HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-17 CorrespondenceDear Council-members,
I'm writing to you from my perspective as someone who understands
better than most other people the often conflicting interests you must
consider as a council-member. I sympathize with the workload you carry
and the time required to study all the issues before you. However, as much
as you have my understanding and sympathy, I have to reserve the right to
criticize your actions as well.
So, let me be blunt, I think the Council is about to make a major
mistake regarding the public power issue.
First, let me make it clear that I'm writing to you as an individual, not
as a representative of Citizens for Public Power. My views are not
necessarily the views of the group.
Almost a year ago, the Mayor and I sat down at his store when this
issue was just beginning to reach the public eye. At that time, I had a
intuitive disposition toward public power. I hadn't studied the particular
facts as they related to Iowa City, but I was certainly a supporter of "the
public" owning and controlling basic services such as water, sewerage
disposal, police and fire protection. Some of those services, like water and
sewerage, were environmental and health necessities. Others, like police and
fire, were safety and public welfare necessities. Competing interests in the
private sector would not provide the same level of service as this community
required and expected from its local government.
When Ernie and I talked in his store, I admitted my lack of knowledge
about the electric business. We both agreed that it was more complex than
some other people might believe. On the other hand, it should be noted that
137 cities and towns in Iowa, arguably less smart than we are, are already
benefiting from municipal power.
I told the Mayor at that time, "If the benefits turn out to be only
marginally better than what Mid-American is offering, then you're probably
justified in maintaining the status quo."
I merely took a common sense approach. If the City operated its own
utility, then the excess profit that MEC enjoyed ought to be returned to the
rate-payers. Since then I have spent months studying this issue; literally,
hundreds of pages of technical reports, over a hundred newspaper and
magazine articles about the energy business in general. And I've been
through the Latham report several times.
So, let me now level some serious criticism. Some of you have been
cited as saying that the proponents of public power don't understand how
complicated the issue is; the implication being that, since we don't
understand the issue, we therefore don't appreciate how wrong we are. From
my perspective, most of the people in Citizens for Public Power
"understand" this issue much better than the majority of the City Council.
You've got a ton of material on a ton of other issues to digest; we only have
to process the pros and cons of this one issue. That's our advantage. My
disappointment comes from seeing this issue being discounted by certain
council-members who, quite frankly, probably haven't read the reports and
who had their minds made up a long time ago, and are thus merely going
through the motions of a public debate.
Another disappointment or mine is that of all the cities involved in
the Latham study, Iowa City is the only one whose "leaders" are sitting on
the sidelines (and actually hostile), as if they were afraid to confront a
corporate giant like Mid-American. Across Iowa, council-members and city
managers in smaller communities are pushing this issue, looking for
alternatives to rising energy costs in the long-run, and THAT is the
important distinction between them and Iowa City. We need leadership for
the future. Right now, we are suffering from a failure of leadership. I can
certainly understand skepticism, but the overt hostility from some public
leaders is especially galling.
The lack of political leadership in Iowa City would be understandable
if MEC provided high quality service at low rates and contributed more to
the tax base, like other municipal utilities. But it does not.
Iowa City is a cash cow for MEC; this Council must know that. We
pay some of the highest rates in the Midwest. MEC is not a local company.
MEC is not a publicly held company. It is a giant corporation owned by an
even larger corporation. At a recent forum, one candidate glibly said that if
anybody in Iowa City wanted to own their electric company they could buy
stock in MEC. And THAT was typical of the ignorance surrounding this
issue from people who want to lead this community. That candidate couldn't
buy stock in MEC, but if Iowa City had a municipal electric company then
all of us would own it. A local Board would hire professionals to run it, and
decisions would be made based on the benefit to this community, not to pad
the "bottom line" of a small group of out of state investors.
My purpose here is not to get into a detailed argument for public power.
Prior to the Latham study being released, the debates were about somewhat
abstract issues. Public versus private ownership. Was money there to be
saved? We would point to the positive record of the other public utilities in
Iowa and then assert that Iowa City could do just as well. In that initial
period, MEC's approach was soon obvious: deny, distort, and threaten. How
many times did MEC say, in print, in forums, in front of the Council, the
following things: 1) Iowa City would lose the property tax contribution from
MEC if we went public; 2) a municipal utility did not have the same public
oversight as MEC did through the Iowa Utilities Board; 3) only MEC had
the staff and experience to handle an energy "crisis" due to bad weather or
supply shortages; 4) the energy market was too "volatile" for amateurs to
understand; 5) MEC offered stable rates; 6) conditions that favored the
formation of a municipal utility 25 years ago were not present today.
I can stand in front of the Council anytime and blow those arguments
all the way back to Omaha, where Warren Buffett collects our money and
enjoys the benefits of living in an entire state that benefits from the low rates
of a public utility. He does that while charging local businesses more for
electricity than a comparable businesses in Ames or Muscatine. Did I mention "threats"?
As part of my research in this issue, I have studied how public power
movements across the country had to fight the private companies. It is not a
pretty stow. Senior citizens called at night and told that a city was going to
cut off their power. Lawsuits at the drop of a hat. Horror stories of mis-
information and intimidation. You know the drill, and you can expect the
same here. But at least MEC knows what is at stake. It will spend hundreds
of thousands of dollars in ad campaigns, lawsuits, whatever it takes because
it is protecting a profitable investment for the future. And that is the
mentality that is missing from our leaders in Iowa City .... a failure to
understand that this is about the FUTURE, not next year. MEC will spend
our money now in opposing this municipal effort in order to squeeze more
out of us in the future.
I'm not attacking the local people of MEC. They have to defend their
employer. I am attacking the controlling mind-set of any huge corporation.
Some of you on this Council are small independent business-people. Do you
honestly think that MEC has your best interests at heart? Have you asked
comparable small business-people in Ames or Cedar Falls if they would go
back to getting their energy from a privately held company like MEC? Ask
your friends in Ames when was the last time their municipal utility raised
their rates---1979. Almost a quarter century ago---can MEC match that?
Ask your friends in the Chamber of Commerce here a simple question:
would Iowa City be a more attractive home for new business development if
we had the same history, and probable future, of stable energy rates that
Ames has had? How much of that savings would be recycled in this town, to
benefit your store and other local businesses?
And now I'm back to the core issues. This is no longer a debate about
public versus private power in the abstract. You have a Feasibility Study in
front of you. You have MEC's response, their "outside" (entirely
predictable) consultant's response.
With the release of his report, my initial response was
disappointment. I thought Latham's assumptions were much too
conservative. An average 2% anticipated private sector rate increase over 25
years? And other points, such as out-sourcing labor and clerical costs. I
studied the report in detail and re-evaluated my original expectations, putting
them in the context of all the information I had collected over the subsequent
months about energy issues in general.
And I remembered my original conversation with the Mayor.
What now is a "marginal" benefit to the rate-payers in Iowa City? Can
you really discount a $61,000,000 savings over 20-25 years as "marginal"?
That's conservatively an average of 2 to 3 million dollars per year. As an
analogy, would you stand up in front of the Kiwanis and say, "We might be
able to save taxpayers in Iowa City $61,000,000 in property taxes over the
next 25 years, but I don't think it is an idea worth pursuing."
If the actual rate increases in the private sector were 3% or more over
the next 25 years, instead of 2%, how much more would that municipal
savings figure go up?
But MEC will tell you and the public that it is too risky, that we would
actually end up paying more for electricity if we operated our own utility.
The buyout costs will be prohibitive, right? Trust us, MEC says, we know
what we're doing and you don't.
However, the important thing is that there are compelling counter-
arguments for each objection that can be raised. Most important, the
assumption that Ames and Muscatine were only able to do it because
conditions were favorable then but not now ...... that is simply not true.
Is 1998 too far back to be relevant? That was when the Long Island
Power Authority was formed, affecting many more people than the area
envisioned for a new Iowa City municipal utility, and it reduced rates 20%
in the first year. Were interest rates lower in 1998?
Indeed, the reason that public power is MORE relevant now than in
the past is that the actions of private utilities in the past few years .... in a new
environment of de-regulation mania....those actions are not encouraging for
the future.
Why do some of you maintain that it will cost $500,000 for another
study? Are you getting that figure from MEC? And why do you seem to
assume that this process requires a decision NOW about the next round of
expenditures? Our group knows that the next dime spent by the City will
only be debated after a public referendum is held, so that future Councils
will have a clear understanding about public support for further study.
My biggest concern is that this Council is trying to circumvent the
role of the public, that you are failing your primary responsibility as elected
officials by shutting out the public from one of the most important decisions
this community will have to make about its financial future.
$61,000,000 is not enough? Not accurate? Have you already agreed
with MEC that that figure is bogus? Do you also agree with MEC when it
says that the city might end up paying MORE for energy if it operates its
own utility? Why do you assume that MEC is truthful? Why do you assume
that its interests are synonymous with those of the people of Iowa City?
A majority of the Council has directed the city staff to negotiate a
new franchise with MEC on a parallel track with the discussion of a
municipal utility. It seems to me that your mind is already made up, and
MEC knows that. What is transpiring now is a charade. The Council seems
to be going through the motions of deliberation, but you will accept anything
that MEC offers: a franchise with window dressing.
Let me suggest some questions the Council should ask itselfi
1) Is a franchise really necessary?
2) What are the threshold "facts" that you need to give a municipal
utility more serious consideration?
3) Why is $61,000,000 not enough? What IS enough?
4) Even if rates for MEC and a municipal utility were the same for the
next 25 years, why is private out-of-state ownership preferable to
local ownership and control?
5) Why are other communities in Iowa going through this process? Have
they all lost their minds? Are those city officials deluded?
6) MEC keeps claiming that it is freezing rates. Have they put that in
writing? Will you demand that guarantee in writing in any franchise
you give them? Electric rates in Iowa City will not go up until 20107
What happens then?
7) Why can't you demand a franchise that includes a "buy out" clause?
Put MEC on notice: a referendum will go to the voters in 2005 at the
next city election, and if that referendum passes then the newly
formed Council can decide whether it wants to proceed with the
formation of a municipal utility to coincide with the expiration of a
short-term franchise which was agreed to in 2004. In other words, do
not sign a franchise agreement that goes beyond 2009, and do not sign
any franchise that prohibits a future buyout before the end of the term.
To do that is to act contrary to the best interests of Iowa City.
8) Look at other current public electric utilities in Iowa. In addition to
lower rates, what other services, or revenues to their budgets, do they
provide their communities that MEC does not provide Iowa City? If
MEC will not provide the equivalent services or revenues, why
should this Council renew their franchise?
9) Why is this Council setting up roadblocks to citizen input about this
issue. Will you, or will you not, agree to put the issue to a public
vote in 2005? If not, why not? Whose interests are you protecting? If
there was ever an issue for which a public referendum was justified, it
is this .... who controls our energy future? If you do not agree to
putting the issue on the ballot in 2005, or sooner if possible, you will
force us to gather signatures on a petition and force you to act in the
public's interest. Why would you create that hoop for us to jump
through? As individuals, you are justified in opposing public power,
but how can this Council collectively oppose merely putting the issue
on the ballot for the public's voice to be heard? Such obstructionism
on your part is an insult to the people of Iowa City. Whose side are
you on?
There are obviously more questions, but that last one is the most
important, and you will have to answer it for yourself.
Thanks for listening to me, and thanks for all your consideration in the
past.
Larry Baker
1217 Rochester Ave
Iowa City, IA 52245
Blank Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Tom Carsner [carsner@mchsi.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 12:15 PM
To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org
Subject: Municipal Power Study and Referendum
To The Council:
I encourage the City Council to vote for a referendum to be put before Iowa City voters to determine whether to
proceed toward municipal electricity.
The initial results of the Latham study show significant benefits for city residents. While it is wise to continue studying
the effects of municipal power, at some point a decision needs to be made whether to measure the public support for
public power in a non-binding referendum. That time has arrived.
Recent history shows Iowa City and Johnson County residents have sought and received votes on a sales tax and
bond issues. While every member of every council or board did not approve of the actual tax in question (in fact,
most taxes have lost), there is a tradition of near-unanimous support for the willingness to put the issue before voters.
You need not support municipal power to approve of the vote. You do need to support allowing the public to express
itself on issues of concern to them. That is what I am encouraging you to do now. There will be plenty of time to
debate the issue at the time of the election. I look forward to that debate. But first we need to get to an election.
Please support a public non-binding referendum on public power.
On a second related point, I ask you to immediately suspend negotiations with MidAmerican Energy for a new
franchise proposal. It is highly unfair to public power supporters and unnecessarily advantageous to MidAmerican
Energy while a sincere and honest appraisal of public power is in progress. Let's maintain an equal playing field and
stop the negotiations with MidAmerican today.
Thank you for considering my opinion.
Tom Carsner
1627 College Court Place
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
e-mail: carsner@mchsi,com
eSafe scanned this email for malicious content ***
IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***
11/10/03
Marian Karr
From: atom burke [atom_burke@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 5:19 PM
To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org
Cc: marian-karr@iowa-city.org
Subject: Municipal power and municipal cable?
Hello-
I have a question for Bob Latham at this Monday's city
council meeting.
How much could the budget of Iowa City be reduced if,
in addition to municipal energy, there was a switch to
a municipal CABLE company? They do this in many other
cities at great savings.
Thank you.
Adam Burke
630 N. Dodge Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
319 339-7260
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Marian Karr
From: Jean Martin [Jean-Martin@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 7:41 AM
To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org
Subject: Public Power
To Iowa City Councilors:
I urge you to continue to look into public power for Iowa City and to
put
it to a vote.
We do not need to be kept hostage by MidAmerican and the forces who
would
leverage us.
Jean Martin
2254 S. Riverside Dr.
Iowa City, IA
Marian Karr ~
From: Joe Fowler
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 4:27 PM
To: 'nbrysiew@engineering.uiowa.ed u'
Cc: *City Council; *City Manager's Office; Chris O'Brien
Subject: Parking Resources
The Iowa City Parking Division enfomes parking regulations in the central business district and the calendar parking area.
The procedure that is followed is the parking enforcement attendant finds a vehicle in violation and writes a ticket. The
hand held unit informs them that the vehicle is on the tow list. They then radio the parking office and report the vehicle in
violation and the location. The office then verifies that the vehicle is still on the tow list. If it is a maintenance worker is
dispatched to impound the vehicle when they are free from other duties. This process takes from five minutes to an hour
depending on the availability of maintenance workers. If the parking ticket were not issued and placed on the vehicle the
owner could return, move the vehicle before it was impounded, and not be aware of the additional violation.
While this may seem a waste of resources we feel it is our duty to make every effort to inform the vehicle owner that they
have received a parking ticket.
If you have more questions please feel free to e-mail or call me at 356-5156.
Joe Fowler
Director Parking & Transit
From: nbrysiew@engineedng.uiowa.edu
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 3:54 PM
To: cou ncil@iowa-city, org
Subject: Parking Resoumes
Dear City Council, Nov 12, 2003
I was recently an employee of Big 10 University Towing. During my
employment
there, I noticed that parking tickets are given to cars towed by the
city. I
understand the purpose behind the ticket, but I don't understand the
waste of
paper. Every person who has their car towed needs a release form in
order to
retrieve their car. In order to obtain a release form, the said person
has to
pay the parking ticket. The thick paper envelope is put on the car and
is
thrown away by the car owner. This is because· the car owner paid the
ticket
before retrieving the car. I feel that this is an unnecessary waste of
natural
and city resources. There are approximately fifty cars that go through
Big 10
every week. Added up over the span of a year is two hundred fifty
tickets
wasted. The paper envelopes are thrown away for no good reason. A
citation
should be paid, but the envelopes should not be given out. This action
of
saving two hundred fifty envelopes saves natural resources, but also
financial
resources for the city. In these times of economic burden on the state
of
Iowa, every penny counts. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Nell Brysiewicz
Marian Karr
From: alan-lippert@uiowa.edu
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 8:27 PM
To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org
Subject: Research Question, UI student
Members Of the Council,
I am currently writing a paper concerning the effects of regulation on
underage drinking. This is a topic which you have no doubt heard alot
about
in recent years, which is why I seek your opinions. I have heard
conflicting
reports saying that student drinking was much less of a problem in Iowa
City
during much of the 80's, before the current 21 mandates. I am wondering
if
you think the problem has escaladed since then and why? Also, in your
opintion, have recent 19-only regulations been effective thus far? Any
comments or thoughts are greatly appreciated - Thank you,
Alan Lippert
UI Junior, Resident
Marian Karr
From: Alexis Park Inn [AlexisParklnn@mchsi.com]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 11:35 AM
To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org
Subject: Iowa City Airport
Dear Council Members,
Since the Iowa City Airport has been a hot topic of discussion (at least in the Press-Citizen's world),
Mary and I thought you might be interested in viewing our new page on the history of the airport. You
can see it at http://www.alexisparkinn.com/the_iowa_city_airport, htm.
We have created this page for several reasons:
· It needed to be done. Despite an illustrious 84-year history, very little has been written
about our airport. In our research we were able to find precisely one (1) book written about the
airport -- and that was a thin document written by four journalism students at the U. of Iowa as a
class project in the 1980s. We aim to fill this gap with as much information about our historic
airport as we can find.
· The United Hangar. We are interested in pursuing the possibility of getting the historic
Boeing/United Hangar, built in 1930, put on the National Historic Register, and converted into
an Air Mail Museum. It is one of only seven original Boeing air-mail hangars left in the country,
and is a classic architectural example of the early days of aviation. To achieve this goal,
however, records of the building in question must be gathered. Our quest for these records has
taken us into many related areas of the airport, and we have discovered many historic,
irreplaceable documents. We have located everything from the original 50-year lease between
Iowa City and the Boeing Transport Company, to how many military flights took place at the
airport during World War I1. These (and many other) documents are now available for download
on our website, safe-guarding them for future generations.
· Our airport is unique, and under-appreciated. Mary and I are both pilots, and have lived in
Iowa City since 1997. We selected Iowa City as our home because of the excellent airport
here, and have been continually amazed at how little the general public knows about this
facility. The Iowa City airport is the finest General Aviation airport in the Midwest, and has
been built over the last eight decades with the sweat and effort of our fathers and grand-
fathers. Most people in Iowa City have no idea of the great effort that went into obtaining and
building this wonderful facility, and therefore have little knowledge or appreciation of what takes
place there.
The website is in its infancy, and will continue to grow as more information is available and uploaded.
For example, we have found dozens of Press-Citizen articles from the 1920s that illustrate the
incredible popular support and enthusiasm for airport development in Iowa City at that time. We will
be scanning and up-loading these fascinating articles to the website, as time permits.
We hope you find this information interesting and informative.
Sincerely,
Jay & Mary Honeck
Owners
The Alexis Park Inn & Suites
WWW.AlexisParklnn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
11/10/03
Marian Karr
From: dennis kowalski [mayflyd@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 5:25 PM
To: council@[owa-city.org
Subject: Monotany
Dear council
Oakbrook, Naperville, Schaumberg, Iowa
City/Coralville, North Liberty. Whats the difference?
Now that I live in a far western suburb of Chicago,
I'm beginning to wonder why I'm here. After years of
visiting Iowa City, it has more recently begun turning
into a megaburb. Is it possible to move anywhere in
this country that has a modicum of culture, not also
to have miles of roads, cars and sprawl? Recently, on
the news was an aerial shot (nighttime) of highway 6
with traffic coming from Coralville into IC. It looked
like LSD. I understand Portland, OR has a good
controlled growth plan. Perhaps you could study this.
It's net anti progress. Just anti stupid!
The recently gentrified neighborhood in Chicago, I
happily left had six Starbucks within walking
distance. Now we are going to be blessed by this
corporate predator. Needless to say I feel no
compulsion to frequent the place. Starbucks pulled
some dirty and unethical deals in Chi Town. It makes
me wonder about what the deal was with Mr. Heen. I
find it amazing that someone with his apparent ability
to make money, can have so little imagination.
Fortunately Meen has a decent building to work with
unlike the catalogue buildings he plans and builds.
Hew about some Architecture?
Hoving is such a pain, especially when you have to pay
for it, but New England is tempting. On a positive
note. With luck, if I stay, I'll be dead before IC
gets toe messed up. Maybe!
Sincerely,
Dennis Kowalski
1932 Hafor dr
Iowa City IA 52246
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
November 12, 2003
Dear City Council Members and City Staff
",
t0WA
I have some questions to ask that will help me understand the thought processes
involved regarding the sele~ion of the Moen Group as the preferred redeveloper of the
propeAy known as Parcel 64- la (Plaza Towers). This situation is has as much
potential for unleashing lasting damage as a tsunami. It is about to become the worst
mistake in a long series of mistakes to be constructed in Iowa City under the guise of
urban renewal. This happened to the failed Holiday Inn and the failed Old Capitol Mall.
If it were not for the University of Iowa leasing 2 floors of Plaza Centre One that building
would also fail. I for one do not want this to happen again because I am at an age that I
will never see any advantage in reduced taxes or improved business and because if I
had children in the school system I would not want to see them suffer from a concept
that is doomed to failure.
For those reasons I hope your responses will be honest, timely and clear enough to be
understood by the public that to date has not risen up because of either apathy or
indifference. These questions and your answers are intended to give me and the other
interested taxpayers and residents of Iowa City a better understanding of how our city
government works. Your expedient and kind indulgence will be greatly appreciated.
You have a wonderful chance to show the community and especially the young
students of the community how a democratic government works. Please remember that
all of these questions are to be considered in the light of what has, is and will be
happening in Iowa City as well as the neighboring environs. We are in the midst of an
economic crisis in America because of federal policies and a 14-story edifice will not
save us or provide any tax relief. When this concept fails the redeveloper will probably
again ask for help in some form of financial aid. Then I envision a request to convert
the hotel suites to residential condominiums and thereby legitimize their request for a
50% roll back on property taxes. Here are my questions that I feel need to be answered
for not only my edification, but for all of the Iowa City residents.
1. What criteria were used to determine by resolution that Iowa City, has or ever
had, a slum area, blighted area or economic development area within the
confines of the city?
2. What is the extent of such an area in the CBD or in other words what city blocks
were, are or ever have been by amendment, included in the downtown area?
3. Would someone please make available to the general public and me a map that
shows any areas affected and what was used to define those areas to be in
compliance with the guidelines provided by HUD?
4. If those areas were changed by amendment would you provide the copies of the
resolutions amending those areas?
5. More recently, when did the city staff and/or city council decide to develop the
final portion of Urban Renewal property?
6. Who directed the staff to put together the initial draft of the packet?
7. When did staff present the preliminary criteria to the council and was this original
invitation reviewed in a work session?
8. Why was the mention of Iow-income housing stricken from the original invitation?
9. Was there any input as to what should or should not be included in the
invitational package prior to this establishment on the part of anyone either
employed or elected by the city?
10. During the entire urban renewal process were any of the recent invited
developers employed by the City of Iowa City?
11. Does the selected developer that is a LLC have any partnedmember that has
been employed by the city of Iowa City?
12.Who would that be? If so could that be construed as an unfair adv~age
confl,ct of interest. Please answer why or why not in clear terms th~,~e,
precedent or legal statute.
13. The council acting in behalf of the City of Iowa City has elected to a he
offer as made by the Moen Group LLC even though the offer for the li~d is
$250,000 and the appraised value is $1,700,000. Would you explain that
discrepancy?
14. One developer offered $1,770,000 for the property and agreed to develop the
property to the wishes expressed by the council in the information packet
presented to all interested developers. How do you explain the difference?
15. Do you think this conforms to the standard of due diligence required for an
elected official?
16. Do you think that because the overlying purpose of urban renewal is to eliminate
homelessness that it is an obligation to act in a manner that will provide the most
money to meet that mandate?
17. Since Mr. Moen mentioned in his original offer that the price for the land was
negotiable and the council said it would be, why did the council hurriedly accept
the $250,000 offer?
18. Why did the council not ask for more money and negotiate a fair price in the
neighborhood of at least $1,700,000?
19. When Mr. Moen did not meet the deadline for having the financing in place
whose responsibility was it to say something at that time?
20. Was it the city staff or the council or all of the above?
21. If it was the city staff then was someone derelict in the performance of their
duties?
22. If it was mentioned to the Mayor or any other council member why was it not
brought out at that time?
23. Did this happen because Mr. Moen was always intended to be the preferred
redeveloper?
24. Is it not possible other invited redevelopers may have the right to redr~s~for
damages in court?
25. Do any of you know or recall May 4, 1976 and the Johnson County D~s~r~t G~rt
Judge James Carter? If you don't read Lyle Muller's article in the Ma~n 14,
3
1999 Cedar Rapids Gazette a copy is included at the end of this document for
you to read and draw your own conclusions.
26. If that does not help you try reading the Iowa City Press Citizen article of April 10,
2002. I have also included a copy of the editorial at the end of this questioning.
27.After you have referred to the articles mentioned in 25 and 25 can you tell me
that you have not been alerted to the potential problems?
28. Did anyone on the staff or council make prior commitments to Mr. Moen or have
prior conversations regarding the development of the property?
29. Did anyone have any conversations with Mr. Moen or any of his representatives
regarding this project prior to the advertisements for selection of a preferred
developer?.
30. Mr. Moen has stated that his group has over $1,000,000 invested in this project.
Has anyone asked for an accounting of this?
31. In the light of Kevin Monson's statement of the architectural costs to date of
$25,000 does anyone wonder where the other $975,000 was spent?
32. How many of you have business interests in the downtown business district or
are related to someone that does?
33. Do you think that is sufficient grounds for being considered in conflict of interest
when voting on who is the selected developer?
34. Before this process of selection began did any of you know any of the
redeveloper group in an employer/employee relationship?
35. If you give Mr. Moena tax advantage like TIF, when will the tax rolls reflect this
property and when will the area realize the benefits of this building?
36. How many people need tax relief now not tomorrow or next year or the next t.e~n
O ~
or twenty years? ~ ~
37. Knowing that several prime examples of urban renewal are the Holi(~y-fnn ~d ~
the Old Capitol Mall and the near failure of Plaza Centre One. Woui~se~f i-F~
you that voted to select the Moen Group as the preferred develope e y.~y. r --~'
4
pensions that this is the panacea to the ills of downtown Iowa City? I mention
Plaza Centre One only because without the University of Iowa renting these 2
floors the likelihood of failure for that building is substantial.
38. I may have been mistaken, is it possible that these 2 floors of the building been
rented or turned to condos?
39. If that is the case then is the University of Iowa using space that does not pay
taxes placed over space that does?
40. Given that a hotel needs a 70% to 80% occupancy rate and the Sheraton Hotel
only has about a 50% rate, why should we believe that Plaza Towers is viable?
41. If the Plaza Towers fail do you think that Mr. Moen will be converting the space to
apartments or condominiums?
42. The figure of $500,000 was given as a sales price of the condos in this building
and it has been alluded to that 2 are sold. Who are the supposed buyers of the
$500,000 condos?
43. Have any of you asked the question of the Moen Group?
44. Has any grocery store agreed to use this space?
45. Do you honestly think it was common knowledge that the $1,520,000 difference
in the offering price of Mr. Clark's offer and Mr. Moen's offer was earmarked by
law for Community Development Block Grant funds which would go to the not for
profit agencies that aid the less fortunate of our citizens?
46. Does it not bother you that coupled with the $8 million you granted to The Moen
Group in TIF money was not even asked for by the other redeveloper?
47. Do you think this money could have been used to benefit the citizens of Iowa
City?
48. At the time of the March 5, 2001 work session there was substantia~-~cu~n
regarding the land value and the 10% Iow ~ncome housing requirer~S~. ~me~
very unseemly statements and innuendo were made that tell me that ~-~.u I~Ople~
are playing with the lives of the intended recipients of CDBG funds~l,'~oul~'~ou
review what was said and why anyone could say or think such a thing? It also is
very flippant conversation for a group of elected officials to have when you are
entrusted to uphold the laws of the nation and the state and to be responsible to
the taxpayers and the residents of Iowa City. The implication I got was that none
of you cared about your responsibilities with one exception. Only Mr. Kanner had
the interests of the CBDG recipients at head. The rest including staff indicated
that if the project were something you liked or it made you excited you could give
the land away. Mr. Pfab and Mr. Kanner did not like that. The record is public
and will be put on for the public as a one-act play. Auditions are open as soon as
I can get the space in your library to hold them. Then they will be filmed and
shown on the local access channel. I do not play fair when I see people being
cheated.
49.The same meeting was where you people agreed to negotiate at the time of sale
and that the general public was not to be privy to the business pad of your
dealing. Mr. Pfab indicated that, "this should all be public." Karin Franklin
warned you and Mr. Lehman made it sufficiently clear that he did not want the
public involved in the negotiations. If the public meetings are as I have
witnessed then the public is not given sufficient time or attention to make any
valid point. Now you have indicated that the public will be excluded from much of
the process and it is their money you are giving away. Some of your
membership also showed me why they should not be in such a position because
they do not understand the terminology or the intent and have shown no concern
of what HUD expects.
50. Do you realize that there are over $1,000,000 uncollected (delinquent) property
taxes in the Iowa City School District? Do you think anyone that is solvent would
stay current on his property taxes when he is being charged 18% on ~] annu~
basis? Would you like to know who owed $112,000 as of last week?-~l~:~t~C'~at
someone who cares about the impoverished and the school system?
51. Do you know that the majority of the homeless children in the Iowacheil
District are black?
~r~
52. Isn't it absurd to propose building 14 stories high when do we not have the
adequate numbers of firefighters and necessary fire equipment to rescue anyone
above six or seven stories?
I do not ask these questions because I have a financial interest in any of these
buildings. I just want all the players to have a level field to play on and for the council to
start acting in a manner that is for the benefit of all the citizens of Iowa City. I feel I have
a right to know why Mr. Moen was chosen over the other people that offered to build on
Urban Renewal parcel 64-1 now referred to as Plaza Towers. The Iowa City Council
has turned a deaf ear on me and I want the answers that I feel all of the taxpayers and
citizens of Iowa City are entitled to hear. I want to know does anybody care? I wish, no
I hope I can thank you for waking up and acting responsibly. It is not to late.
Sincerely,
James C. Knapp
528 Rundell Street
Iowa City, IA
askiimknapp~mchsi.com
Attachments: 2
IOWA CITY -- It was July 1977 when Paul Glaves, then Iowa City's redevelopment
program coordinator, was willing to think the worst was over for Iowa City's long-
suffering downtown urban renewal plan.
7
"1 really believe the project will be substantially completed by late 1979 or early 1980,"
Glaves told a Gazette reporter. The lone exception, he said, was the area called block
64, where a hotel was planned.
The downtown Holiday Inn eventually was built on part of block 64 in the early 1980s.
But the remaining parcel of urban renewal property, to the east of the hotel, has
remained a parking lot all these years, a reminder amid all that was accomplished
during urban renewal that rebuilding downtown has been no easy task.
Indeed, the term "urban renewal" attained buzzword status in Iowa City the past 30 to
40 years. However, it more often than not refers to concepts such as delays, political
fighting, illegal decisions and, the cruelest of all, ineptness.
Now, as a century and millennium draw to a close, the last piece of vacant urban
renewal property, called 64-1a, that is part of the downtown's history also is a major
player in the pending March 30 vote to adopt a local option sales tax.
It is tied to both the city's past and future because city plans call for using local sales tax
money at 64-1a to finance $22.5 million worth of construction for a cultural rts
center and expansion of the Iowa City Public Library.
"It's an important part of maintaining and creating destination points, along w~;:~ .c?
maintaining the other entertainment and dining aspects of downtown, the shopping
opportunities," David Schoon, Iowa City's economic development planner, said about
the parcel. "it's an important part of the overall picture."
8
Local urban renewal efforts can be traced back 40 years. That is when Robert Wheeler,
a professor at the University of Iowa College of Engineering, proposed what is believed
to be the first design for revitalizing downtown Iowa City's old and tired look.
The idea of urban renewal seemed simple. The city would buy old buildings in a
general area, produce an ordedy plan for how that area should look and build it.
By 1962 city leaders were considering fixes that could make the downtown retail area a
visually and environmentally pleasant place to visit. Those ideas included a pedestrian
mall.
Debate was intense at times. It was 1971 before the Iowa City Council finally adored
an urban renewal plan for its downtown. In hindsight, that may have been:~ ~e'~'eas~ist
pad of the process.
The city needed a plan to relocate businesses that would be displaced by d{~,fifow
construction. In 1972 the City Council decided to build temporary buildings downtown.
Clinton Street looked like an exposition ground as the city erected 13 modular units of
500 square feet each in 1973.
The decision to use modular for businesses was not always popular
with business owners, some of whom complained of losing business
because of the arrangement and the torn up downtown.
:~ Urban renewal was well
Meanwhile, the city signed a contract with a group of local deve opers,
.~ Clinton streets (More)
9
calling themselves Old Capitol Associates, to redevelop 11 1/2 acres of downtown land.
It acquired dghts to tear down old buildings along College Street from Dubuque Street
to Clinton Street and beyond, to where Old Capitol Mall now stands.
But on May 4, 1976, Johnson County District Court Judge James Carter ruled that the
city had not offered developers other than Old Capitol's a competitive opportunity to bid
on the project. Carter declared the contract illegal and work on urban renewal stopped;
despite they' re being a big hole in the ground northwest of the intersection of Dubuque
and College streets.
Carter eventually allowed Old Capitol to continue with that project because of the
investment the developers already had in it. The result was the existing Plaza Centre
One, at College and Dubuque streets.
The City Council adopted a refined downtown development plan in February 1977.
However, buildings already had been tom down and the city was unable to award bids
until October of that year, when 10 developers took over 13 remaining downtown
parcels.
So while Iowa City kicked ideas around, others saw an opportunity to kick Iowa Cit~ It
~-~ ,
became the butt of jokes in the media. More important, funding agencies ~e~not~ing-r-I
~ -~ -- ,.,
the problems.
federal
government
had
become
so annoyed with us for long delays tl~t they'c~,,~aid
we had to spend all of our community development block grant money buying the land,"
10
Mary Neuhauser, a former state legislator who an Iowa City councilwoman and mayor in
1976-77 and 1982-83, said last week.
Neuhauser joined the City Council after the lawsuit had been filed, but got to preside
over the city's response to Carter's ruling. "Once that (the ruling) was decided,
everybody (on the council) decided to pull together and say, 'Now what do we do?'
There had been so much fighting about urban renewal beforehand. But, with everything
torn down and with no plan in sight ... there was a big incentive, I think, for everybody to
get together and work it out."
The decision to move ahead in 1977, plus the favorable second bids on the properties,
has been credited with saving Iowa City's downtown urban renewal. Glaves told The
Gazette in February 1978 the city would have lost the confidence of the public and
investors if it had not been able to award bids for parcels.
In 1979, Old Capitol Associates developers won the bid to erect the enclosed Old
Capitol Mall, which opened in 1981. The parking ramp south of Old Capital Mall was
built.
The Holiday Inn and nearby parking ramp were built, too, and opened in 1~. ~
Before that happened, however, the city had to wade through yet another la~/s~ait, L--~s__'-Fi
one filed in September 1983 by 10 local motel operators who said the hote~i :~
Minneapolis developer did not file sufficient plans or financial information a~out thc
project. That suit was settled out of court in December 1983.
11
Still, there remained that last piece of urban renewal property. In 1979 the Iowa City
Council had decided to put a department store should go there in conjunction with the
hotel. That was the plan when Armstrong's, of Cedar Rapids, announced in September
1980 it would build a department store on the site.
However, financial problems led Armstrong's to back out in 1983. City councils tossed
around ideas for the lot but none took hold.
Neuhauser said the city probably would have developed the hotel in a different manner
had its leaders known there never would be a depadment store. "There would'ye been
no need to have built right out into Dubuque Street if nothing else was contemplated for
the rest of the lot," she said.
Periodically since the early 1980s the City Council has discussed developing 64-1a.
The ideas have ranged from a commercial building to apartments to an outdoor skating
rink. None has taken hold. One advantage of looking back on downtown urban
renewal's history knows what happened to Armstrong's after it pulled its Iowa City plans.
The Cedar Rapids-based department store closed in 1991. Had the family-based
business been in Iowa City when the store closed, downtown Iowa City would have had
a huge empty spot to fill. _ ,-..~
O
Tom (3elman, a co-chairman of the pro-option tax group called Local Optio~ri~,~oc~
~ C3 ,..o r''~
Opportunities, said Iowa Oily now has the good fortune of having the 64-1~'~0e1:~ iT1
available for a proposed cultural and arts center.
12
Current Mayor Ernie Lehman said having an Armstrong's downtown would have been
good for the community, despite what eventually happened to the business.
In fall 1996 the City Council again was looking at 64-1a in an effort to figure out what
should be there. The council decided to hold off, however, while the city's library board
of trustees and suppoders of the cultural center worked on their proposals to expand
the library and build the center.
Lehman said the time has come to develop downtown's last piece of urban renewal
property. "It's been waiting there too long," he said.
"If the sales tax is defeated and the library does not come up with a proposal to use that
parcel fairly quickly, I would bet that we would try to market it," Lehman said.
13
Opinion from the Iowa City Press Citizen
Wednesday, April 10, 2002
There's a 'lot' to look at again
Time to reconsider all offers on downtown lot
Last week an appraisal commissioned by Iowa City came back to tell us that the much-acclaimed
lot south of the library is worth nothing.
Well, more accurately, the appraiser thinks that if this particular proposal is to make any money,
the city should give the property away for free. That means developer Mare Moen could, if he
wanted to, try to negotiate to get the land for nothing. Those who agree with this plan say that in
the long run, the $22 million project will pay for itself (and then some) in property taxes. They say
that the development agreement can and may include a clause that guarantees property tax
payments based on a minimum worth, let's say $22 million, whether or not the project_aver att~
that value. C)
So why not give it away? ~'~
Because all objects thrown up in the air do not come down the same way. --:~
But we will get the .p. roperty taxes, right? Not exactly. The property is in one of those
increment financing districts. A TIF district means that the property tax generated by ~}~
increased value of the developed land gets plowed back into that particular area: In oth~.words,_C-~,
downtown Iowa City will get the windfall. No doubt downtown could use the boost, but not to the'"'
exclusion of those the land sale is meant to benefit.
And now our mayor is suggesting that the only way to get this project off the ground is to give the
Moen Group some of that money, too. In other words, he is considering helping the developer
pay for construction with the very property tax dollars it is supposed to generate for other projects
and people.
The city should stop right here and go back to square one.
First, given this latest appraisal, the city should reconsider the offers by the other developers.
Executive Hotel Group initially offered a pdce '1o be negotiated" for the property, but would have
built an upscale hotel and restaurant. ('l'hat developer sent a more recent offer to the city of
$250,000 plus $750,000 in contfibutions to human services.)
Southgate's initial proposal included an offer to pay not more than the appraised value, to be
negotiated, to build retail, offices, apartments and condominiums in that space. And Odginal
Town Development offered to pay the original appraised value of $1.77 million to build retail
space and apartments.
All but the last project is comparable to the Moen project in value over the long run. And all but
the last one requested tax assistance to finance the project.
Next, city leaders should ask themselves a more difficult question: Do any of these proposals
meet the vision the city originally articulated in its request for proposals? And, are they financially
viable enough to contribute to the long-term health of downtown? If not, the city needs to turn
away from them and wait for the fight person with the fight idea that makes the right fit in our
downtown.
It may not be time to scrap the Moen project, but it is time to take a step back and look again.
This parcel has remained vacant for many years, and another year or two of delay will not
bankrupt Iowa City by any means. On the other hand, making the wrong decision now could
come down on us like a ton of bdcks later.
The Issue: The favored downtown development may not be viable unless Mr. Moen is given the
land.
The Suggestion: That the city walk away from the project until we get the dght fit for the property.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 7, 2003
To: City Clerk
L,~
From: Anissa Williams, Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for November 25, 2003 City Council meeting: Installation of NO PARKING,
STOPPING OR STANDING 8 AM - 9 AM AND 1:30 PM - 3:30 PM ON SCHOOL
DAYS signs on the east side of the Southlawn Drive between the driveways to the
Lucas Elementary School south parking lot
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of
the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(10), signs indicating NO PARKING, STOPPING OR
STANDING 8 AM - 9 AM AND 1:30 PM - 3:30 PM ON SCHOOL DAYS will be installed on
the east side of Southlawn Drive between the driveways to the Lucas School south
parking lot.
Comment:
This action is being taken at the request of the Lucas Elementary School Principal.
Vehicles related to school pick-up and drop-off are parking in this area and impeding
school bus service.
jc¢ogtp/rnem/$out~lawndoc
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 7, 2003
To: City Clerk
From: Anissa Williams, Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for November 25, 2003 City Council meeting: Installation of NO PARKING
ANYTIME TOW AWAY ZONE signs on the north side of Court Street between
South Dubuque Street and the alley to the west during construction of the Court
Street Transportation Center
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1,3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of
the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(10), signs indicating NO PARKING ANYTIME and TOW
AWAY ZONE will be installed on the north side of Court Street between South Dubuque
Street and the alley to the west.
Comment:
This action is being taken to prohibit parking along the construction fence for the Court
Street Transportation Center.
jccogtp/mem/actcomml l~.doc
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Lane Plugge, Ph.D. 509 S. Dubuque Street
Superintendent Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 688-1000
Board of Directors (319) 339-6890 FAX
President
Lauren geece
Vice President
Don Jackson
Members
Toni Cilek November 13, 2003
David Franker
Matt Goodlaxson
Jan Left
Pete Wallace
City Council
City of Iowa City
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Council Member <~Salutation-:
The Board of Directors for the Iowa City Community School District is currently
focusing on removing barriers to student learning. The ultimate goal in removing these
barriers is improved student achievement. Amongst the barriers identified in an
October 11, 2003, community-wide forum were living conditions associated with
poverty. Specifically discussed were educational problems that occur when affordable
housing is concentrated in one or two of the elementary attendance areas. Attached
please find a table showing poverty rates by ICCSD attendance areas. These
percentages are determined by students qualifying for free and reduced price meals.
As the ICCSD Board of Directors we respectfully request that the City Council, in its
policy considerations, carefully review locations of future affordable housing. The
school district will work with the City of Iowa City to discuss this issue in more depth
and is willing to meet with City of Iowa City representatives. The Board of Education
appreciates Council consideration in this matter.
Sigcerely,
Lauren Reece, President
Board of Directors
4
HOLLAND & ANDERSON LLP ¢. Joseph Holland
123 N. Linn St., Suite 300 jholland~icialaw, com
P.O. Box 2820 Lars G. Anderson
Iowa City, IA 52244-2820 landersan@icialaw.com
Phone: (319) 354-0331
Fax: (319) 354-0559 LeAnn Heun
lheun~icialaw.com
November 6, 2003
Marian Kart
City Clerk
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: REZ03-00021
VAC03-0002
REZ03-00022
Dear Marian:
The following three items are pending on behalf of University View Partners/Jim Clark. The
first two have already come before the Council. The third should be soon coming from the Planning
& Zoning Commission to the Council. These all affect one property and we would like to have all
of them given expedited consideration for passage of the various ordinances involved and
completion of disposition of the vacated alley.
We haye previously requested expedited consideration of the first two items and would like
to have the third also expedited.
:.
My client is trying to get construction started before we have frost in the grotmd and snow
and other weather which makes construction more difficult. This is the reason for our request for
expedited consideration of these three matters.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
lland
CJH:ses
cc: Karin Franklin
Mitch Behr
Jim Clark