Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-24 Transcription#3 Page 1 ITEM 3. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 ENTITLED "CITY FINANCES, TAXATION & FEES," CHAPTER 4, "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND PENALTIES"; AMENDING TITLE 14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 3, "CITY UTILITIES," ARTICLE A, "GENERAL PROVISIONS," SECTION 14-3A-2, "DEFINITIONS," AND SECTION 14-3A-4, "RATES AND CHARGES FOR CITY UTILITIES" AND; AMENDING TITLE 14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 3, "CITY UTILITIES," ARTICLE G, "STORM WATER COLLECTION, DISCHARGE AND RUNOFF," TO CREATE A STORMWATER UTILITY AND ESTABLISH A STORMWATER UTILITY FEE. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Vanderhoef: Move first consideration. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Wilburn: Second. Lehman: Second by Wilburn. Discussion? Champion: I have real problems with this, and I'd like to think about us deferring it until we think about these charges a little bit more. I'm very concerned about the economic implications of our industrial people having to pay, and when you start thinking about expansion, if they have a choice between the, borderline between Coralville and Cedar Rapids, I think this is a major expense for them, and I would like to suggest that we postpone it until the Economic Committee has time to maybe talk to some of these people about what influence it might have on them. So I'd like to move to defer until that's done. O'Donnell: And I agree with you, Connie. Um, especially in today's time when we have cities around us... Champion: Did you just second my motion to defer? O'Donnell: I did. Champion: Thank you. Lehman: We have a motion and a second. Go ahead. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 24, 2003. #3 Page 2 O'Donnell: And I will do it again. But when cities around us are doing a flat rate, and conceivably you could be on the border of Iowa City, Coralville, and be on the one side with the same size building, and pay much, much more. I just think that this is a, it's a mandate, we have to do it, but I would like to do it in a more reasonable method. Not that I'm, I'm not saying this is unreasonable, but I just, I'd like us to do more studying on this. Champion: Well I think in light of other communities, it is unreasonable. Lehman: It's not competitive, that's for sure. Champion: Well, right....that's the word I was looking for. O'Donnell: Certainly not with the cities within our county, and even out of our county. I mean, Cedar Rapids I understand has got some type of flat rate. And I would like to see us move in that direction. So I would like to see this deferred also. Dilkes: You should know that it has been my advice to staff from the minute they started talking about this, that a flat rate was subject to challenge. There needs to be, in my opinion, a rational basis between the fee charged and the benefit to the payer, or the burden imposed by the payer, in this case which is the contribution to runoff, and while that fit does not have to be perfect, and its certainly not because ~ve, you know, are not measuring every single residential property, there should be some rational basis. I think we've come up with that so I'm not going to be positive about a flat fee. Lehman: Oh, Eleanor, I'm not sensing that people are suggesting a flat fee. I just think the concern is with the... O'Dormell: An equitable fee. Lehman: Yeah, there's such a huge differential, and there may be some, weI1... Dilkes: But the communities you're talking about, as I understand it, have flat fees. Vanderhoef: Yes, they do. Is there any way that we could get an Attorney General's opinion on the flat fee? Because that would change the playing field. The only examples that staff brought to us that were similar to what we're doing is Des Moines, and they did do some impermeable surface, or some other method, than flat fee there. What was in the memo was so much for a 15,000 square foot, and so much for 35,000 square foot, and on up to a 15...500,000 was that the final one? I read it this afternoon, that's how much I remember on the total This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 24, 2003. #3 Page 3 fees. But anyway, I guess I would like some feedback from how that's working as compared to their other communities around Des Moines, and also whether the Attorney General has anything to say about this flat fee. Dilkes: i'm not in a position to ask for Attorney General's opinion. City Attorneys cannot do that. That would have to come from a state person, um, and I don't know. I'd have to look and see if this is something that ~vould be within the Attorney General's kind of purview. Lehman: Could I suggest that if the Economic Development Committee could meet sometime in the next week or so, and perhaps visit with Rick and come up with some...kick this thing around before the meeting in December. O'Donneli: Maybe change the flat rate to a different formula or something, Eleanor? I....something. I'mjust talking something needs to be done where we can...I think we need to remain competitive within the County, and I just....ifnot a flat rate, a more equitable, some different formula, to arrive at that. Some of these could, some of these charges could be 13,000-15,000 dollars a year, and that's substantial, and I just want us to look at that. Champion: Well even, I was thinking this morning, about warehouse areas. There's a lot of surface there, and yet those are not high income making buildings, and I don't see how they could afford to pay those kind of fees. I have real problems with the whole thing. I mean not the utility itself, but the inequity in charges between us and other local communities, I think is devastating economically. Dilkes: I'm not suggesting that you can't within the, you know, frame work we have kind of set up, perhaps tweak those numbers and look at, you know, who you want to get, which players you want to get what amount of money from, I guess I would say. But in terms of being competitive with other communities that have flat rates, I just wanted to make it clear that that has been my opinion to staff and that, um, they would have loved to do a flat fee, frankly (laughter). But I think it's problematic. Vanderhoef: Well it certainly looks inequitable, at least on one of them, where it's a dollar a month for a residential, and two dollars a month for a commercial property, and when you think about the impermeable surface of say P & G versus your house... Champion: Well I'm not sure...(laughter) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 24, 2003. #3 Page 4 Vanderhoef: Okay, alright, my house. O'Donnell: Are you counting the garage, Connie? (laughter) Vanderhoefi But we could talk about it and see if there's a way to look at that formula a little bit. I don't want to redo the formula. O'Donnell: I do. Dilkes: I think what you all need to do is identify what your specific concerns are, and I mean specifically about, you know, is commercial paying too much, industrial, and how much money you are willing to, or you want to recover. I mean, I think we have to have a more specific discussion about it than, you know. If staff, unless I'm wrong, Rick, if staff is going to be able to, um, do something different, you know, so we understand what it is you're looking for. Vanderhoefi A simple one would be, figure it out just the way you have and then half it for the commercial. Fosse: I was just going to suggest what we can do, and this is fairly easy, is simply apply some percentages to that rate for the non-residential customers, and give you a smorgasbord, if you will, of things to chose from. O'Donnell: I would like to see that. Lehman: Well one of the things, yeah, and I think we can do that, but one of the things, obviously, the commercial, when it comes to property tax, pays 100%. Residential pays oh, about half. And cutting those fees in half would certainly be, and it would also not have a tremendously derogatory impact on the total because it would come out of the, I would think, I think it comes out to be about $150,000, and in the budget there's $345,000 for capital improvements. That would reduce that to $200,000, which is still $200,000 more than we have now, so...well let's vote to defer. I'm sorry...go ahead. Kanner: Well, one, what is the deadline for, um, from the feds in enacting this program? Fosse: We have met the deadline for submittal of our permit application to the state. Now we're waiting for feedback from them. Right now, it's just a matter, the cost of delay is lost revenue, if that's what you're asking. Vanderhoef: And if ~ve still could do it before the first of the year... Fosse: I don't know if we can get three readings in or not. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 24, 2003. #3 Page 5 Kanner: The feds are not looking at how we're funding it necessarily, or was that part of the permit? Fosse: No, the feds do not require that the utility, they just require the things the utility was going to pay for. Kanner: And when are we supposed to implement those? Fosse: Some of the things we are already doing. The other things will need to wait until we get our feedback from the state on our permit application. Kanner: So, okay, so that process is on-going. We don't have any firm deadlines? Fosse: No. Kanner: I'd like to respond, Connie. I think that Iowa City has been a leader, actually, over the decades, and building codes, we had weak building codes in our neighbors, which perhaps gave a competitive advantage in one way to Coralville or to the County, but finally they're catching up because I think people realize that when you come into Iowa City, you have a clean, a safe environment. You have good buildings. You have strong codes, and I think this is one more step in that direction. We're saying we're trying to be as fair as possible, and we realize we can't measure all of the residential, but certainly the industrial, which create a huge amount of the run-off with the surface, and I think we should move forward with it at this time, and then look at readjusting it at a later time. We can do that at a later time, so let's move forward and see how it goes. O'Donnell: I couldn't disagree more. I think, you think, these are the folks that hire the people in the community and pay the salaries and give the benefits, and you know, I just believe this is one more step in, it's one more obstruction to bringing people to the community, and affording people these jobs, so I do want to see this delayed. Lehman: Well there's nothing magic about the readings tonight. Do we...let's vote on it. Wilbum: I just wanted to comment real quickly though. Where there's no question it doesn't help in being competitive with other communities, um, we need to give real careful thought about the criteria for differentiating between commercial properties because, I mean, you want to make it as painless as possible ....it's not going to be painless. I mean it's an unfounded mandate, so... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 24, 2003. #3 Page 6 Lehman: That's right. Wilburn: And whatever we don't collect, that's money that's got to come from somewhere. Vanderhoefi Rick... O'Donnell: The other communities are doing this too though. I mean, they've got the same problems. Everybody will be doing this in phases down the line. Vanderhoefi Uhohuh, that's the question I was going to ask Rick. Is it two years before phase three comes in, for the cities under 50,000? Fosse: Oh, for under 50,000? Um, I don't know. I've not been tracking that since ~ve don't fall into that category. Vanderhoefi Well I was for a while, and it seems like we're in the two year of implementation for phase two, and phase three, I think, is due in in the next year or two, which would put all of our other cities in the same position that we are, and by that time this flat fee may be challenged somewhere. Dilkes: Well I think the theory behind the flat fee is that they are low enough that they don't be. Lehman: Nobody's going to challenge it. Champion: Who's going to challenge it? Fosse: There's been one challenge in Ames, but Ames tells us it was a pretty weak challenge, and it didn't survive. Dilkes: It was a weak challenge that, that, um, they overcame in the District Court but was not appealed. So it really doesn't have any precedencial value. Vanderhoefi Okay... Champion: What it really does is postpone capital improvements, it gives us less money for capital improvements, but it just really postpones them. Lehman: It does, except that right now we don't have any of that $345,000. Champion: Well I know but... Lehman: So even if that was reduced, we'd still have more than we have now. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 24, 2003. #3 Page 7 Champion: Exactly! Lehman: Thank you. Champion: Well that was my point! Lelmnan: Yes. Well, let's take a vote....I'm sorry. Karr: Mr. Mayor? Is it deferred until the 16th, or is it deferred indefinitely, pending a meeting? I just didn't know if there was a date? Lehman: Well, let's defer to the 16th. We should have a report back then. If we don't, we'll defer it again. Atkins: Yeah, I'd like, if you're going to consider something different, as we...well we're balancing the budget. And when we go through budget balancing, if you're going to poke a hole in it... Vanderhoef: $200,000 is $200,000. Champion: Ernie, would you make sure the Economic Committee also talks to a few of these industrial leaders who are going to be paying this amount of money? Lehman: Well, let's vote. How many in favor of deferral? And how many opposed? The motion carries, five to one, Kanner voting the negative. Atkins: And that's the 16th, deferral to December? Lehman: Yes, that's correct. Rick, would you talk to Steve Nasby, ask him to arrange a meeting for, he calls us, and we'll get a meeting, and I'd appreciate it if you could be there. Fosse: Oh you bet. Lehman: And we traditionally meet at like 8:30 in the morning, and my suspicion is an hour or so. Fosse: Okay, and you want us to work up a variety of options for that meeting? Lehman: Um, your thoughts would be much appreciated. Fosse: Okay. Lehman: And you might also indicate to Steve that we really need to get some input from some of our major industries. Alright? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 24, 2003. #3 Page 8 Fosse: Okay, sounds good. Dilkes: Just a reminder, if you do make changes, that are substantive, and it sounds like you're talking about those, you'll have to have another public hearing. Lehman: Right. Do we have a motion to adjourn? O'Donnell: So move. Wilburn: Second. Karr: I'm sorry, who seconded? Lehman: Wilburn seconded. All in favor? Opposed. Meeting is adjourned. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of November 24, 2003.