 program we can legitimately charge that to the federal
govemment.
Kanner: Will they take it out George Bush's salary?
Atkins: I don't think so Steven.
Pfab: Air Force One.
Atkins: I can send him a letter if you'd like.
Kanner: I think we should.
Pfab: I have a...you had a statement and I wasn't...I know I didn't
understand it. You said what part of this is federal funds?
Atkins: Virtually 100%
Pfab: That's what I thought you said. 99.
Atkins: 99 and change. I think there's very little general fund money.
Kanner: And...
Lehman: Are we...I'm sorry...
Atkins: It's a new...it's revenue that's the general fund.
Kanner: And why weren't we doing it before? We just...
Atkins: You know when we were doing some of the assessments of the various
jobs, you know, coming up with these two positions, three positions
whatever. I said take a cursory look at some of the things you might
be able to accomplish. And we did a quick review of the person's
work. We saw a lot of Section 8 info crossing the desk. It seemed
legitimate to us. And that's why we proposed it. Now could it be
$8,000? Could it $11,0007 Yeah.
Lehman: But we're going for $10,000.
Atkins: Well we're going for $10,000 because we estimate that's
approximately what the amount of time. This person, this Housing
Assistant - this is a split job. We have two housing assistants. Two
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 50
half timers. One of them spends a lot more time than the other - the
morning person - doing these kinds of things.
Kanner: But HUD still has to approve.
Atkins: HUD still has to approve it. We feel confident they will.
Kanner: Okay.
Lehman: Do we have concurrence on number 167
Vanderhoef: Yes.
Wilburn: Yes.
Lehman: 17. 17 Steve I think if you will work this over and show us a little
more what the impacts are and...
Atkins: Yeah my impression is that there's more questions than I'm really
prepared to answer for you tonight on the thing. But I would with the
understanding this will be coming back to you pretty quickly - like the
next work session.
Lehman: That's fine. And I think do we concur that we are interested in making
some adjustments on the housing inspection piece?
Pfab: I think we want to take a hard look at this thing to be 100% supportive.
Lehman: Alright.
Atkins: Okay. I'm going to give it a start particularly on the first one.
Champion: It gets halfa star.
Lehman: Well we're going to do something there.
Atkins: Okay. Bus service is off the table now.
Lehman: 19.
Atkins: 19 we move to advertising.
Champion: That comes out of our general fund?
Atkins: Yes.
Lehman: Why would transit advertising come out of the general fund instead of
transit?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 51
Atkins: Because transit is in the general fund. Remember we switched it over
into the general fun.
Lehman: We switched it over.
Atkins: It's a line item expense in the transit budget for advertising of $20,000
a year. We proposing to reduce for it to $15,000.
Lehman: But that's...this kind of seems strange that 18 isn't general fund, but
19 is. And they're both in transit.
Atkins: No, no, no. We can charge - as I understand it - oh I see your point.
Alright. Yeah that is confusing.
Lehman: Yeah it is.
Vanderhoefi Yeah.
Lehman: I mean it's either transit or it isn't.
Atkins: I think you got me.
Vanderhoefi That's why...
Lehman: I don't think we can do 19.
Atkins: I think we can, but...
Lehman: Alright. How many want to move along?
Atkins: It's beginning to running together in my brain because we talked about
this. I'll come back with you on 19. I owe you that one.
Lehman: Number 20.
Pfab: It looks like the time has come.
Atkins: Okay. 25 cents for this fare. Now I know we can do that.
Lehman: You know what?
Atkins: Yeah you can do the shuttle.
Champion: Yeah and I don't have a...
Atkins: And you want to charge a quarter.
Champion: Is it going to...I mean didn't I read they thought it would slow down
the route a lot?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 52
Atkins: Well remember it's not...it's not scheduled like our other fixed routes
and it runs that loop and I think most of the folks, rather students, they
know the timing of the thing. And if it begins to get a little slower
because of the quarter then they'll just adjust when it goes around.
Lehman: Or they can ride the City bus and pay 75 cents.
Atkins: Or they can ride the City bus and pay 75 cents.
Lehman: Are we in concurrence on 20? Go ahead.
Kanner: Before you do that though this was brought up before to start
charging...
Atkins: This quarter.
Kanner: This quarter.
Atkins: We talked about it a year ago I believe.
Kanner: Yeah a year ago and we were told that it wasn't worth doing.
Atkins: Yeah.
Kanner: Because it balances out to zero essentially. I wasn't sure the exact
reasons why but...
Atkins: I remember why we thought it would be a nuisance. I think Joe still
thinks...
Lehman: You thought it would be a great PR thing for the City because I wanted
to charge the quarter and you guys didn't.
Kanner: No but we also said we would lose riders which would lose funding
that we get from the feds.
Atkins: Yeah. No. I was assured that that would not happen. This is
just...this is strictly to generate income. It could be $30,000. It could
be more. It could be less. It's strictly income.
Kanner: But we would lose riders.
Atkins: Oh you may.
Kanner: There's a...well when we had this report a year ago...
Champion: You're right Steven.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 53
Kanner: ...it said that it was a wash and that's why we decided basically not to
do...Emie voted for it, but I thought that the general feeling was it was
a wash. We were going to lose riders which would lose funding for us.
Atkins: I don't remember it that way. Let me check and I'll get back with you.
Vanderhoef: The funding piece is the proportion because of the total number of
rides.
Atkins: Yeah. No I understand Steven's point. I just don't recollect it. I'll get
that report and get back to you on that.
Vanderhoef: It was close and at that time we were still trying to stay on a 30 minute
schedule and it may actually turn out that we're at a 35 minute
schedule to do this.
Pfab: If there isn't enough reduction when we...I can remember that.
Atkins: Yeah it's coming back to me.
Pfab: (Can't hear) subsidy involved to ride here and you're slowing it up and
there will be some attrition.
Atkins: Okay.
Pfab: Okay.
Atkins: We will come back...I will get that back to you. It's coming back to
me now. I do remember the discussion now.
Lehman: Passenger miles is figured in the formula for federal funding.
Atkins: Yeah, yeah now I think Steven is right about that.
Vanderhoef: It's actually when we did it up at ECICOG we look at the number of
rides and that's where. It doesn't mean that there's any more or less
federal dollars coming to our region. But within the region because of
our ridership we may go down a bit.
Atkins: Then I owe you something. I owe you something in that. So why
don't we just move on on that one.
Champion: Because so many kids ride that one.
Vanderhoef: And I'm not convinced that we would lose riders or that much.
Atkins: Well we may get down to...we just have to make a judgment call on
this one and see what happens.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 54
Champion: They might not have a quarter.
Atkins: 21.
Pfab: I guess the question I keep asking is there a way to generate funds
here?
Atkins: No. I don't see how we can generate funds unless we...no...
Wilburn: Charging other cities to...
Pfab: Participate or something...
Lehman: Alright. What we're asking here is a reduction of $75,000 in
expenditures for our staff folks who go to professional meetings and
this sort of thing. Is that correct?
Atkins: Well there's more to it than that. I mean for example we have...I
don't know what the dollar figure is, but I imagine it's well over
$50,000 in probably fire service for training where we can't provide
certain training so we send folks off to various schools. We do the
same thing with police. We have continuing education requirements
for many of our professional employees, attorneys, engineers, those
folks. We're trying to rewrite a policy that allows us to reduce that
expense, but at the same time try to fulfill our commitment to the
employees particularly when it comes to continuing education. We
have made that a tradition that we would pay that as part of that. You
know unfortunately training and education becomes travel and that's
only one element of the thing. Our folks are pretty good if they can
find something in CR or the Quad Cities as opposed to going to
Minneapolis or St. Louis. That's what we're saying that we'll look for
those options. Yes sir.
Pfab: Is there possibility of telecommunicating or tele...on some of these?
Atkins: Yes there is.
Pfab: So and what percentage ora hit would this be at $75,000?
Champion: It was at a half million.
Atkins: City wide a halfa million. We'll get you a better number on that, but I
would suspect you know 15%.
Pfab: 15 ?
Atkins: 15.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 55
O'Donnell: Is Council travel in this also Steve?
Atkins: Yes. Everybody is in there.
Lehman: Well do you want to address the Council travel issue at this point?
Champion: Oh this also includes Council travel?
Atkins: Yes everybody - all departments.
Champion: Do you know how much is... ?
Atkins: No. We can pull that number for you.
Champion: I think we should cut it 75%.
Lehman: Well except that we...no, no, no, no but I think that we could have a
policy that every, you know...
Atkins: I encourage you to do it by policy. Maybe just sort of...then we
haven't accomplished anything. I think if you have a good policy...
Lehman: But if we have a policy we'll send one person to a National League of
Cities meeting and...
Atkins: Whatever. You know that's very much your call.
Lehman: ...(can't hear) is opposed to the present policy which would allow...
O'Donnell: I can live with that.
Atkins: Okay. I will confirm that number. I'm going to put a...you want that
number, then you can prepare a policy. In fact Deb can you make a
note - check around with other cities on travel education policy. We'll
find out what some other folks do.
Lehman: The only thing that really concerns me on that 21 is discourage City
employee participation in leadership roles for professional association.
Atkins: I know.
Lehman: You know that's...
Champion: I don't like that.
Vanderhoefi We just had notice from Rick that he was taking (can't hear)
leadership roles.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 56
Atkins: But folks you just got to be realistic. I mean when I served on the
Iowa League of Cities Board it wasn't that big of deal because all it
was was you know gas and lunch back and forth to Des Moines. But
some of these folks serve on national boards and commissions.
Vanderhoef: And this is where they learn new things.
Atkins: Yeah they do.
Vanderhoefi That people have tried in other places.
Atkins: I hear you.
O'Donnell: I think it's very valuable.
Vanderhoefi Eliminate that for Rick I just...
O'Dormell: It's valuable for Staff to go, but I think we do need a policy on this
Council and I like the idea of maybe one person attending and it does
rotate.
Lehman: Well we can work on that.
Atkins: Those are the things you can do. We can you know...
Lehman: But are we okay with 21 basically?
Champion: Yes.
Lehman: Okay.
Atkins: 22 building inspection fees.
Pfab: What does...how does that you say that's a money maker.
Atkins: Yeah it is. That will...I told you that will not put us out of line with
other cities in the area.
Champion: No, it's a small addition to each building permit when you get it.
Lehman: Are we okay with that?
Champion: Yes.
Kanner: Well I'd like to bring up the idea that maybe it needs to be graduated.
Champion: It is.
Lehman: It's based on the amount of the building - the cost of the building.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 57
Kanner: Is it square footage or is it...
Lehman: I can't remember if it's cost or square foot.
Vanderhoefi Value.
Lehman: Value I think.
Kanner: So the building permit lists when they come to us they give us a
building...they get a building permit they list the value, the proposed
value.
Lehman: I think that's right.
Kanner: And how do we confirm that?
Lehman: Well I don't think we do an audit, but I suspect they've got a contract
with the contractor or whatever or an estimate.
Atkins: It could be that it's good faith too.
Lehman: Yeah.
Atkins: If the guy said the value of this house is $100,000 and it's 5,000 square
feet we're suspect.
Lehman: Thatched roof and bamboo walls.
Kanner: Maybe this something we have to look at...
Atkins: I'm okay with that.
Kanner: ...to get a better way of doing it. It seems a little nebulous the whole
system of...
Lehman: Except that I think most people who get a building permit...my
suspicion is most people either have either an estimate or a contract.
Atkins: Yeah.
Lehman: And that's pretty proof positive of what they're paying.
Champion: As soon as they have a contract they're probably not going to get it
themselves. The carpenter...the contractor is going to go get the
building permits.
Lehman: Yeah, but I'm sure there's a pretty good process for determining the
value.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 58
Vanderhoef: I actually had a call on this from someone from the Homebuilders and
they seem to be okay with it because it's similar to the surrounding
communities.
Lehman: Go ahead.
Pfab: Okay so at this point we're comfortable that it's (can't hear) it's
working.
Lehman: I've never heard a compliant about it.
Atkins: Yeah. I've not had any complaints about it Irvin.
Pfab: Alright.
Lehman: Are we okay with 22?
O'Donnell: Yes.
Pfab: I have no problem with it.
Lehman: Alright 22 is okay. 23.
O'Donnell: We eliminated that one Emie.
Vanderhoefi We did that.
Lehman: 23 well we eliminated for '04, but it's still there for '05. Are we okay
with it for '05?
Champion: Yes.
O'Donnell: Yes.
Lehman: I think we are.
Vanderhoefi We have $8,000 there to find in another location.
Lehman: 24.
Champion: I have a question about this.
Atkins: Okay.
Champion: I thought the Parkland Acquisition Fund came from GO money.
Atkins: From who?
Champion: From...did we bond to get that money?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 59
Atkins: No.
Champion: Oh, okay.
Atkins: I'll do my best to...because it precedes me is at the time the old
Central Junior High...
Champion: Oh right ! know that...
Atkins: Because there was a lump sum of money that resulted. It was in
$175,000 to $200,000. It was placed in a Parkland Acquisition Fund.
The Council set up a policy on how they were going to distribute those
monies. It's been amended a number of times. We used to put
hotel/motel tax money directly into it on an annual basis. That went
away a few years ago. And at that time I indicated if there were any
major land acquisition purposes you could sell debt for the purposes of
doing that. Most of the acquisitions are small. You know somebody
will want to buy an acre. It's really...it's one of those really nice to
have things. And you can move fairly quickly. We just need the
money in the general fund.
Lehman: You know I agree with that. It's certainly not permanent, but the one
issue that ! really have a problem with - we have talked for a long time
about a master plan for Parks and Recreation.
Atkins: Yes we have.
Lehman: And if we're looking at a situation where we're asking them to reduce
by two people that are full-time equivalents they may really, really
need that master plan. And rather...this is...you've got this projected
over three years - '04, '05, '06. With '06 being $70,000. I'm not at
all sure that I don't think we ought to spend that $50,000 for that
master plan.
Vanderhoef: $60,000.
Atkins: $60,000.
Lehman: And worry about how we're going to come up with those six during
the next 30 months.
Champion: And the problem with us using this Parkland Fund it's...
Lehman: Temporary.
Champion: It's temporary.
Lehman: It's a band aid.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 60
Champion: It's a band aid only.
Lehman: But I just...
Atkins: Yeah. You're not wrong.
Lehman: I don't know. How does the rest of the Council feel?
Atkins: We were scrambling to find monies for the general fund and it stared
us in the face.
Champion: Yeah I think we should do that study. I think that's a good idea and
fund it out of that (can't hear).
Pfab: I have a question.
Atkins: Yeah.
Pfab: You talked about and I'm going to ask it because I don't understand
what you had said. You said that one point we were putting in
hotel/motel.
Atkins: Yes a number of years ago.
Vanderhoef: 2% of it.
Pfab: So where is that money that used to go in there now?
Atkins: It's distributed into public safety. We redid the formula Irvin. There
used to be a direct payment into the Parkland Acquisition Fund. Now
we make a payment in for the support of Parks and Recreation
programs. It used to be a source of revenue for this. There isn't any
anymore.
Pfab: Is that something we should be considering?
Atkins: Then you're just quite frankly going to shoot yourself in the foot.
Pfab: So you're taking it out of general fund.
Atkins: That's right. You'll be right back where you were.
Pfab: That was the question I had.
Atkins: No, your assessment is correct.
Vanderhoef: So if we put the plan back in then we have to find another $60,000.
Lehman: Well not until '06. We're covered '04 and '05 are no problem.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 61
Atkins: Emie please don't talk that way. That scares me.
Lehman: What?
Atkins: Well not until '06. That's putting offa decision.
Lehman: It's a lot better than trying to come up with it by July 1st of this year.
Atkins: Okay.
Vanderhoefi I don't see...
Atkins: I think it's difficult to master plan.
Lehman: $100,000 per year out of the Parks and Recreation Acquisition fund is
$100,000 for '04, $100,000 for '05, projected $70,000 for '06. Take
the $50,000 master plan that we were going to do this year. Do it this
year and instead of $70,000 in '06 you got $20,000. And we've got 30
months to come up where we're going to come up with the difference.
Kanner: Well Emie I think I basically agree with you that I want to do the plan.
But as far as Steve's overall plan for this program I think when you
talk about '05 or '06 as being in the future. That's not necessary the
case. We're going to be using reserve funds perhaps to make up
something in '04 and pick it up in '05 or in '06. So that's...I think
that's what you're getting at...
Atkins: That's right.
Kanner: ...but that's not really the case. So you can't say it's offin the
distance.
Atkins: I'm just not big on...
Vanderhoef: If we do the plan this year it's $60,000 this year.
Kanner: I think we should look at the other options to make up for that. That
should be our philosophy - other options that Steve listed or that we
ourselves can come up with if you feel strongly about something.
Lehman: Alright.
Pfab: Is the question on the master plan right now?
Lehman: The question is really whether or not we want to accept 24 as it
proposed. And we can go...but Steven is right. If we want to look at
the other options and feel that that master plan should be funded and
we can come up with it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 62
Atkins: I'm just reluctant to add a major new expense when we haven't even
met our other...
Lehman: It isn't added. It's in the budget right now isn't it? The $50,000.
Atkins: Well to be paid for out of this.
Lehman: Yeah, alright but I have no problem with accepting it the way it is.
Champion: Okay.
Pfab: But so where...if we accept it as it is what is the status of the master
plan?
Lehman: We're going to get to that on page 1 of options.
Pfab: So that...
Atkins: At this point Irvin there is none. Now later on in the evening you may
revisit that, but right now there is no master plan.
Kanner: I'm against 24 with the elimination of the master plan. I'd like to...
Pfab: I have some difficulty.
Lehman: How many are willing to accept 24 as it is written?
Vanderhoefi I think it becomes clear...
Atkins: You're going to get another crack at it.
Lehman: 25.
Atkins: 25.
Pfab: I guess I keep asking is there a way to generate funds here? Is there
any justification to go from $3 to $5 if you do anything with inflation
adjust - the time $3 we're in until now.
Atkins: The Staff's thinking of going from $3 to $5 which we are permitted to
under the law (can't hear).
Wilburn: (Can't hear) as much as we can?
Atkins: No you can go higher. It just seemed paying a $3 ticket with a 5 dollar
bill so we'll make it a $5 ticket for the $5 bill.
Lehman: Well it's a 67% increase.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 63
Atkins: Yes it is.
Lehman: And it's pretty tough to go more than that.
Pfab: Well it was up until now it was cheaper than paying the meter so our
meters didn't get it. And...
Champion: Well you got to think about the whole philosophy though of most of
our meters or all in the Central Business District and if we're trying to
encourage people to come to the Central Business District the beauty
that our fines are so cheap has a lot to do with that for people who
don't want to park in parking ramps where you don't ever get a ticket.
Pfab: Yeah, but if somebody's plugging up a parking space that keeps
somebody else from coming in to use it.
Champion: Well they could re-ticket them after a certain time.
Pfab: Well no, no but I mean if that car is parked there and a person wants to
come in and shop at that store and they drive by because there's a car
there that's not feeding the meter they just go on.
Champion: The worst offenders are not the customers who are walking on the
street. The worst offenders of using the parking meters all day are
business owners downtown.
Pfab: Well then maybe they could start...
Champion: So I can tell you it does not...
Pfab: ...taking their own medicine.
Lehman: Aside from the personal habits of shoppers and business owners are
we willing to accept 25 as it's presented.
Vanderhoef: Yes.
O'Donnell: Yes.
Lehman: We have a go.
Kanner: You said that we could raise it higher if we want?
Atkins: I think we can go up to $10.
Dilkes: No the...
Kanner: I propose I think we can go higher.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 64
Atkins: Wait a minute Steven. Let Eleanor answer this.
Dilkes: Currently under current law you can to $5. If the Governor signs the
reinvention bill it...the $5 cap is gone.
Atkins: That's right. The cap is gone.
Dilkes: You can go to any amount.
Champion: The other thing you have to consider is that because it is a $3 parking
ticket a lot of people pay it.
Atkins: Yeah.
Champion: I mean so you can actually lose revenue by making it high enough.
Lehman: We just got concurrence on 25. 26.
Atkins: 26.
Lehman: I have a real problem with 26.
Pfab: I don't imagine.
Lehman: Well apparently from the numbers I've seen the multiplier effect of
money paid into the CVB is the multiplier effect is a little over $6 for
each dollar that goes into that fund and we're talking about reducing it
by about 40% from $137,500 to $100,000 in one year. I think that's
pretty significant.
Vanderhoef: 40%.
Lehman: Well what is 40% of $140,0007 No it's about 30%. That seems to be
a rather tough hit.
Pfab: That's a percent...but as a percentage now what is the trend as far as
the trend line of what that total cash is?
Atkins: The tax is very much driven by occupancy and room rates.
Pfab: But do we have a historic...
Atkins: Yeah and we've...it's shown reasonably steady growth. I mean
nothing extraordinary that I know of. I mean it's about a $500,000 a
year budget.
Pfab: How many more motel rooms have come on-line since the last time we
checked it?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 65
Atkins: None in the City.
Vanderhoefi None.
Atkins: None in the City.
Lehman: (Can't hear) new hotels.
O'Donnell: Ernie what are you suggesting?
Atkins: Coralville.
Lehman: I'm suggesting I think 30% is a very, very heavy hit. And I think it's a
good investment for the City. I mean I think particularly when things
are tough those folks do generate a lot of volume, a lot of dollars turn
around in the City from the efforts of the Bureau in brining in
conventions here and conferences and whatever. I think that's very
important to the economy of the City. And I understand and I don't
disagree that I think everybody...that there is no such thing as a sacred
cow in this and I don't...I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some
concession. It just seems to me to be a little excessive.
Champion: So what would you have in mind?
Lehman: Well...
Vanderhoef: Take $20,000 off. Reduce it by $20,000.
Pfab: That's a half. A half of what was proposed.
Vanderhoefi Not quite.
Kanner: I think when we've got a lot of organizations that are working on these
things and they do a good job, but we're in a university town and the
University probably generates a huge pementage of what's coming in
to our city and...
Lehman: The University works very, very closely. The hospital, the
University, the Athletic Department - they all work through the CVB.
Kanner: But they're going to keep doing their thing if they have to reduce their
services a bit. They're going to do it pretty well.
Lehman: Well you say that, but you have no basis for that comment whatsoever.
Kanner: Well you can say there's multiplier effects. There's multiplier effects
for everything Emie.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 66
Lehman: I know, but you have no reason to say they'll do it just as well when
the CVB hasn't got the money to do the sorts of services they're doing
now for the hospital and the...
Kanner: Well I don't have any evidence in the reports that I've read that show
that how much that they're specifically bringing in for the hospital and
for all the colleges and the University. I don't see that that's going to
be effected. And I read their annual reports and I don't see it Ernie.
Lehman: Well what's your pleasure guys?
Pfab: Well but my question is we're changing this not from a fixed amount,
but to a percentage.
Atkins: It had been 25% Irvin. It is a percentage. And 25% equals $137,500.
Pfab: Okay. So now is...I would be more willing to gamble with it and say
a certain dollar amount.
Champion: They can't.
O'Donnell: (Can't hear) percentage.
Pfab: No, no just a second. I can't help but think that this thing is going to
grow as the economy starts to mm around. And if it's...even if it's
only $37,000 that we may be...this thing is moving around here...
Kanner: Well I think Irvin the gamble is actually maybe the opposite of what
you're saying. If we keep it at the percentage - 20% if the economy
grows their reduction will be less...
Lehman: Right.
Pfab: Right.
Kanner: ...than the $37,000.
Pfab: Yeah.
Kanner: Emie I'd be willing perhaps to go up a percentage or two - maybe 21
or 22% if you feel that strongly about it.
Pfab: I wouldn't have any trouble with that.
Lehman: I'm more concerned I think with the big hit in '04 because they're
budgets are the same as ours. It's like the county decides the day after
tomorrow they're going to...because of their cuts they're going to do
something with (can't hear) or Senior Center or whatever and we have
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 67
to deal with that. The Commission of Tourism Bureau also has a
budget and a $37,000 hit for next year is a pretty heavy hit.
Vanderhoe£: What is their total budget?
Lehman: I can't tell you offhand.
Pfab: Okay but the other thing is they have other ways...is there other ways
or do they have other ways to generate income too?
Vanderhoef: Just from memberships.
Lehman: Memberships.
Pfab: Well maybe...
Kanner: Which is growing.
Lehman: It's growing and they're doing very well.
Pfab: Right and I mean it's not...I'm not opposed to your objection. It's just
that this thing is probably one of the most well equipped to maneuver
in a tight economy. And it's not that they're not doing a great job. I
just...from 25 to...I don't know...
Vanderhoef: We look at this in some of our things here in this and Steve I think put
it in sort of a policy statement that we were going to look at trying to
have the least amount of hit on things that were economic
development related. And to me this is an economic development
related kind of thing and it does have a multiplier in the community.
So I think this is too big a hit. I'd rather not hit them at all. And I'm
like Ernie I was totally convinced years ago when I was on CVB for
about five years. So I would suggest that...I'm suggesting that instead
of paying CVB 25% that we pay 23%.
Pfab: 2 ½.
Champion: How about 22.5%?
Pfab: There you go.
Vanderhoefi 22.5%? Split it.
O'Donnell: And Ernie your concern is the big hit in '04?
Lehman: Well I think that's the biggest and the other thing is this - hopefully in
two years time there's going to be another hotel downtown. And
that's going to be a bit shot in the arm for them for revenue in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 68
hotel/motel tax in Iowa City when the Moen project is completed.
Actually their...the occupancy rates in Iowa City are remarkably high
in Coralville in spite of the economy. But I don't think it's realistic to
expect that those rates are going to get much higher because they're
really running pretty close to the top. When Moen's project comes on
my suspicion is there will be a big spike. They are £ar more able to
handle that sort ora reduction when that comes on then they are on.
Champion: But there are a couple new hotels that have opened.
P£ab: That's right out by the mall.
Lehman: I'm talking about Iowa City's. I'm just talking about the Iowa City.
Champion: Their budget must be growing anyway.
P£ab: So is this...is this...okay maybe there's a point to be made here. So
you're saying this is just from Iowa City's?
Lehman: Yeah we're not doing Coralville's.
Pfab: Okay I'm not near as...
Vanderhoef: I was told...
P£ab: I'm a lot more agreeable to what you're saying.
Kanner: How much are we paying per hotel room versus Coralville for hotel
room?
Atkins: The tax itself is the same.
Kanner: No, no how much contribution does it work out to?
Champion: Coralville (can't hear) money.
Atkins: Coralville pays a lot less percentage but of course they have a 1,000
plus hotel rooms to our 500.
Kanner: But I think would be more equitable would be looking at what our per
hotel contribution is versus Coralville's. So certainly they have a lot
more, but if we look at how much they're contributing per hotel room
and see if we're lagging behind. That would be...
Lehman: Why don't we find that out and put this on...?
O'Donnell: Steve do you know what 23% would be?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 69
Atkins: No.
Pfab: 22 ½.
Atkins: It would be about 120. It would be about 120 Mike.
Lehman: I like your suggestion to see what just they...Coralville is paying per
room. We'll get that.
Atkins: So you didn't agree on this one.
Champion: No.
Lehman: No.
Pfab: We agree we need more information.
Atkins: I hear you. 27.
Vanderhoefi That's okay.
Lehman: That's okay I think.
Kanner: This is a...if we get...what are we going to do if we get back from the
study that this is going to save consumers 10 to 25 percent?
Champion: I don't think we'll have any money to implement it anyway for the
next couple of years.
Lehman: My suspicion is we'll deal with that when it comes.
Atkins: You will have to go to referendum you understand that (can't hear).
Lehman: Yeah I'm aware of that.
Kanner: If it does eventually come through let's say two years down the road
this is something that we recover built into the rates. That's one thing.
I just hate to throw this out right now because we're going to need
some money if we want to move forward on it. And I think it's a
positive.., this is economic development also.
Champion: It is.
Kanner: If the figures come back all that money and payment in lieu of taxes.
All that money saved on rates, people spend that money.
Lehman: We've got to wait until we get Latham's report back. That's going to
be what? October?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 70
Helling: It should be this summer hopefully.
Atkins: It's coming up soon.
Lehman: Okay. I'm really anxious to see what his report says.
Kanner: I think we ought to hold off until we get that report.
Lehman: Only...my only concern is my understanding is that the study if we
choose to move forward with anything that Latham might come up
with $50,000 isn't going to do the first two pages of the report. I mean
we're talking big bucks, so I'm not sure the 50 (can't hear).
Kanner: Not the final implementation yeah of course that's big bucks, but
$50,000 is pretty substantial in going to the next level.
Pfab: I think I would support Steve on this one in the sense that there's only
50 in it now right? I think that that sends a wrong message. I
wouldn't be able to support paying 50 away. Maybe 10 out of it, but
that would be the most I would...
Lehman: Well how many will support the 50 that's in the recommendation?
Vanderhoefi This time I will.
Champion: Can we put it on hold?
Lehman: Okay. That's a holder. 28. Pardon?
Atkins: We need to know. $600,000 annual budget. They have very healthy
reserves.
Champion: I can live with this.
Lehman: I can too.
Kanner: I agree with this also, but we should just put out there I guess the
concern people might have is that these are cable subscribers. They
feel it should go directly to television services.
Atkins: And that had been our overriding philosophy for years Steven. That's
correct.
Pfab: What is the status now on internet connections? That...does that
generate funds?
Lehman: It's in court out on the west coast. Didn't you tell us about that?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 71
Helling: Yeah it...
Lehman: Washington.
Helling: ...it's going to be heard or it was heard last week. But this is a case
that's been going for about a year. But right now we get no franchise
fee from intemet connections.
Pfab: So okay and we could expect what six months to hear? For the next
appeal? Whatever.
Lehman: Three or four years if they keep appealing. Okay. That's an okay. 29.
Champion: Yes. Because we can't afford a fire station right now.
Lehman: Well 29 really has no significant effect on...without a new fire station
doesn't really have.
O'Donnell: This is okay.
Lehman: Right.
Kanner: Yeah okay to 28.
Lehman: 28 is okay. 29 is okay.
Pfab: On 29...
Kanner: Hold on...
Champion: Firefighters.
Pfab: What does that do? Now does that mean people...is that nobody gets
laid off.
Champion: That's the whole philosophy of doing this.
Atkins: I cannot promise nobody. I can tell you the sooner you get this to me
the sooner we can get - and with a little luck - we can have the
reductions made with a minimal amount of disruption to employees'
lives by creating vacancies. I can't promise anything.
Pfab: So at this point even if we agree to this that doesn't...there's still the
possibility somebody can get laid off?.
Atkins: But that's the same thing with all of those - every area.
Kanner: No layoffs. We're not having layoffs.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 72
Atkins: We're trying to avoid that.
Champion: It could happen.
Kanner: This is attrition. Well it could happen anywhere, but the whole
plan...there's no plan for layoffs in any of these.
Atkins: That's correct.
Pfab: The next question. Is...are there...this time I'm not being facetious
about Homeland Security - is any of that money coming to help the
fire department?
Atkins: No. I don't expect...Irvin I have grown convinced...
Pfab: Zero confidence. Has the state gotten any?
Atkins: They may have received some, but they're using it for their own
operations. Yeah.
Champion: They're using it...
Atkins: I don't expect to get anything from it. Yes sir.
Kanner: Now because of new regulations I guess the last couple years and how
many people have to be on the scene before people can go in. That
means we often call people who are off-duty and/or we make more use
of the surrounding communities in the mutual aid.
Atkins: Mutual aid is really a great tool. Absolutely.
Kanner: Then they make use of us. So in a way this...we're sort of sticking it
to the other conununities by saying we're going to be calling them
more perhaps if we get down...ifwe reduce...
Atkins: Remember it's all perhaps. In 2002 we had a compliment of 52. We
went to 58. We're only going back to 55. We have not lost all of the
ground that we gained.
Kanner: But has our mutual aid calls gone down since we increased our staff?.
Atkins: That I couldn't tell you. You'd almost...we'd need to do a long
history on that. I mean I'd just have to do a history on that. And we
stand prepared to serve.
Champion: Some of these hires were for the new fire station in anticipation of it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 73
Atkins: Well we anticipated 9 new hires to finance the fire., .to staff the fire
station. We started with 6. We can't afford the additional three. In
fact we have to go back 3.
Lehman: If we hired 6 and we're going to reduce by 4 we're still ahead by 2.
Atkins: You're still ahead by three.
Vanderhoef: We were overstaffed by one.
Atkins: We're already overstaffed right now.
Lehman: Right. So I don't have a problem with this.
Champion: I don't have a problem.
O'Donnell: I don't either.
P fab: That's fine with me.
Lehman: Okay.
Atkins: Okay. Good bids, mild weather. It's not going to snow. It's not going
to rain.
Lehman: You're the one that's going to have to argue this one.
O'Donnell: We ought to talk about that.
Vanderhoefi Optimistic.
Atkins: You have to be in this business. We're not optimistic.
Vanderhoefi I think this is optima.
Atkins: Okay. You've given me a number of these things to deal with. You
still need the options. We're still short a pretty good hunk of change.
Question for you is how do you want to deal with it? I want to get
started on implementing as many of these that I can.
Champion: Well some of them you know you can already start implementing.
Atkins: Yes I can. I understand that.
Champion: And I guess I'd like to see you follow through with questions and
maybe our next work session we can start an hour early.
Lehman: Tomorrow night you can't be there until 7:30. Remember.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 74
Champion: No I meant...he's not going to have time to look into all those
questions by tomorrow.
Atkins: Not all...I can't do them all by tomorrow, but we could go over
options tomorrow night if you're interested in having another meeting
tomorrow night.
Champion: Unless you want to sit here and do options now.
Lehman: I don't.
Kanner: I'd rather not.
Lehman: I would...no, no I agree. I think this is really critical stuff. If we
could...
Kanner: (Can't hear) I'd rather not do the options right tonight.
Lehman: Right I agree.
Champion: Right. That's fine.
Atkins: I don't want your brains fried because this is tough stuff.
Lehman: Alright. Let's listen to where you're coming from on this. You've got
to have several things you need to bring back to us. Is it reasonable to
assume those may be ready for us by Monday night or...
Atkins: I will get as many of those as I can prepared for you. The most
important question for me tonight do you accept the managed attrition
phased reduction process.
Champion: Yes.
Atkins: Okay. If that's acceptable that goes a long way to moving this thing
along. And I needed to know that. And the revenues that you did
approve we can begin preparing resolutions getting you to vote those
up or down to get on with that. I do think you need to go over the
options. I'm hoping that I can spend some time with directors and
maybe even give you some more now because we've had more time to
think about these things. It would be okay with me if at our work
sessions we just set aside like an hour. Now you've got your regular
business you got to deal with. But we just...this is a subject we've got
to stay after just to create the momentum to get the thing done. I'm
okay with that. But we still, you know, we're still short.
Lehman: So if I'm hearing correctly you will get back to us on the
information...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 75
Atkins: I mean I owe you an assessment of the PIN grants. I owe you an
assessment of the...I need to check on the transit, the fares, the
advertising budget. There's a number of things of training...
Lehman: Housing inspection.
Atkins: .... , housing inspection in particular you want to talk about that
because we're proposing to go to fully funded/self-supporting. Yes.
Lehman: The CVB.
Atkins: The CVB.
Lehman: Public Power.
Atkins: Yeah.
Lehman: Okay.
Kanner: So you'll...if we don't meet tomorrow and we meet as Connie said
maybe an hour early next Monday you'll add up those figures...
Atkins: Yes.
Kanner: ...tell us what we're short...
Atkins: Where we are.
Kanner: ...and have some more information on our questions at that time and
we can begin to discuss implementing those if we come around to
supporting them or other options - and/or other options.
Atkins: I'm fine with that. I will do my best to do just what Steve said.
Kanner: I'd be for meeting next Monday and not tomorrow.
Lehman: I have no problem with that.
Pfab: Fine we go to 5:30 next Monday.
Vanderhoef: Don't you think some of the options might help guide some of the
other things and it's the...for me to say I would accept some of these
options...
Atkins: Some of them they're already offthe table.
Vanderhoef: ...certainly would then help me move along in my thinking of what
else when we get back to this and have all the answers.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 76
Kanner: (Can't hear) talk those options with that information. We get through
that conversation next Monday.
Pfab: I think it's...
Kanner: You're not eliminating.
Champion: It's giving him enough to work on for a week. That's for sure.
Atkins: Oh yeah. We'll be busy.
Lehman: The only thing is we know we're $180,000 off to start with tonight.
Vanderhoef: We're $248,000.
Atkins: You're more than that.
Lehman: We started at $180,000. So I think we'll all look at the options with a
little different view than we did before we got here tonight. Because
before we got here we didn't start out $180,000 behind. There's
another issue that is probably going to come up prior to the any
resolution of all these things. Steve's proposal to us is in the number 8
on page 4 where - and I think Steve has always been a very, very
strong champion of our employees and as we noted there has been no
reconunendation of any change in salary. Is that going to be
acceptable to Council?
Champion: Yes.
Kanner: I'd like...
Vanderhoefi Excuse me on...
Kanner: I'd prefer that be on the table.
Lehman: Well that's why I'm asking right now.
Champion: We already have union contracts so there isn't any way we're going to
get any money from our union employees.
Kanner: No, not the union but for non-union contract people to put that on the
table to discuss.
Champion: You know I've got a little bit of problem with that. it seems like every
time there's a budget crunch whether it's the School Board or whether
it's University Hospitals or whether it's the City of Iowa City
everybody who doesn't belong to a union automatically there are
people saying we should cut their salaries or not give them a raise. I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 77
have great difficulty with that. Somebody who is doing a great job and
maybe putting in a lot more hours than they're being paid for to say
because you're not a union employee because you're an executive or
an administrator or a lawyer that you should not be compensated for
working as hard as you do. I will not support that at all.
Wilbum: And I have a problem with a wage freeze because this is stressful
enough as it is and there's going to be lose of services and we're going
to be increasing the workload of some existing staff. And that's
another stressor. And that's why I would have a problem with a wage
freeze.
O'Donnell: (Can't hear) not have collective bargaining also and we're going to be
requiring more and more.
Lehman: I was probably prepared to look at a moratorium on cost of living
increase for a year. However, when I look at $238,000 in Public
Works you're cutting 10% of the people and we're going to require
basically the same amount of work. We're looking at the finance folks
cutting two people. We're looking at...I mean these are administrative
positions. These are folks and my gut feeling is is that these folks are
going to really earn their money. Now I want this...if we don't agree
with this let's say so right now. But I don't really wish to discuss a
freeze at some point three meetings from now. I hear you say you are
not interested in... you're not interested in.
Vanderhoef: I'm not interested.
Lehman: It is decided.
Atkins: Thank you. Thank you very much folks. I really appreciate your
efforts. We still have got a lot of work ahead of us.
Champion: So we're not meeting tomorrow night.
Atkins: No meeting tomorrow night.
Lehman: Thank you for your efforts. Good luck.
Champion: Can I just...wait a minute. Are we going to meet at 5:30 next
Monday? Is that the consensus of this group? An hour of budget.
Pfab: It is 5:30 next Monday.
Atkins: Yeah. That sounds fine.
Kanner: 5:30.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.
Page 78
Vanderhoefi So then we're not looking at approving all of this until the June
meeting at the earliest.
Atkins: Yeah.
Lehman: But if we could start. Keep this...
Dilkes: Well it depends. I mean some of them will take ordinance changes
and it's going to take three readings.
Lehman: But I
(End of Tape 03-44, Beginning of Tape 03-45)
Atkins: Kind of like Steven had outlined.
Lehman: Can we plan on budget summary at the beginning of each work session
until we get the thing...
Atkins: That's a good idea. That's an excellent idea. You got it.
Lehman: From now until we're done the first item on every work session will be
budget.
Atkins: That's an excellent idea.
Lehman: Alright.
Pfab: Is that before Planning and Zoning.
Lehman: I said the first item. That's before anything. Number 1.
Karr: So does work session start of 5:30 until further notice?
Lehman: 5:30 well at least for next Monday. We'll see where we are.
Kanner: No, not until further notice.
Lehman: Next Monday.
Champion: I think next Monday we're going to need that time.
Atkins: Life could be worse.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 12, 2003.