HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-19 TranscriptionMay 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 1
May 19, 2003 Council Budget Work Session 5:30 PM
Council: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Dormell, Vanderhoef, Wilbum, Pfab (arrived 6:18)
Staff: Atkins, Helling, Dilkes, Voparil, Herting, Lewis, Fowler, Boothroy, Cate
TAPES: 03-45, SIDE TWO; 03-46, SIDE ONE
BUDGET REDUCTION PLAN
Lehman/We are ready, Mr. Atkins.
Atkins/Are you ready?
Lehman/We are ready.
Atkins/Let's do something a little more before I start. Doug? An introduction to make.
Boothroy/I'd like to introduce to the Council Steven Rackis. He's the new housing administrator. I
wanted him to come tonight so that you could see what he looks like and so he could see
what you all look like. He spent 15 years with the Iowa Work Force Development. He
was their regional director for Eastern Iowa, and he's been with us now for a couple of
weeks and---
Atkins/He's still here.
(Laughter)
Boothroy/He's still here and I'm sure that if you want to stop by and say "hi," he'll still be here.
Champion/Well, he has to meet the Council.
Lehman/Well, welcome.
Boothroy/Everything has to be spoken into that (the microphone).
Rackis/Thank you.
(Laughter)
Atkins/OK. A couple of tidbits before we get started. I thought we'd pick up where we left off. The
governor has not yet signed the legislation. We received a legislative alert today from the
Iowa League of Cities, and as you know, the legislature is going to convene on the 29th,
and apparently there is discussion about changes in property tax law as well. Yeah, who
knows what may or may not happen? You are likely to read--and I will be candid with
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 2
you--I'm not real sure right now exactly what the number is for the reduction that the
legislature has proposed. There are some iterations of it that, if you read it one way it
means one thing, if you read something else. I think we have to make the assumption we
keep pressing ahead; we can always retreat, fall back, and figure out where we are at that
particular point. Anyway, so we will have to wait and see. I think if we get through it, I
think we can get through tonight. I'm going to need some time with staff to kind of gather
this all together, total it up, figure it out, how we're going to try to accomplish these
things. And we may want to think about meeting sometime after the 29th, when we really
know what level of damage has been done and we'll take it from there. So if that's OK
with you, we'll wade in. In your packet, there was a summary. These are the items that
remain for further discussion, and they are numbered the same as they were earlier. First
item up was the neighborhood newsletters, the $16,000. I'm not real sure--you just
wanted to put a hold on that while you thought that thing through. Again, still, we can
jump around if there's any you want to wait for. Steven?
Kanner/Steve and Council, might I suggest another approach to this that we throw out other proposals
for either increasing revenue or decreasing expenditures before we get into this
discussion, but I had a few ideas of some other---
Atkins/It's up to you guys, any way you want.
Kanner/...things that we might want to look at.
Wilburn/I also had wanted to toss around a couple of the options that were presented.
Champion/We haven't gotten to those yet though.
Lehman/No.
Wilburn/I know. But that may have, I think it was Steve's term, that may have a bearing on decisions
we might make on some of the things that---
Lehman/Well, then, let's--I think we should go through this list first though, Steven. And if we have---
Champion/Because we only have like---
Lehman/ No, no, but if we have problems with the first one, let's just---
Atkins/You move on, yeah.
Lehman/...let's move to the second.
Atkins/Yeah. Yes, I'd like to, you can, you know, confirm those that we can confirm.
Champion/Well, my idea was to cut the neighborhood newsletter in half so that each neighborhood
would still have some money to send newsletters, not as often, which is probably as
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 3
necessary. Some neighborhoods are more capable of raising money to send their
newsletters than other neighborhoods, and I hate to eliminate the possibility totally,
although I'm totally willing to cut it in half.
Lehman/Well, is it possible, Steve, and I don't know what our procedure is in sending water bills. But is
it possible to--are water bills in any way segregated by neighborhood? Is there a way---
Atkins/Not really.
Lehman/All right, forget it. Forget it, bad idea.
Atkins/(can't hear) difficult to do that. It's not a bad idea. It's just very, very difficult to do that and I
think we'd spend more doing a sorting than we would---
Lehman/Right. Let's leave this one and go to number 2 or 3, I guess it is.
O'Donnell/Oh, Ernie, why don't we see if we can reach an agreement on this fairly quickly?
Lehman/Is there any sort of consensus on number 2? Connie is saying that she'd like to see it--she
could accept reducing it by 50 percent.
O'Donnell/And I'm fine with that.
Vanderhoef/I would go even further. I just keep looking over what we're trying to accomplish here and,
you know, them are choices and we are taking dollars from a lot of different places in
large chunks. And there are several things that are there for neighborhoods. I mean, we
may even want to get as far as discussing coordinator and what we do with staff time.
Right now I think Julie is---
Atkins/Who?
Lehman/Who?
Vanderhoef/Not Julie.
Atkins/Marcia.
Lehman/Marcia.
Vanderhoeff Marcia, excuse me, is halftime on neighborhood.
Atkins/She's more than that.
Vanderhoef/Is she more than that?
Atkins/Yeah. I'd say at least three-quarter time. She helps out on the public art. We're going to have a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 4
lot more than that. Admittedly, this would change the dynamics in our office.
Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm.
Atkins/Because one of her, I mean, folks do call her. She is an excellent information source for our
neighborhoods, kind of a key to the policy, too.
Wilburn/I just wanted to go off, kind of a suggestion I had. I had another expenditure source to, out of
the options, to cut as an alternative to help us get the kind of support.
Champion/Should we just leave this one alone for now?
Atkins/I don't hear support. So 3?
Champion/I think the other thing, Dee, though is that you're talking about really small budget items,
and even when you cut them in half, you're cutting them by 50 percent, and you're
cutting things that are very intimate parts of Iowa City. It's not like cutting out a police
car. I mean, you're cutting out what makes the City kind of function at a different level.
So I think some of these small expenditures that are dealt with indirectly by citizens are
not a lot of money to begin with, but they provide a lot of positive feelings about the
neighborhoods and where you live and that helps keep down litter, graffiti, damage,
vandalism. It has a lot of repercussions beyond $8,000.
Atkins/We moving on to 3?
Lehman/PiN grants.
Atkins/Yeah.
Champion/I feel the same way about those.
Atkins/That's one of the harder ones to recommend because it's a very popular program for a very little
amount of money, but it's one of those things, it just kind of jumps off that wherever we
put a lump sum toward something. The process itself is almost as expensive as the grant.
It takes a lot of time to put these together, to put the neighbors, the neighborhoods work
hard, the staff works hard. Yeah, for really a very little amount of money. Excuse me,
Dee.
Vanderhoel7 1 had a thought on PiN grants. You had suggested in, as a possibility, some road use tax---
Atkins/Yes.
Vanderhoef/...monies, and when I started looking through the budget again last week, it was like OK,
we have set aside $30,000 of road use tax to be used only for traffic calming.
Atkins/That's right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 5
Vanderhoef/That program is another quote "neighborhood" kind of activity, and if there was--a would
you rather have this or rather have that? I mean, I think perhaps the $30,000 part of it
could be shifted over into a PIN grant piece using only road use tax.
Atkins/One of the things that I would encourage you to be cautious about is that when we adopted a
Neighborhood Services office, the policy itself, I think it precedes everybody who's here.
If we begin removing everything from it, whether it be traffic calming, whether it be PIN
grants, whether it be newsletters, we then begin challenging the whole concept of our
office of Neighborhood Services. If that's your wish, I guess I would encourage you to
kind of pull back, think about the whole thing comprehensively. What Dee is suggesting
can be done. That's--but it does open the whole neighborhood process to some question. I
felt compelled to put these down because they were--staff members flagged them for us.
But it is something that you may want to think about.
Vanderhoeff On the road use tax, for instance, that $30,000 could be used on Mormon Trek. Just straight
out. And any--the more tax dollars from the FTA that we can put into that project, the
less amount we have to bond and use in-house. So it's just a thought.
Lehman/But the traffic calming is strictly road use tax funds?
Atkins/Yes.
Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm.
Lehman/So that doesn't do anything for us for what we're talking about.
Atkins/That's correct.
Vanderhoef/It doesn't do the General Fund per se, but if you shifted ten of it ($10,000) over into, say,
PIN grant, then---
Atkins/It would boost the size of the PIN grant.
Vanderhoef/...you would be able to eliminate from PIN grant General Fund dollars, but it would
certainly restrict what projects could be used.
Atkins/Correct.
Kanner/Well, Dee, isn't that what's recommended is, we've already got road use tax.
Vanderhoef/Not the PIN grants aren't.
Champion/But PIN grants don't know---
Kanner/No, the recommendation is to---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 6
Atkins/Design a road use tax-related PIN grant.
Kanner/...to cover some of the twenty--so for $10,000 worth. That's what you're proposing, right?
Atkins/Yes, I'm proposing that the PIN grant in its General Fund portion be eliminated. So we can
possibly create a PIN grant program of road use tax monies, but they're very specific
with respect to street-related improvements. Now the size of it, it's number I haven't
settled on that yet.
Champion/But you wouldn't ever use that for things like planting flowers---
Atkins/No.
Champion/...or maybe neighborhood art, or movies at the---
Atkins/No.
Vanderhoef/It would be trails and sidewalks and street improvement.
Champion/You can use that money any time for those things.
Atkins/Yeah.
Lehman/All right, we're going to skip this one for now, too. Aid to Agencies.
Atkins/You decided on community events to (can't hear) on that.
Wilburn/(Can't hear) up from this one.
Champion/Steve, can you remind me what the Aid to Agencies' General Fund budget is?
Vanderhoef/$350.
Atkins/$300 and---
Vanderhoef/Well, minus the 35, so---
Atkins/Yeah, $350,000. That's what it was.
Vanderhoef/It's $350,000 minus the $35,000 that we take from the---
Atkins/That's right. That'll do it.
O'Dormell/Is everybody OK with the 10 percent cut there?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 7
Vanderhoef/I am.
Champion/I'm not.
Kanner/This is one where the most vulnerable people, I think we can't, this is the one thing that I think
we need to keep, if not increase somewhere down the road. But---
Champion/But I'm willing to reduce---
O'Dormell/Five percent?
Lehman/Could you live with 5 percent?
Champion/I could live with it.
Atkins/You do have a $15,000 proposal pending and that has not been---
Champion/But we promised that.
Lehman/But we told the public they should apply for that---
Atkins/And they have. We have three proposals.
Lehman/...and we would make a recommendation.
Atkins/OK.
Lehman/I don't think that we can in good conscience look at that. But I think I hear---
Atkins/I didn't think---
Champion/Unless we don't like any o£the proposals.
Atkins/Unless you don't like any of their proposals?
Lehman/But I think I'm hearing 5 percent is acceptable.
Vanderhoef/Yes.
Champion/Yeah, I'd go for it.
O'Donnell/Fine.
Atkins/OK. Housing inspection. I've got a separate chart. You saw that in your packet.
Champion/Do you have that chart, Steve?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 8
Atkins/Yes, I do.
Champion/I don't quite---
Atkins/Yes, I do.
Champion/My brain didn't function very well when I was looking at that on the computer. My printer
doesn't work.
Atkins/We'll get it back on track for you.
Lehman/My printer works and I still can't understand it.
(Laughter)
Lehman/No, I can. I can.
O'Donnell/I gave mine back.
Atkins/Doug is here. The three items we want to look at--current, proposed--it's in your info packet, it
should be item like, you know, 5 or 6--got it? OK. Option 1 is pay as you go for the
housing inspection, no additional staff. Option 2 is pay as you go and adding one housing
inspector.
Vanderhoef/I've been thinking over some ideas of how we can still cover housing inspections and
relieve the work load on the present staff. 'And one of the things that I talked with Steve
about six months ago or so, that it seems to me that when we put in a new unit into this
City, and it gets its occupancy permit, so that they have met all of the present-day code,
that every two years is certainly not necessary in the early years of a new unit. And
couple that along with the fact that when you do do inspections, there certainly are certain
units that pass every time. It has to do with good upkeep, good maintenance, good
managers, all of those kinds of things. So, I would suggest looking at some alternative
ways of perhaps moving some of those new units into a three-year cycle instead ora two-
year cycle. If they have a good inspection at the three-year cycle, then for sure, allow
them another three-year on the cycle. Certainly, if a complaint comes in, we'll go and
take care of it. But I think two years is too much for that, for new ones. I also heard a
possibility today that I don't know very much about and it's secondhand information but
it looked like something that I'd like to look into, and it has to do with rental registration.
And it's up to the property owners to come in and register their property every year and
it's a $10 registration fee. And at the same time, there are some heavy penalties for not
registering your property.
O'Donnell/Per unit, Dee, is that?
Vanderhoef/As I understand it, yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 9
Lehman/What would be the purpose of registering?
Champion/Right.
Vanderhoef/Well, because there are some out there that aren't registered, number one. Number two, it
would also then, it allows the Housing Authority to put together a checklist for that
property owner of routine things for them to do and they will sign off on it that they have
done that when they come in and pay their registration fee. And so it's partly self-
inspected on that and in that case inspections may be able to be stretched out a bit further.
I'm not sure how many rental units we have in the City, but that's a possible way of
getting at it and having a pretty accurate dollar amount of what's coming in each day, or
each year, excuse me. I'm not interested in the idea of going from three years down to
two years for the duplex and/or the single-family houses, unless they have had very bad
inspections. And anyone that comes in with a bad inspection and doesn't get it cleaned
up, then I'm OK with going back and doing it a year from them and charging for a re-
inspection. But I think we ought to be rewarding the folk who come in all the time with
good inspections and I think we cut down on the number of inspections and you folks
wouldn't have so many trips to make.
Kanner/To get back on what you were saying, Dee, I'd like you to comment also on a bit of the history
of how we got to the two-year cycle. Is that a national average? When did it~get
implemented? What are the safety concerns of two versus three? What are you looking
for? If you could add that to answering Dee's comments, I'd appreciate it.
Norm Cate/A lot of stuff to answer there. Dee, I think, first in terms of the new units that come on line,
if we were to not go out after two years, my concern is areas of the fire safety inspections
in the common areas. We need to make sure that those sprinklers and alarm systems have
been certified. We need to make sure all those emergency lights and exit lights are still
functioning. What happens is, after a year or two, in a lot of these multi-family structures,
these things get beat up pretty bad, and a lot of the common areas, the fire doors, we see
them getting knocked around pretty hard.
Vanderhoef/So, why can't we put that on a checklist, that when they certify and register that they have a
rental unit; if those common everyday kind of things are there and they sign off on it and
then we walk in and do an inspection---
Cate/Well, we're still out there doing the inspection so it's---
Vanderhoef/The point is that an occasional spot-check on these and have severe fines for people who
have signed off on them leads me to believe that--I mean, they can take care of that stuff.
Lehman/Well, except, Dee, you come out to my place and I come in and I sign everything's OK, and
you go out the next day and find out that the Exit sign's broken off. My tenant broke it
off last night.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 10
Champion/Right.
Lehman/I guarantee you you'll never get the property ownero~and in many and most cases--they're
good folks, but you'll never get the property owner. It happened after he was in and
registered. And we already know probably 99 percent of all the rental units. So
registering isn't going to tell us a whole lot that we don't know now.
O'Donnell/Yep.
Champion/I think that's a valid point, Ernie. I consider myself a very good citizen most of the time. But
yet, a lot of times if I---
(Laughter)
Lehman/You don't have to explain--that's OK.
Champion/(Can't hear) when the exit sign goes off in my store, I sometimes don't fix it for weeks. I see
the tim truck out there--(can't hear)
Lehman/I try to stand in front of it, but I'm not tall enough.
O'Donnell/But you know what Dee did---
Champion/Well, I think that's a really valid point.
O'Donnell/This is based on past history of the inspections.
Lehman/Yeah, you know, I hear that but if we decide that certain properties and certain property
owners, because of their past stellar history of inspections, don't have problems, and we
have a fire because of extension cords or fire alarms that don't work or smoke alarms that
don't work or exit signs that are out, I think we're in an indefensible position.
Dilkes/Oh, I don't think---
Lehman/ Oh, I do.
O'Donnell/Do you know what, Ernie? The minute the safety inspection is done, the battery comes out
of the smoke detector and the bulbs can go out at any time.
Vanderhoef/And the bulbs go out at the exit. Having done inspections at a sorority house for ten years,
I'm well aware ofmovlng the duct tape off of the floor over the telephone lines and the---
Kanner/What'd you say?
Vanderhoef/Well, they tape them down so they don't trip on them, but they just run them wherever and,
you know, so, when I know and we make appointments for inspections, sure, they're
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 11
going to pull all that stuffup for the inspection.
Cate/I think this might help us in the owner-occupied units in multi-family structures that do have some
rental, that there's a possibility from the condo, that a possibility that self-certification
process could be effective for those owner-occupied units. And that would save us some
time. But on the rental units I think that there's reason for us to be in there on a two-year
cycle.
O'Dormell/Do you give notice before you go out?
Vanderhoef/Yeah.
Boothroy/Sure.
O'Donnell/Then the first thing I would go is go through my building and put in the batteries and check
the bulbs.
Champion/That's the whole idea.
O'Dormell/Well, exactly.
Boothroy/What we do is every two years, we not only educate property owners as to what the Code is,
we have checklists for multi-family, we have checklists for single-family, we also ensure
that at least, at a minimum every two years that rental property is to a minimum standard.
If we don't go in every two years, then that minimum standard most likely won't be
reached except every three years. And in some cases, we find, even with new units, Dee,
that well--in many cases, as Norm has indicated, there's no assurances that the sprinkler
systems and all these kinds of fire safety things are operable at that point in time. Also,
the units are oftentimes in bad repair or starting to show repair needs and need to be
addressed. A systematic inspection program maintains a minimum quality for all housing.
If you begin to do it on a complaint basis or on an ad hoc basis, you're going to have
some people in compliance and some people not in compliance. And I think that is not a
fair playing field to only respond on a complaint basis. And chances are, you're going to
miss certain critical situations because some people won't complain.
Vanderhoef/And those can, like we said, can happen the day before or the day after you leave.
Boothroy/But not as likely. And---
Vanderhoef/But this liability that Ernie brought up, I'd like to address that a little bit more, because
there certainly are cities out there that---
Dilkes/Well, let me, I didn't think Ernie was responding from a legal perspective. I thought he was
responding more from a---
Lehman/ Political.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 12
Dilkes/...political perspective. No, we don't have immediate liability in that situation. In fact, we have
good defenses in that kind of situation. I didn't take Ernie's comment as a legal one.
Vanderhoeff Well, I guess I did so---
Dilkes/More of a political one.
Boothroy/It's not uncommon for two-year cycles in Iowa, Ames, Dubuque--or not Dubuque--Ames,
Des Moines, Iowa City all have two-year cycles at this point I think are the communities
that do it the same way. And I think that what that reflects is that it's a very good cycle as
far as ensuring quality housing within the community. If you begin to degrade that to
some extent, three, four, five, then your problems in terms of the quality of housing will
begin to appear rather rapidly. And it's a matter of whether you want, if you decide to go
to a three or a four or whatever, it's a matter of how you want to treat the quality of
housing in this community and fire safety. Remember, the housing inspection piece of it
is the only proactive, well, not the only, but it's the only residential proactive fire
prevention program in this community. So that, there's nobody else out there doing that
except the inspectors.
Kanner/Well, what's the nationwide average of such?
Boothroy/Housing inspection programs have not always been nationwide. Iowa is one of the first in the
country to begin housing inspection programs. I don't know what it is nationwide. I can
tell you that it's always been a two-year program in Iowa City since it was initiated back
in the 1970s. It's never been anything but a two-year program. The single-family and
duplex rentals did not come under inspection until about 1983. And they should have
been before that because a lot of our serious problems occur in those particular units. And
that's why the housing, Neighborhood Housing Task Force recommended going to two
years on the single-family and duplex, which you all accepted as a good recommendation
last fall. And we would recommend that as well.
Kanner/Some cities do homeowner-occupied homes, too.
Boothroy/That's on a complaint basis. At one time it was---
Kanner/Some cities across the country also---
Boothroy/That's still done on a, in Iowa it's primarily done through private contracts when you buy or
sell a house, the home inspection certification program has become much more popular in
Iowa than it was a few years ago. But I don't know of any communities that, where the
City actually goes out and inspects a homeowner's house. I'm not sure that that's
happening in Iowa.
Kanner/Not in Iowa but across the country.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 13
Cate/We were doing that just on a complaint basis.
Lehman/Right. We don't want to go there anyways.
Boothroy/No. And that was discussed back in the seventies, and it got a resounding defeat.
Lehman/Right.
Boothroy/It didn't even come up for air.
Karmer/The purpose is not necessarily fire prevention for everyone. It's more safety of the rental
tenants---
Boothroy/It's also safety for the tenants.
Kanner/...is the main aspect of it because they're perhaps a little mom vulnerable than homeowner-
occupied.
Boothroy/Well, it's not just safety. It's also supplied facilities, the Housing Code requires that ifa
landlord provides air conditioning, and the air conditioning system breaks, then under the
Code, they're required to maintain that air conditioning system and fix it for tenants, and
we get complaints about that every year because of--they break. And so that's a kind of a
thing that's not exactly a safety issue so much. But it is a service that's being provided or
something, an accommodation that's being provided.
Kanner/Maybe there's a way to get to the issue of safety versus some of those other services?
Boothroy/I think one of the things we wanted to explain by these fee options is that even when we're
talking about the three-year, I don't see that even a three-year would change this
particular option as far as full funding. We've talked about it. We still have the growth
that's occurred to date and we expect that even if it were at a three-year cycle, we'd still
be looking at this particular fee option. The significance between option 1 and option 2
though is that there's no change in the fee option between the two. The only difference
between option 1 and option 2, the only difference, is that single-family and duplex
rentals are being moved to two-year cycles. That's the only difference. So, in looking at
those numbers, by moving the single-family and duplex to a two-year cycle, which has
been, as I said, recommended by the Neighborhood Task Force and in the past it's been
supported by the Apartment Owners Association, to level the playing field. You are able
to pick up additional revenue that would support the additional staff. The other thing that
we did today is we called around to other communities and Norm talked directly to his
counterparts in all the communities--and all of the communities are looking at raising
their fees, that we talked to--Dubuque, Ames, Des Moines--raising their fees to deal with
this particular budget issue. And Des Moines just recently raised their fees as of January
1st. Our existing fees are at this point in the middle, if you look at, if you did a fee study
across the state. We're not the highest and we're not the lowest. With the, I expect with
the increased fees, that the other communities will do, we probably will have one of the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May ! 9,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 14
lowest in the state and if they were to raise their fees to fund their operations. But we're
all in the same boat. They're all looking at the same issue. You know, should they be,
should Housing Inspection Services be self-supporting or not? And they're all making
these same kind of decisions that you are making tonight. So, what I'm trying to say is
that we're not particularly on the cutting edge or ahead of the--we're ahead of the game,
but we're not coming up with a new idea that other communities haven't looked at or
aren't beginning to look at right now in terms of generating fees.
Lehman/Doug, this chart that you have up there, you show, for example, option number 1, for a 12-plex
with four-bedroom units, that's $1.84 per unit per month increase in the cost of the
inspections, correct?
Boothroy/Right.
Lehman/OK. Now, if you go into the next column on option 2---
Cate/That's not the increase. The increase would be the difference between $1.21 and $1.84.
Boothroy/I'm sorry. I didn't catch what you just said, Emie. Yeah, if you'll look up here---
Vanderhoef/OK, say that again.
Boothroy Right here. The difference is---
Vanderhoef/It's not clear.
Boothroy/The difference is between--right now they're paying $1.21 a month.
Lehman/It would go to $1.84.
Boothroy/It's about 60 cents difference.
Lehman/OK. Now, in the next column down, the $5.83, now that is the total of all of the inspection fees
would go to $5.83 where it's presently $2.72, is that correct? That includes all of the fees
for the inspection, where Steve is pointing his pencil there.
Cate/$5.83 a month, right.
Lehman/Yes, but that includes all of the inspection fees.
Cate/Yes.
Lehman/OK.
Vanderhoef/You're averaging out the $140 and the $70 and all that and dividing it up---
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 15
Cate/That's right.
Vanderhoef/...per unit.
Cate/That's right. For a single-family, three-bedroom.
Champion/Those are single-families, though.
Boothroy/This is on this line here.
Vanderhoef/But you can take it over to option 1 also.
Boothroy/This is the way.
Lehman/OK.
Boothroy/These would be for the single-family, three-bedroom.
Lehman/Yeah. Right.
Boothroy/If you go up here to multi-family, this is the same as option 1. So this number does not change for multi-family units.
Lehman/Right.
Boothroy/It only changes for single-family duplex for two reasons.
Lehman/If you go to two years and three. If you stay at three, it doesn't change for those either.
Boothroy/That's correct.
Lehman/Then, if we were to tell you to become self-sufficient and leave your inspections at the same
rate that you're going at right now, you would be under option number 1.
Boothroy/Right.
Atkins/Correct.
Cate/That's correct.
Lehman/I mean I think that inspections have to pay for themselves. I just think we're at a point where we have to do that.
Champion/Yeah, I agree with you.
Lehman/Sixty cents a month per unit. I mean, that's $7.20 a year, which is going to go on somebody's
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 16
rent. I know there's not any question about that.
Atkins/This is an interesting policy dilemma you all have. Yeah, you have your health, safety, welfare,
your general responsibilities. But as we've talked about and as we present these to you, !
don't think there's any doubt that the rental industry is truly an industry in our
community. And we've chosen to regulate it. And regulate it in a fashion that we require
inspections. If you think of building inspection, we do the same thing, maybe even more
so. We require licenses on the part of the individuals performing their particular services.
So, I mean, you've got your health, safety, and welfare responsibilities are clearly there.
And we have treated housing virtually as a regulated industry in our community. It's
really your call on how you go about it.
Lehman/Where are we on this?
Champion/Well, I'm willing to go with option 2. I think single-family and three-bedroom dwelling
units ought to be on a two-year inspection if we're going to keep other apartments and
things on two years, I don't know how you separate the two, time-wise.
Kanner/Well, I think one, I think Norm didn't quite make the case for option 2 because he said one of
the main concerns in the multi-unit is the common areas, and you don't really have those
common areas for the most part. It's single-family or townhouses, perhaps a small bit.
Cate/What we do have though, Steve, is probably the biggest problem properties are our single-families.
The ones that we're getting the bulk of our complaints about are the ones that are rented
by or over-occupied--a bunch of students are in there, a lot of parties happening in the
house, and that three-year cycle, if we don't get in in three years in a single-family, by the
time we get there, it's pretty bad.
Lehman/But I would think that if we do this nuisance ordinance that may alleviate a lot of those
problems, too.
Champion/They suggested it two years; that was part of their whole program on the nuisance ordinance.
Kanner/What percentage of--what, we have what about 15,000 units?
Cate/Fifteen thousand units, that's right.
Kanner/What percentage are single-family?
Cate/We have about 1,250 single-family units.
Kanner/So a little less than 10 percent?
Lehman/Does that include duplexes?
Cate/No, that's single-family units.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 17
Kanner/And then duplexes are---
Cate/ I think we're around 800.
Boothroy/Duplexes. So, 1,600 units in that. So altogether, roughly 2,800 or 2,900 units of single-family
and duplex.
Kanner/Almost 20 percent.
O'Donnell/Better move on on this one.
Lehman/Well, I'm ready to move on. I mean, I'm willing to proceed with option 1, which covers the
costs. I think the issue of the single-family may be addressed somewhat at least with the
nuisance ordinance. What's your pleasure, guys?
Wilburn/I would also have to agree with you on that one, Emie. I think they should pay for themself.
The only other thing and it probably isn't practical or feasible, but I was thinking of
trying to--is there a way to provide some type of discount to people proactively; you
know, ifI have someone come and inspect my sprinkler system or you know those type
of things, but there wouldn't be an industry to cover all of those so I guess maybe we
wouldn't really be saving someone any costs by doing that.
Boothroy/Ross, we are looking at some of the things that have been talked about tonight in terms of
continuing to streamline and try to come up with systems by which maybe we can reward
in some fashion, I don't know how, I'm not sure of the mechanics of making that fair so
it's not arbitrary--so you can get criticized for playing favorites and get into that political
situation. So you have to be very careful. But we're looking at whatever we can do, you
know, even if you funded that option 1 and even if we get the additional staff person,
we're going to have to change some of our services to try to streamline them to keep up
with the growth within the community. And over time I think--and that's a good thing
because I think we need to continue to rethink what we do, how we do it, look at
technology and continue to make improvements where we can.
Lehman/How much of your staff time is in call-backs? Going back to see that deficiencies are
corrected?
Cate/Ninety percent of the time.
Lehman/How much of that could you eliminate with a mail-in card where if a contractor has to do the
work, they certify the work has been done, or the property owner certifies the work has
been done, you have the ability to do an unannounced inspection and there's a reasonable
penalty if it isn't done?
Wilburn/You can't get in the units.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 18
Lehman/Yeah, I would assume you come back to see ifa battery's in the smoke detector, I mean, that is
really a waste of somebody's time going back to do that. Or, if the extension cord is
unplugged.
Cate/Right.
Lehman/I mean, that to me, you know they're going to unplug the cord, and you're taking your time to
go back there. But if you make them send a card in, certifying, and I don't know--this is
just something--you guys think about.
Vanderhoef/Well, that's what I was talking about.
Lehman/But if you have a defective fire door or a problem with something that has to be done by a
contractor, they could certify they have done the work and return the card to you, and you
wouldn't have to go back and look at it.
Cate/Oftentimes, when we cite that extension cord, Ernie, the management will tell the tenant, you've
got to unplug it. But that's as far as the management goes. That's it. So, if we're not back
out there, that thing doesn't get unplugged.
Lehman/But you also know full well that after you leave, they plug it fight back in.
Cate/No. Because oftentimes, I'll take that extension cord, I'll pull it out, and the management will take
it. So I know it's gone.
Lehman/Well, until somebody gets another one. But all I'm saying is I don't know that this is viable at
all. But I would just think that there are some cases where, if you could get, if you could
save that call-back, and yet have some assurance that the deficiency has been corrected,
you could save yourself some time. Anyway, are we--I'm sorry, go ahead.
Kanner/Well, I'm leaning toward option 1, but one of the things that I'm concerned about are the
escalating costs for lower income people, and that's why I was opposed to CDBG funds
being used for an additional inspector because I didn't feel it benefited low income. But, I
have a proposal that we can look at instructing CDC to come up with some program to
help low-income people with, similar perhaps to our utility program. And I would
suggest that we have a discussion at a work session about that, how to support lower
income people and the rising housing costs along with some of the suggestions that you
and Dee are bringing up because I think there's some validity to that that could save us
some money also. So I would say that I would go for one, I would ask that we have that
discussion about housing costs for low income, along with some other suggestions to
save money.
Lehman/Are there other folks who would go for option 17
Champion/Well, I would, you know, I would go for it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 19
Lehman/Well, we have---
O'Donnell/I will.
Lehman/All right. That's---
Atkins/Now, tmderstand, this has to come back to you in the form of a---
Lehman/ Oh, no, no, we understand. OK.
Atkins/And you're asking us to prepare option 1 ?
Lehman/Yes.
Atkins/OK. Reduce the advertising budget for transit. Charge a 25-cent fare. Reducing the advertising
budget for transit is taking it out of the transit levy.
Champion/Mmm, it doesn't---
Lehman/It doesn't do anything, all right.
Kanner/I didn't quite follow that last time about we have moved it into the general fund---
Atkins/OK.
Kanner/...this fiscal year, but now you're saying it's not in the general fund and instead that it's a levy.
Atkins/It is. Transit is financed by state aid, federal aid, fare box revenue and the transit levy. Those
four major sources. When we switched it from its enterprise fund into the general fund, a
fifth source of money was opened up, the benefits levy. So those five sources. Because of
doing that, we are able to avoid a general fund contribution to the former transit
enterprise fund. That's how we ended up doing it. All we're, I mean, Steve, all we're
doing is switching dollars but the fund we have the most trouble with, as you all know, is
the 8-10 le~y. This got our transit employees' benefits out of the 8-10 and put it in a
separate levy. But I had to transfer it to the general fund.
Kanner/And there is no $8.10 money going into transit?
Atkins/As of right now, no, there is not. Now, could it happen in the future? The answer is yes and then
these become more relevant. But right now, no.
Kanner/And transit levy, is that at the maximum?
Atkins/Yes, 95 cents, that's right. State law.
Lehman/OK. So that one's off the table. The shuttle.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 20
Atkins/Steven was fight. If you saw that memo, a couple of years ago, we talked about it and the bottom
line was we needed some money in the general fund. If you still want to put money in the
general fund, charging the 25-cent levy, or 25-cent fare fee, will get you some money.
And it'll be credited to transit. But it doesn't really change our financial circumstances
much.
Champion/I don't think we should charge for that minimum---
Atkins/And it's almost reached the point where it's either you run it or you don't.
Champion/Right.
Atkins/Yeah.
Lehman/All right, I have a real problem with us doing some of the things we're doing and still running
a free shuttle. For 25 cents, to me, that's, of course, I've felt that way for a couple of
years. But we're spending $80,000 for that shuttle.
Atkins/Yes. That's the cost of the shuttle, that's correct.
Lehman/We're increasing housing inspections; we're doing all of this, and we're running a free bus.
Atkins/Yeah.
Lehman/I think a quarter is an extraordinarily reasonable amount of money to charge to ride that shuttle
and I think we should.
Vanderhoef/I tend to agree with you, and part of it is that when it takes this long for--I had to, I'll tell
Steven right now, I had to go ask again about the transit and juggling it--so, if we're
having trouble understanding how the balancing act is going on here, there's people out
there in the community that heard "stop the night bus," and I mean, they were cheering,
literally, because they have felt in this community, some people that that is a very large
waste of money.
Atkins/Mm-hmm.
Vanderhoeff That we have such low ridership, so now trying to get this out to them---
Atkins/I certainly understand.
Vanderhoef/...so, a 25-cent fee at least says and we're trying to get back a little bit on the bus. So I
would go with the 25 cent.
O'Donnell/I would, too.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 21
Kanner/One thing you didn't answer is the state-federal funding. We do get a certain amount based on
the---
Atkins/The nose count?
Kanner/...ridership.
Atkins/Yeah.
Kanner/How much will we lose if, your estimate is we would lose half of the 285,000 riders per year?
Atkins/Yeah. Joe, you want to come up?
Kauner/And so---
Atkins/IfI recall, your estimate of the loss of state and federal aid, and by the way, the reason we're
able to do all of---
TAPE 03-46, SIDE ONE
Joe/The ridership numbers affect our funding. A slight decrease in ridership would not have a major
effect on the amount of funding that we get. We did the numbers before and I can't tell
you the exact dollar amount. It was a very minor amount when we put it together in 2001,
when the first time we looked at the quarter, we were surprised at how small a portion it
really would make. Where it would come into effect really is in the local formula where
JCCOG splits up the money that is based also on ridership. That's one of the parts of that
formula. So, we wouldn't have a decrease but not a major decrease.
Kanner/How much, even a small amount, for 138,000 riders per year, is it a penny per rider?
Joe/Still can't tell you. I don't know. I don't remember what the number was.
Kanner/That's something I'd like to know before signing it.
Atkins/We can track it down.
Joe/Yeah, we'll have Kevin do it.
Atkins/OK. We'll see if we can track that down for you.
Lehman/Well, is there any kind of tentative consensus on 25 cents? I have three people.
Champion/That money can't go to the general fund anyway.
Atkins/It cannot go to the general fund.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 22
Lehman/Politically, I think this is an issue that we need to deal with.
Atkins/You cannot go to the general fund and it's not in effect until late August anyway. Because we
shut down the shuttle during the summertime.
Champion/Right. Right. I just think it's foolish if it can't go to the general fund.
Atkins/Well, we have to get that information that Steven requested.
Lehman/All right.
Atkins/That's not a problem. And to implement the fare, you have to vote on a resolution anyway.
That's what we would be bringing it back to you.
Lehman/All right.
Atkins/OK. Employee training--is we're still working on that and we believe that $75,000 is a rather
conservative estimate and we would hope to give you a better number on that for Dan and
a group of folks got together and are formulating a policy on that.
Lehman/All fight.
Kanner/Conservative in which way?
Atkins/That's not generous enough. I'm targeting more closer to $100,000. Since we're having trouble
getting these done, we're going to have to pick up every---
Lehman/OK.
Atkins/It's a still go--I'm assuming you want me to continue pursuing that? That's very much an
internal matter, but we are going to improve that number with respect to reduction.
Champion/Ernie, I think, it's not too bad but then people need to be trained and retrained all the time, so
that's---
Atkins/Well, we're going to work real hard, Connie, to make sure that that does--yeah, thank you,
Ernie, I'll move on. Next item, tax contribution. You had a number of numbers you were
talking about last time around.
Champion/Did you know we got all those letters and things?
Atkins/Josh sent you a detailed list.
Champion/I mean, here you've got, to me you've got this organization that promotes the area, which
they do a great j ob. I'm not saying they don't do a great j ob. But they're surrounded by
governments that are all dealing with budget cuts. Every government that surrounds them
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 23
is going to deal with budget cuts, and I personally don't see any reason why they would
have to deal with a little bit of a budget cut. I think it's only logical that everybody
around us is doing budget cuts, and yet they feel they shouldn't be cut at all. I don't have
any problem with cutting them. I don't know what percentage it should be.
Lehman/Well, the recommended cut is 20 percent reduction.
Champion/So, it's from 25 to 20 percent.
Lehman/That's 20 percent. You reduce the refunding from 25 to 20, that's a 20 percent reduction in
funding, which is pretty significant.
Karmer/We didn't get--I don't know if you got the figures, but I have a preliminary figure--maybe Josh
can correct me, but there's approximately 600 rooms in Iowa City and maybe---
Atkins/He's nodding his head yes.
Kanner/And maybe 1,600 in Coralville?
Josh Schamberger/1,729.
Atkins/1,729 throughout the region and---
Schamberger/No, 1,729 in Coralville and 349 in Iowa City.
Atkins/OK, 1,729 in Coralville and 349 in Iowa City.
Kanner/349 and---?
Atkins/2,100.
Kanner/So these figures are off, but I think they make my point even more so, perhaps, that we pay
much more per room than Coralville does. They get a lot more income because they have
more rooms. So we're paying more per room. We're paying, I think over $200 per room,
and they're paying less than $160 per room, their contribution to the Convention and
Visitors Bureau. And I think they need to pick up their contribution and I think it's
appropriate that we decrease ours now. There's no doubt that they do a lot of good work,
like you said, but the times are tough and there are other organizations that are working
on some of these things, in perhaps some indirect fashion and we have our major
employer, the University bringing in visitors with or without the Convention and Visitors
Bureau. Certainly, they enhance it. But I think in this time of a tough budget it's
appropriate to cut it at that amount.
Wilbarn/I would add there are other activities that the Council is funding that, you know, help
contribute to the efforts they're making about bringing folks to the Arts Fest, the Jazz
Fest, and (can't hear) Festival.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 24
Champion/It makes a different.
Lehman/But for the record, Coralville motels pay the same percent that Iowa City pays.
Atkins/Seven percent, yes.
Lehman/Seven percent whether you're live in, your motel's in Iowa City or Coralville. I just think
that's an extraordinary hit.
Vanderhoeff Well, I am agreeing with Emie that it's a large hit, and one of the things that I think Steve
even mentioned in his letter to us upfront of the reduction plan was that the things that we
need to do most is to make sure we take care of economic development and work towards
building the tax base and bringing dollars into the community. So, if we look at it from
that perspective, then I think it makes sense not to do such a large cut and I would settle
for a lesser amount of a cut. I agree with Connie, that yes, we do need to have everyone
feel it a little bit, but when it's one that brings in dollars to the community and promotes
things happening here, I think it's important to continue to fund them the best we can.
O'Donnell/And I agree with you, Dee. I think that's a tremendous cut. That is economic development.
It does bring business to the community, and Ernie, it returns six to one, is that, I'm
understanding?
Lehman/Well, almost seven, 3,200 people working that.
Vanderhoef/Sixty-nine---
O'Donnell/And I think in the times we have right now, this is precisely when you want that type of
investment.
Champion/So, come up with a figure that we're comfortable with.
Lehman/Well, we're presently we're contributing 25 percent of the receipts. What number would you
be comfortable with? Irvin?
Pfab/Let me back up a bit. What was the number that---
Lehman/What difference does it---
Vanderhoef/1,729 and 349.
Pfab/Yeah, see, well, that's like 21 percent. We have 21 percent of rooms, and what's the percentage
that we contribute to the budget?
Lehman/Twenty-five percent of the revenue that we take in from the motel tax, which is the same
percentage that the people in Coralville pay when they rent a room.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 25
Pfab/Then we're paying the same percentage that---
Lehman/Yes, it's 7 percent in both cities.
Pfab/OK, then, I'm just, if it was off then I was going to say this is the time to balance, but if it's not
off---
Atkins/Well, I don't doubt Josh spends his time twisting Coraiville's arm to get more money out of
them so---
Lehman/ What number, is there a number that we can agree on?
Champion/Well,---
Pfab/OK, let's say we cut it in half first for a place to start. You said 37, so it's their 21 percent, I 1
point.
Champion/It'd be 22 and a half of that.
Kanner/And here's another proposal, that perhaps we go higher than the 20 percent, but we look at the
absolute dollar figure and if in the next year it's higher, we bring our percentage down.
Lehman/The only problem with that is what's the incentive for them to--or any group as far as that
goes--to excel at what they do if they don't get to map the fruits of their labor?
Champion/Oh, I wouldn't---
Kanner/Emie, I don't think they'd---
Champion/No, I don't think you'd cut it if they're doing better.
Lehman/No, but that's what he's saying. I---
Kanner/I don't think the work is just so they get an increase to their budget. They're working because
that's their job and hopefully they enjoy it. I think Josh enjoys his job, and---
Lehman/ He does but that's not what---
Kanner/...they've got a good Board of Directors over them that are saying keep it going. I think that's---
Lehman/I've been whipped.
Kanner/...in that simple terms that they're working only because they'll get an increase in the overall
budget for their agency is not fair to them. I think, I'm suggesting not as incentive-
disincentive to them, but just to say that we'll be able to afford more. So I'm willing to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 26
compromise and say to cut maybe not as deep now, but if it does, if we do bring in more
dollars, we're able then to contribute the same level, but it would be a lower percentage.
Champion/I don't agree with that---
Lehman/Well, I don't either, but what percent can we agree to?
Champion/You don't, give me a---
Pfab/I'm making an offer of splitting that in half as a place to cut by half.
Lehman/Which would be a cut of---
Pfab/$18,500.
Lehman/I beg your pardon? Oh, yeah, it would be a cut of 10 percent of what we give.
Champion/It would be more than 10 percent because---
Pfab/That's because we worked through it.
Champion/Ten percent would be $13,000.
Lehman/No, no, 10 percent cut would be from 25 to 22.5 percent is a 10 percent reduction in what we
give them. Ten percent of 25 is 2.5 percent.
Wilbum/I would go with that.
Champion/I think mathematics are beyond--what are other people comfortable with?
Pfab/Well, we're all comfortable not cutting at all.
(Laughter)
Champion/I'm uncomfortable cutting them. I'm also not uncomfortable cutting them a figure that
people are comfortable with. I just don't think they can remain untouched. You know,
we're cutting the police force, cars (can't hear) not the first part naturally cut.
Wilburn/Ten percent.
Lehman/OK.
Pfab/Strike 37 and put 18.5.
ehman/No, what we 11 do is change the bottom percentage numbers. Whatever they happen to come
out is the, I think, that that's based on last year's, isn't it Steve? And $137,500.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 27
Atkins/It's pretty close.
Champion/Hey, Ross, what did you say?
Wilburn/Cut 10 pement.
Champion/You want them cut 10 percent?
Wilburn/Yeah.
Champion/What would that be then, 22.5?
Lehman/Well, it would be a reduction of---
Atkins/Are you saying cut them 13,750, Ross? Is that what 10 pement means?
Lehman/That would be 10 percent, yes.
Pfab/OK, 13, all right.
Atkins/Let's just say 13 and then 25 to the good. Yeah, that's right.
Kauner/Am we sticking with going with instead of absolute dollars talking about a percentage?
Champion/There's always a percentage.
Atkins/Generally, it's been a percentage, Steve, because the number of moves, you know, that we have-
Kanner/Right.
Atkins/It's always been a percentage.
Kanner/So, it sounds like what you were saying---
Atkins/No, what he was saying.
Kanner/Well, you, but these figures may go up---
Atkins/Oh, sure.
Karmer/...and I want to keep it at a percentage.
Atkins/We'll make those up.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 28
Kanner/So why don't we just talk percentage? You're saying 22.5 percent? Is that the 10 percent that---
Lehman/That would be 10 percent.
Atkins/Well, that'd be more than that.
Lehman/22 1/2 percent would be at a reduction of 10 percent. Ten percent of 25 percent is 2.5 percent.
Atkins/No, Emie, if it goes from 25 to 22.5, instead of---
Lehman/It's a reduction---
Atkins/...137---
Lehman/ Your reduction number, Steve, is in excess of 20 percent though, isn't it?
Atkins/Ah, a little bit. I was just rounding it off.
Lehman/Well, it's quite a bit because 20 percent of $137,000 is less then $30,000, and the number you
have up there is 37.
Pfab/22.5.
Lehman/20 percent of $140,000 is $28,000.
Atkins/I need a piece of paper, I'm sorry.
Schamberger/The figure is exactly 27 percent.
Atkins/It's 27 percent he says. Twenty-seven percent, according to Josh.
Lehman/All fight.
Atkins/He knows this. And I will trust him on this one.
Champion/OK.
Lehman/OK, what?
Kanner/Twenty-five to 22.5 percent is what Emie is proposing.
Lehman/But I didn't propose that, but I'm not going to fight it when I compare it to 20, because I think-
Champion/22.5.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 29
Atkins/Do I hear that more than once?
Lehman/Yes.
Atkins/Twice?
Lehman/All right. You got it.
Atkins/Public power study, that's substantially a reduction of the monies you put in the budget.
Pfab/Well, let's cut it the same as we just cut the other.
Lehman/Well, I think that my belief is that if we come back with a report from Latham that makes it
appear that we should be doing a public power study, we will probably figure out a way
of doing it, and I think leaving this in the budget is somewhat redundant because we're
never going to give it a study for $50,000 anyway.
O'Donnell/No.
Vanderhoef/I agree.
Atkins/Yeah, everything we indicate if you do proceed, assuming you have a successful referendum and
potential for litigation, you'll spend lots of money and the trouble is it's all general fund.
Lehman/Yeah. But I would---
Kanner/But I would---
Lehman/I would just scratch that one.
Kanner/But, again, the philosophy is, this is a statement of our philosophy. We said that the original
budget, and I think that to cut it to zero says that you have to fight with that as the status
quo. I would go with Irvin and say let's cut it at the same amount if you're going to cut it
at all, that you cut the Convention and Visitors Bureau or---
Pfab/This is just, this has the potential to being just as a big a moneymaker as the other was. If it works.
Kanner/Yeah.
Lehman/Well, let's see, how many are interested in removing it as a line item in the budget?
O'Donnell/I am.
Vanderhoef/I am.
Lehman/You have four. All right the last item, Steve.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 30
Atkins/Cable revenues. You OK with that?
Lehman/I have no problem with that.
O'Donnell/No problem.
Kanner/Actually, I think we had approved it at the last meeting.
Atkins/I wasn't real sure.
Lehman/All right. You've got it.
O'Donnell/Can we go to the first two and agree with a 5 percent cut on each?
Champion/Well, I---
O'Donnell/And remove those?
Lehman/Well, I think that we're going to--well, we can do that except that we really have got--we have
a formal meeting scheduled at 6:30, which it is now 6:30.
Atkins/Can I walk through a couple things real--one minute?
Lehman/All right.
Atkins/We have a number of parking proposals that you, you know you indicated some options. Should
I have Joe hang around so we can finish this, pick this up?
Lehman/Let's do the formal meeting. We'll come right back to this.
Atkins/We'll come right back to this.
Lehman/All right.
Dilkes/Well, this isn't noticed on the continuation.
Atkins/What is? You can't continue this discussion, under budget?
Champion/Sure, we can. It says it's a 6:30 budget.
Dilkes/OK. I didn't think that was the intention. I thought it was 5:30 to 6:30, and that's why the
Council work session after the formal appears as it does; this item is not---
Atkins/You had said we could do it for an hour.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 31
Lehman/All right.
O'Donnell/We did set it for an hour, that's right.
Lehman/And I think that what that means is if we adjourn to the formal meeting, this meeting is over.
Atkins/We're done. That's correct.
Champion/Can we continue with this meeting without adjourning?
(Laughter)
Dilkes/No, I think that if you had wanted to continue this discussion it should have been on the work
session notice after the formal.
O'Donnell/So, we're adjourned.
Kanner/Can we just discuss it next week instead?
Lehman/The next meeting?
Kanner/Does that hurt your plans?
Atkins/I really.
O'Donnell/We're through.
Lehman/There is one item that I'm going to bring up anyway just because I would---
Atkins/I want to go through these parking proposals with you because they are, first of all, real
significant policy question and there's also a lot of money at stake. Yes, sir, are you
going to ask me a budget question?
Lehman/You can have three minutes to do parking. Start with monthly permits, please, go.
Atkins/Hmm ....
(Laughter)
Lehman/Joe Fowler's recommendation by raising the monthly fees by $5 per month we will generate
approximately $36,000 a year. We have a thousand people waiting to buy monthly
permits. I would recommend we raise them $10 a month. That will generate $72,000 a
year.
Champion/Can we put (can't hear)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 32
Lehman/And the permit holders are still buying their parking for about half of what it would cost to pull
it into the ramp.
Champion/I don't have any problem with that.
Lehman/Is that OK? Thank you, Steve, you just got the first one. Now, what's the next one?
Atkins/Parking fines from $5 to $10 and the $5---
Champion/No.
Lehman/Restrict all. These are restricted areas, when you park next to a---
Champion/ I don't have any problem with---
Pfab/What does the University---
Atkins/Illegal parking.
Lehman/Illegal parking.
Atkins/The University's $15.
Kanner/Emie, this is getting a little crazy here.
(Laughter)
Atkins/It's cheaper.
Kanner/I might agree with it but I think it would be better for the whole process if we wait till next year.
Lehman/I don't mind.
Kanner/It doesn't seem like---
Atkins/Yeah.
Champion/We don't have a meeting next week.
Atkins/You do have to do this in the form of a resolution anyway, we have to bring it back to you. If
you'd like I will just bring it back to you.
Champion/Yeah, what was the third one?
Atkins/The third was parking at downtown meters, from 60 to 75 cents.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003
May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 33
Lehman/Overtime for that---
Atkins/Ernie's already given me an OK on that.
Champion/OK, why don't you come back as a policy---
Atkins/I'm going to prepare an ordinance doing these; then you can vote them up or vote them down.
Vanderhoef/We can amend them on the floor.
Lehman/All right. Steve, you've got it. Thank you.
Atkins/Thank you.
Lehman/All right. And we're going to do the same; we're going to have the formal meeting, and then
we're going to take a break. We'll do the same thing on the 10th. We will meet at 5:30.
We will go through---
Atkins/OK.
Lehman/I mean, we still have---
Atkins/We still have more work to do.
Lehman/I think we're making some progress.
Atkins/You're making good progress, but you still have more work to do.
Lehman/OK. Thank you. Now we need time to change the tape.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19,2003